A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor caught my attention this morning -- primarily because I've been increasingly concerned about how sports is supplanting family involvement in communities of faith throughout American culture. And it's not merely the "watching" of sports, but the active participation in various sports leagues which require children and youth to compete on Sundays (with parents participating in a variety of ways as well).

On the one hand, I'm not overly surprised by this, for we are certainly living in a post-Christian society that no longer values what the Church has historically valued (e.g. observance of "the Lord's day"). I suppose that idolatry, in all of it's manifold expressions, would of course be expected out in the "normal" world that does not embrace the values of God's kingdom. But on the other hand, my concerns are not aimed at the unbelieving world, but rather those desiring to be followers of Christ. Believers should know better.

Once again, I fear that the dominant culture is influencing the Church rather than the other way around. Consumerism, and the commodification of Christianity is encouraging believers to practice their faith out of convenience more than conviction (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that convenience IS their conviction). Heck. We don't need to worship on the Lord's Day anymore -- we can worship whenever it's convenient, right? And if our congregation doesn't offer enough "choices", then we'll just look for another church.

As a pastor, a shepherd -- I'm often baffled by people's decision to stay home from church in order to watch a football game or NASCAR race. It's not that I'm NOT concerned about the Sunday sports leagues which keep "the faithful" (??) away from their community of faith -- but when the "need" to watch sports is more important than encountering God with fellow believers on the "first day of the week" as Christians have valued throughout time -- then it seems obvious that God is being supplanted in their lives, and idolatry begins to appear the culprit.

Sports is not inherantly evil, not inherantly idolatrous. And this makes the task before us all the more challenging. What's the solution? I'm not entirely sure. But I do believe that the lack of passionate spirituality mixed with the modern church's "disconnect" with the ancient church's beliefs and practices is much to blame. In many areas, American Christianity is impotent. People sense this, and go about replacing it's primacy in their lives, maybe without even consciously being aware that that's what they're doing.

I continue to be fascinated by the insights of non-Westerners. So, when I came across this blog post from World Magazine, it immediately caught my attention. Although the post (and subsequent "comment" posts) addresses the African (and more specifically Nigerian) view of homosexuality, it wasn't that specific issue that leaped out at me -- it was the way in which the West, particularly the Church in the West, was characterized:

Good quotation from Uganda Archbishop Mpalanyi Nkoyooyo: "The West introduced us to the faith but it seems they have run out of ideas on which way to go. They are confused about the Bible and want to destroy the church." Strong comment from the Ghanaian Chronicle concerning "the countries of the white-man": "their moral development is seen tilting backwards toward our animal self instead of the moral of our maker.

The blog's author goes one to say "African strict constructionism regarding the Bible is an enormously positive development, but it frustrates Western leftists who once extolled African wisdom." Whoa! Now THAT'S a loaded statement that needs some unpacking, don't you think?

My personal "read" on this is that Western Christians (and Americans in particular) need to listen to the voices and perspectives of not only Nigerian believers, but other non-Western believers as well. We may be "too close" to our true predicament to see it objectively. While we continuing navigating the currents of postmodern deconstructionism and figuring out the implications of living within a new paradigm, we could certainly use the constructive evaluation of fellow believers from other parts of the globe. My hunch is that we are naturally not willing to characterize ourselves as suffering from any sort of moral decay -- to the contrary, we're probably more likely to perpetuate our strong sense of moral superiority as Americans.

What are your thoughts?

Merry Christmas! And may today be filled with his mysteriously wonderful presence and joy!

The Protestant Evangelical wing of the Church has been particularly responsible for the runaway commodification of our faith. Many church leaders (including this one) regrets much of this and often mourns as our "product-oriented" flavor of Christianity continues to backfire in ways never anticipated. Take, for instance, the growing trend among boomers and x-r's to consider themselves "members" of two or more churches simultaneously. Such "split-loyalties" were virtually unheard of in previous generations, but are now becoming commonplace. Quite consistent with this phenomenon is the growing belief that one can be a "committed" member to a local church or parish while only attending once or twice a month.

In my own congregation, I'm often dumbfounded by "aspiring" leaders who think nothing of missing two or more times each month. Where is this all leading? My hunch is that the I'll-do-church-on-my-own-terms mentality will only spread in the coming decade. Many churches will undoutedly continue to grown numerically, but commitment to a local expression of the body of Christ will end up being a mile wide and an inch deep.

What are the implications of such a different understanding of commitment? Is authentic community even remotely possible when people's commitment is shared between multiple communities of faith? Does the oft-cited desire for community among pomo's even have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding?

I'm concerned. I'm concerned that too many up-and-coming leaders within the church are investing too much stock in the promise they believe postmodernism holds. I guess what worries me is that people will SO WANT this new paradigm (or any new paradigm for that matter) that they'll become blind to its liabilities, fixating instead on its tremendous possibilities. In fact, such a fixation may already be contributing to a sense of denial within the postmodern, emerging church scene -- the same sort of denial that still plagues portions of the modern, institutional church. A denial which believes true "community" never took place under the old paradigm and that somehow we now are mastering the pursuit of it. A denial which convinces itself of moral/ethical superiority and the death of what has prevented such in the past, namely runaway individualism. A denial which leads proponents to pursue selective deconstruction, conveniently avoiding entities or issues which support their own preferred lifestyles.

And so, I'm just wondering today... does anybody else see "denial" afoot within our postmodern world, or am I still reeling from the effects of the flu?

How often does your nuclear (i.e. immediate) family sit at the table together to share a meal? Four times a week? Twice? Less than once? For years I've heard psychologists and pastors talk of how families today rarely eat together -- something that was once commonplace. But it was more than simply commonplace, it was vitally important for the interconnectedness and cohesion of the family. Family meal times were a tangible reminder that the people seated around the table were part of something bigger than each of them individually. More than community symbolized, the family meal was community experienced.

But wholesome "community" was far from what many of us experienced at the dinner table growing up. Some of my more painful memories took place during family meals. Yet somehow, I knew that being together at the table as a family was still important. It was this awareness, this value that I carried into my adult life, eventually having the opportunity to recreate a more wholesome expression of family meal times with my own family. In time, however, these precious meal times started to reveal the effects of enculturalization. Our table sat empty more often.

Table fellowship characterized the koinonia of the early church. According to James D.G. Dunn, these meals were likely a continuance of Jesus' fellowship meals (the gospels often mention Jesus eating with people -- most likely contributing to his being labeled 'a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of taxcollectors and sinners', Matt. 11:19). Dunn also suggests that before the sacramental act of the Lord's Supper was located in the bread and cup, it was likely that the sacramental reality of the fellowship meal was found in the act of table-fellowship itself, where there was more significance placed on eating together. This changed of course, but the importance of covenantal community is nonetheless in the DNA of our coming to THE TABLE -- the Eucharist Meal.

And so...in our Enlightenment-influenced world, we exchanged the pursuit of spiritual mysteries for the pursuit of scientific facts, the perpetuation of community for the propagation of individuality. We exchanged worship that was christocentric and focused on "us", for that which was bibliocentric and focused on "me". We made THE TABLE something we remember more than something we live out. Maybe that's why we've traded our dinner tables in for TV trays.

Could it be that our empty tables have anything to do with our empty lives? Could any of this be connected to the yearning for community, especially among the emerging generations? Maybe our fasting (and prayer) would be more effective if we were first more committed to feasting together.

Let's set the table.

The flu has been losing ground, and I feel much better tonight. A BIG thanks to those who were praying for me. :)

It'll probably be another day or two for me to get back to speed with blog posts and responses (I was SO enjoying everyone's dialog!). I've got the flu pretty bad-- and I think I caught it from a post on Benjy's blog, so be careful.

The differences of opinion concerning the paradigm of postmodernism are amazing. Some say our culture has already been postmodern for some time now. Others believe postmodernity is still in the process of emerging, while still others see the paradigm more as fantasy than reality -- choosing rather to describe the current culture as "hyper-modernism." But the lack of philosophical agreement over postmodernity is not what I see as bringing about it's end. I see a different culprit at work, minimizing the longevity of postmodernism: radical individualism.

While ideologues persist in their claims that postmodernism will spell the end to individualism, it continues to permeate the culture. Whether or not postmodernism is "still emerging", and we don't fully understand it yet -- let's face it, individualism will be a part of the dominant culture for many years to come. If individualism is eventually conceded as being an intregal part of the postmodern paradigm, a troublesome conflict will continue to fester. The value postmodernism places on "community" will be in conflict with the serving of "self", thanks to radical individualism. My "hunch", for whatever it's worth, is that the emerging generations in particular will quickly tire of this internal incongruity. This will inevitably contribute to a widespread rejection of the paradigm as one that "does not work" (sound familiar?), opening the way for "whatever's next."

I'm certainly not the only one already anticipating "whatever's next" -- this very sentiment is already out there. A short-lived postmodern paradigm certainly seems consistent with the exponential change we will undoubtedly experience in the coming decades. Anchoring ourselves, therefore, into a faith that transcends shifting paradigms and cultural changes is sounding more and more essential. What are your thoughts?

I was recently meeting with a nationally known pastor and author, discussing the future of the Evangelical Church. While describing some of the things we're doing at Paradox, and explaining our commitment to presenting the Christian faith in a way that is relevant to today's emerging generations, he immediately interjected that he believed the all-to-common pursuit of relevance was dead wrong. What?! I couldn't believe my ears! But I listened anyway as he explained.

It is his belief that most of what is currently being done "in the name of relevancy" is nothing more than a catering to the selfish perceived needs of an overly consumeristic culture, resulting in the sacrifice of substance in the pursuit of form. He went on to explain how he sees Christ as "standing outside of relevance" to culture; he transcends relevance. Furthermore, he believes that intelligence should be preferred over relevance -- relevance being a needs-based concept. People who cry out for relevance are merely crying out for THEIR needs to be met -- yet another corruption of true spirituality by an overly individualistic culture. Jesus, on the other hand, modeled something very different for us (e.g. giving rather than receiving). If my friend is right, then our pursuit of relevance has "missed-the-mark" (cf. Greek - 'amartia), and is sin.

I've been "chewing" on this for a while now, and could use some help. So what do you think?