Modern Monks?

Some cut themselves to make certain that they feel.  Pain becomes an assurance of reality, of existence.  In relation, many Christians take up causes; sometimes social, sometimes political.  Yet it becomes readily apparent that their instigation of and participation in such activities is a fearful and faithless act.  The need to constantly remind themselves that they merit what they claim and the fear that they do not are the catalysts, implicit or otherwise, of this form of activism within evangelicalism today.  Modern evangelicalism has become very medieval and monastic in this regard.  Emphasis is constantly placed upon relevance, response and results.  Programs come to mean more than substance and utilitarianism becomes the regulative principle for worship. But the modern version of asceticism is not a retreat from the world but is rather the renovation of the world with a Christian veneer and theocratic elements.  Many Christian today seem to feel that even the mundane and the common must be harnessed for holy and sacred use  if they are to be of use the Christian, be enjoyed by him, or justifiably exist at all.  This facade is what I would call the second blessing of cultural transformationalism; the church triumphant is not the church which in Christ is victorious but is the church which has come to power as Constantine; remaking the city of man in their own image.

As evangelicalism has cast off the confessional structure of the church and renounced biblically regulated worship they have found themselves increasingly dissatisfied with the biblical doctrine of Justification by faith through grace alone. And, as the realization of this dissatisfaction has become more precise, the pursuit to satiate the need for assurance has become more desperate.  It has come to the point of epicurean deconstruction; biblical worship has become replaced by “Spirituality”, evocation has replaced invocation, feeling now trumps promise as the theology of the cross is displaced by many shades of the theology of glory.

And ultimately, they are left with mysticism.

More to follow….

Sacramental Activity?

The distinction between the faith, piety and practice of confessionally Reformed Christianity and the faithfulness, pietism and practicality of much of Evangelicalism becomes apparent in the contrast of response to initiative. The difference between Word and Sacrament vs. advice and excitement is that one produces gratitude in response to the Law and Gospel, while the other incites, through psychological manipulation and suggestion; an introspection and insecurity that in turn is used to justify the pursuit of a pietism that produces a rationalistic gnosticism nourished by a lack of confidence in the life and work of Christ and an overemphasis of the ability of the individual. Sin becomes confused with the affectations and accouterments of the sinner and creation is divided into the “sacred” and the “secular”. By this conflation of substance into the sin which utilizes it, an inverse conclusion is arrived at; for if one thing can be sinful than why can’t sanctification be caused by the possession and use of Christian “culture” and “merchandise”?

The reinvention and reintroduction of iconoclasm into much of mainstream Protestantism is the result of a loss of confidence in the traditional method of preaching and by a view which transforms the sacraments into empty sepulchers of memory. The verbal method of transmission that is preaching is no longer viewed as sufficient to reach the masses. Baptism has become a mere act of obedience and communion a memorial, remembering nothing but a name. Nothing is communicated, nothing is received other than the reminisce of a deed. So what inevitably occurs is that other, cultural and non-ordained practices are elevated to the level of sacrament and thought to communicate that necessary spiritual food to our souls. The most notable example is contemporary Christian music, but this envisioning of “stuff” that sanctifies by communicating grace is extended into the civil realm.

Thus, what we do has become sacramental in much of Evangelicalism; in the counter culture of societal sanctification or the sacramental application of Christendom, vocation has become a sacrament, rather than a common element of creation. It is thought that we must now resort to the contextualization of the Church and the Gospel into the new media, maintaining relevance in the new world. And so the recidivism of the verbal to the pictorial is of inevitable necessity in the new paradigm in order to advance the kingdom of God. Spiritual utilitarianism, the new iconoclasm, the new industry of indulgences fueling the false expectation that a parochial culture will produce a life of sanctity, mortification of the flesh, and ultimately the notion that we can express and present the life and work of Jesus Christ with nary a word from our mouths; personal piety over corporate, covenantal participation, one finds that the objectivity of the covenant to be too rankling to man who would pull God down to him.

This is a form of Christianity that has more in common with the pioneer spirit and rugged individualism of early America than the historic Christian Church; the me first and God second religion, looking to God for reward and safety rather than mercy and grace. Furthermore, in this commingling of cult and culture, this confusion of the two kingdoms, some within the Church begin to see themselves as a political body empowered and compelled to take action by virtue of their status and possession of moral and ethical “superiority” in the culture to transform it. Yet, lacking authority, but proclaiming superiority of ethics and culture, they inevitably generate the the notion that they are fundamentalist, extremist, intolerant of all but their own kind and seeking to bring all people under the sway of their ideologies.

My position is that this, if practiced on a large scale this cannot but help to cause a reaction of oppression, discrimination, and fear. Thus the identity of the Church, when not in political ascendency will be that of the oppressed, but a persecution  caused by a paradigm of manifest destiny rather than simply the preaching of the Gospel. And to begin to associate the people of God, or the Church, with the political and socially oppressed is to incorporate, implicitly, the notion of revolution as a viable act in the furtherance of the Gospel and the liberation of God’s people in order to extend the reach of the Kingdom of Heaven. What makes this even more odd is that this notion of being on the outside looking in is developed by the American Church in a situation of affluence and in the absence of real political and social oppression in comparison to the global, in/visible church; this is not the liberation theology of Latin America, where there is real oppression. Therefore, any oppression that does occur is the consequence of an attitude of ascendancy and arrogance, not on account of a confession of Christ as Lord as primary but the way in which they use the Word of God as a manifesto for all life.

To do this is to believe that the Church’s place in this present evil age is one of social and cultural domination and enforced cultural homogeny rather than contribution without permanence; that we contribute to society, on the terms that Caesar has set without seeking to become Caesar. The Church must be content to dwell in the tents of impermanence rather than in cities of permanence.

The Mega-Mart

I remember when I was a child that the church which we attended had a bookstore in the foyer, directly to the right of the sanctuary. It didn’t occur to me until much later exactly what an unholy marriage of commercialism and sanctity that that was.

I tend to think that there is a connection between the historic selling of indulgences and the modern idea of “christian” merchandise for the non-theological”spiritual edification” of the body of Christ. It tends to create a false sense of ones spiritual maturity based entirely on a new system of “kosher”. The union of the Church and the market serves only to create and perpetuate the notion that how we do Christianity and the Christian life are primarily choices of the individual, of the heart and of affluence. Often, this is the characteristic element in the Christian counter-culture or “ghetto”; that the clothing we wear, the books which we read, the music and art we enjoy, and sometimes even the food that we partake of, that these are the things which primarily mark us as Christians. It is the affectations that are taken upon ourselves rather than a belief which we confess. And unfortunately, the aesthetics that are employed in the practical structure of the Church become what all Christianity should look like and those who differ in appearance are immediately thrust outside of the pale of orthodoxy.

And all this is seen in the transformation of the the bible and the Gospel itself into a commodity to be marketed, packaged, and sold at a premium, resetting the table in the temple and transforming the Sunday service into a commercial for the store right out the door. In appealing to man’s desires rather than declaring his needs, the Church becomes marked not by her confession but by her appearance, now as the kindly spiritual grocer who will give sage advice and and purport to sell only American made, 100% organic spiritual nourishment for the spiritually destitute. Ours is a society that values aesthetics and utility over authenticity and truth. What will it do for me and my status rather than ” what does the scripture say” is the prevailing common wisdom. This is the Mega-Mart Church, where Christianity of every conceivable permutation lines the shelves, awaiting the consumer to choose them; maybe they’ll have a coupon.

 

 

 

Are Evangelicals Necessarily Fundamentalists?

Are British Evangelicals Fundamentalists?  David Gibb seems to think so.  Find out why here….

Silence, Thoughts On The Sabbath

…our daily life in office and home, in cars and airplanes, at parties and conferences, while reading magazines and watching television, while looking at advertisements and hearing radio, are in themselves continuous examples of a life which has lost the dimension of depth. It runs ahead, every moment is filled with something which must be done or seen or said or planned…As long as the preliminary, transitory concerns are not silenced, no matter how interesting and valuable and important they may be, the voice of the ultimate concern cannot be heard.

Paul Tillich “The Lost Dimension in Religion“

I’m reminded of a conversation that I had with a friend a few weeks ago. He was fairly irate by discussions he had overheard in the Church that morning by people sitting in the pews that had nothing redeeming about it, or for that matter, discussion at all. Now, they weren’t swearing or flirting-that I know of-they were, rather innocently I think, talking about common things, things which any other day of the week would sanction, but not the Sabbath, I think.

The question is, what place do the mundane things of our everyday lives have in the Church as we prepare for the Divine Service; what is rest and how does that comport with our conduct on the Lord’s Day as we attend Word and Sacrament? What is the fundamental distinction, if there is one, that is delineated when we step through the door of the Church and then into the Sanctuary? Is there a difference between being on the outside looking in and being inside, or in other words, the difference between what we do in six and what is done for us on one and how that determines our thoughts, words and deed?

I have the feeling, that aside from our cultures disdain for all that is formal and possessed of a code of conduct, part of the issue that my friend encountered was the residual practice of fundamentalism/evangelicalism which remains, often long after the person has jettisoned their theology. It’s the remnants of a tradition-yes I said tradition-that encourages the idea that the Church, rather than primarily being the place of Word and Sacrament, is really just a place, just a building, where a bunch of Christians get together on Sunday to hear a man tell them his opinion about what a particular passage of scripture means. And ultimately, though I don’t think they are conscious of it, they wind up collapsing the Church visible into the Church Universal, emphasizing the sanctity of each day and the priesthood of the believer to such a degree as to relegate the Sabbath and the services thereupon as simply another day of the week on which they happen to go to Church, not to the Divine Service and certainly not to receive anything other than a “recharge” as they do worship. And “real” Christianity gets moved into the home, the workplace, the culture at large, or as I would say, Law. And because their Gospel is an ethic, a do this and live, “living it out” makes a lot of sense to their system. Since they have already located faith in themselves as an active righteousness which compels God to save them-this is why I think charismatics and and the wordfaith crowd are second cousins-why should their worship be any different, why their should preaching not be the progressive statement of their lives rather than the static and objective Gospel preached by the Apostles?

How do you do worship, how do you do church, these are phrases that are bandied about too much for my taste these days, as if the Sabbath rest was about work, seemingly defying the very concept of rest. It seems that in the midst of our humanity we forget that the Sabbath was made for man rather than man for the Sabbath and so, often we awake on Sunday with Law on our hearts as we seek to “please” God by the issue of our hearts and mouths. Let us attend the Divine service with reverence and awe, as passive sheep looking to their shepherd to provide everything, so that we might give ear to that which is of ultimate concern, Christ and his Gospel.

We May Be Pilgrims But This Ain’t Plymouth

With Noah we find a brief unmasking of the doctrine of election, regarding the unmerited favor in saving Noah and his family and the gathering from every type of creature of the earth. The widespread selection indicates mercy not caprice. Whereas God could destroy all because of their wickedness, dealing with mankind in a context of “in Adam” covenant infidelity-instead he plucks Noah and his family out in mercy and graciously protects them through the flood, bringing them out to a new land, a cleansed land, a hearkening back to paradise lost and a murky image of paradise to come.

This is the nature of a peculiar people, those saved not by any merit of their own but by the grace of God. Though belonging to a people broken and wicked, subsisting in the ruins of creation brought about by covenant infidelity, finding solace in the deluded superiority-idolatry-of human nature over evil; people caught up in a recapitulation of Babel, a movement back towards cultural and religious homogeny and hegemony. It is from these people that God chooses, that the Spirit calls through the preaching of the Gospel, that Christ unites to himself by faith. It is these people, chosen in mercy and grace, placed in the ark of the Church, to be kept by the Holy Spirit, in the midst of this present evil age until they depart it or it comes to a close who are the people of God, who live in a new covenant relationship with their Creator, experiencing what it is to be truly human, heirs of the promise.

Therefore, the Church and her Gospel is not a choice of collective resolve to simply live better lives as is the minimal result in Pascal’s Wager. Rather, it is the manifest statement by God that he has kept a people for himself out of the midst of fallen humanity. And it is not wickedness on the part of God to choose one and not the other, to choose Jacob over Esau-in order to show mercy to the former and judgement to the latter-because all have sinned, all are guilty before the law. It is his prerogative to do so-in point of fact, a God who displayed no justice in the face of transgression could not be merciful nor gracious. To do so would render the active and passive obedience of Christ to an exemplary model at best regarding the atonement, leaving the resurrection as nothing but a husk from which we must draw the kernel of our own moral and political liberation; leaving us as Pelagius, no savior and ultimately no God but our own will to power.

Thus, moralism/pietism strips Christianity of all that separates it from the other religions of the world, depleting it of all that is exclusively and externally redemptive, leading man back into himself instead of causing him to look outside of himself for reconciliation. For the only one he is beholden to, the only one he has sinned against, is himself, because God is merely the projection of his ideal self and so the Gospel does indeed become “seven steps to a better you”. Whereas, Christian belief or faith has traditionally and rightly been seen as that which is caused by God, moralism creates their god by their belief, relegating the Gospel to an action that they must live out in lieu of one that has been done for them apart from their consent and not categorized by the cultural mores of the day.

And this is the point, the Church is peculiar, it doesn’t belong here and has no need to either assimilate the culture nor be absorbed by it. The people of God must militate against this, convincing the more impressionable members of it’s community of this and simultaneously making it a credible representation to the culture at large. The modern Church is at many places at a point of crisis and it must decide whether it would be a peculiar people in covenant with God subsisting here as pilgrims in the midst of an evil age which is hostile to it or one of many “faiths” in the pantheon of mankind’s pursuit of deification.