Adaptability and Resiliency.  Over the centuries, it has been attributes such as these that have contributed to the growth and longevity of the Christian faith. Despite the doom-and-gloom rhetoric of some who see the entire institutional Church as inherently flawed and facing eventual extinction, it will nonetheless (though diminished somewhat), adapt to our postmodern world (and then to whatever comes next).  And I suppose... that congregations will survive, and even flourish where they are found embracing change and choosing to be incarnational and missional in the living out of their faith.

In his recent book, Revolution: Finding Vibrant Faith Beyond the Walls of the Sanctuary, George Barna explains that "Joining the Revolution does not mean forfeiting your congregational identity or church distinctives.  It means acknowledging advancing your bond with the universal Church and ratcheting up your commitment to serious Christianity" (p.136).  Barna goes on to offer local churches four pieces of advice:

1. Learn from the Revolutionaries.  "The thrust of this approach is to identify the points of strength in the Revolution and incorporate the heart of those dynamics into the ministry of the congregation."
2. Seek ways in which your church can add value to the Revolution. They have needs that might be filled in a variety of ways - and should be -- at the expense of your own congregation (i.e. money and/or people).
3. Reflect on what it means to belong to a church -- your church.  I"f you are able to embrace the Revolutionaries without judgment, you are likely to find that they will add as much (or more) value to your church body as they extract."
4. Figure out how to create more Revolutionaries among those who are not aligned with the Christian faith community.  Although Barna doesn't use the terminology, he is basically encouraging the sending and supporting of "third space" missionaries, getting them out to where the people are.

Okay, so this probably qualifies as at least a "start," right?  Yet it seems to me that much, much more is needed.  Although he probably isn't, it feels as if Barna is promising churches that they can jump on the bandwagon of this Revolution and still stay the same somehow. Is that a valid paradox? Or a misleading assumption?

And finally... if a local congregation were to approach you, asking for advice as to how they might continue as a community of faith -- in today's postmodern, postchristian world --while effectively introducing people to Jesus and a life of discipleship... what would you tell them?

.

photo credit (top right): Google images

Commenting on a recent post, Fr. Matt Mirabile, made an important observation:

"I believe that the emerging generations have been wired for the phenomenological, for mystery and magic. This is a natural outgrowth of the scepticism of postmodernity."

It is this orientation toward the phenomenological that, in part, explains why we postmoderns are fascinated by and drawn to what Rudolph Otto described as mysterium tremendum, and our encounter with "the Wholly Other" -- which he defines as:

"...that which is quite beyond the sphere of the usual, the intelligible, and the familiar, which therefore falls quite outside the limits of the 'canny', and is contrasted with it, filling the mind with blank wonder and astonishment" (in The Idea of the Holy, Oxford University Press, 1950: p.26).

As I think about what Otto has said, my heart becomes heavy over how the Modern Church has by and large failed in its responsibility to nurture an encounter with the Wholly Other whenever the community of faith gathers. We might want to blame this omission on the influence of Enlightenment thinking, or on consumerism, radical individualism, or -- from an entirely different angle -- on bibliocentric worship. Yet it seems to me that despite all these things, church leaders have for too long simply felt more comfortable with the "familiar," avoided the "other," and were then caught off-guard by our changing culture after it was too late.  The yearning in people to experience the "other", mixed with disappointment over the rigidness and same-ness they witnessed in the Church (i.e. unhealthy "same-ness" rather than healthy "other-ness"), is part of what I believe has led to the growing exodus from churches we're seeing today -- an exodus which demands our serious reflection.

There's something about our encounter with the Other that captivates us, refocuses us, changes us.  Certainly, in part, it is our desire for the Other that has been a seedbed for the fascinating resurgence of contemplative spirituality and the emergence of nu- or secular monasticism.

It seems to me that God created humankind with an innate desire for the Other. It's wired into our soul's DNA. But outside of the direction and accountability that a discipling community of faith provides, our longing for the "other" can easily degregate into baser desires. This is what drives people into wanting that other home theatre system; that other higher paying job; that other SUV; that other married person as a sexual partner; and on and on it goes.

The ancient wisdom in Romans 12:21 may well be applicable here: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (NRSV)  Rather than merely decrying the evils of pursuing the "other" in these baser (and potentially more destructive) ways, as followers of Jesus we instead need to encourage, model, and guide people into encounters with THE "Other" (i.e. God) on a regular basis. In my own experience I have found that the time I choose to spend encountering God -- in his glory and mystery and power -- has a direct correlation to the abatement of temptations, distractions, and detours in my life. Regular encounters with the Other leads to greater health.

If the institutional Church does not, can not, or will not address the phenominological orientation and needs of people today, how can we blame folks for looking elsewhere in their quest to experience the Other?  And how can we blame them for going elsewhere to experience sacred space.  But that's a topic I'm saving for a future post.

.

(image by Blair Anderson, © avisualplanet.com)

Alright everyone. I could really use your help on this one.

As you know, my blog is called paradoxology, yet my domain is desertpastor.com -- and I'm starting to feel a little schizophrenic. So I've been thinking that it might be a good idea for my domain name to coincide with my blog name.  Do you think that would be a good idea?

And then... IF my blog name and domain name are the same, which identity should I use?

Should I keep this one?

Or should I switch to this one?

When it comes to domains, desertpastor.com, AND paradoxology.com are both registered to me, so I'm free to use either of them.

Decisions, decisions, decisions!  Arrggh!  This blogger sure could use your input. Thanks!

.

It might be argued that the rise of pentecostalism, in part, was a needed corrective to the scepticism so prevalant within modern, Enlightenment-influenced ways of thinking and perceiving reality.  The same could also be said of the "charismatic movement" and of the so-called "third wave" -- efforts to restore signs and wonders to the message of "good news" as taught by Jesus.

The importance of signs and wonders figures prominently in the Book of Acts, and seems to be indicative of the ministry of the early church.

Charles Talbert, in his commentary on Acts, draws attention to a chiasm that forms the the summary statement of Acts 2:41-47.  Here is the pattern as it was layed out:

vs.41 evangelization

.....vs.42 common life

..........vs.43 signs and wonders

.....vs.44-47a common life

vs.47b evangelization

Signs and wonders stand not only at the center of this chiastic structure, but also appear here as the third time the phenomenon is mentioned in chapter 2 (v.19, v.22, v.43). This clearly lifts the phrase to a place of special emphasis within the text. And the context suggests that signs and wonders were instrumental in the spreading of the gospel and the growth of the church.

But what about now?  With modernity slowing give place to postmodernity, what role might signs and wonders play in the missional efforts of the Church?  Although we recently discussed whether or not we have become too sophisticated for healing, signs and wonders here constitutes a much broader range of supernatural phenomenon, and therefore I'm wondering...

Are we afraid to let go and trust the Holy Spirit with anything supernatural? Were signs and wonders simply the "language" ancient peoples could best understand, but which is no longer true of people living in the 21st century? Or... do signs and wonders constitute a vital component in God's restorative plan for humankind, somewhat similar to how we must each rely on the Holy Spirit's help in our pursuit of sanctification/theosis?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

.

(illustration from Google images)

Today's emerging generation of Christians is beginning to cry out for leaders whose lives are characterized by solid values and virtues.  These young believers have not only been disgusted and exhausted by the hyprocrisy permeating the institutional Church, but are growing equally dissatisfied with the laissez faire attitudes often found among a new breed of spiritual leaders.  These are leaders who, although they are pioneering new expressions of what it means to be the Church, lack the moral backbone to say "no" (when needed) to our increasingly permissive society.

Radical egalitarianism (where all ideas, beliefs, and endeavors are considered equal, regardless of merit or effort) seems well under way in it's programme of wreaking violence within the Kingdom.  Married to the self-autonomy of individualism, today's radical egalitarianism stands as a clever and relentless enemy to the gospel and teachings of Jesus, with its emphasis on self-sacrifice, ministry to the poor and marginalized, and passion for God's kingdom and will above our own.  Early followers of Christ were unashamedly known as "The Way", but such exclusivity claims are increasingly viewed today as antiquated, intolerant, and driven by institutionalized power-brokering. And in our world's postmodern reality -- where not only are the legalistic structures and practices of our Enlightenment-influenced faith being deconstructed and discarded, but so it seems are the morals and virtues of our ancient faith (one would hope for a little more healthy re-construction). The effects of a permission-giving culture are certainly visable here.  It's no wonder young followers of Christ are starting to shake their heads in disappointment over the lack of solid and visable virtues in the lives of leaders.

That's what Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California apparently thinks.

Fundamentalism will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century," claimed Warren in a recent newspaper column. "Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other."

Do you agree? Disagree?  What sort of factor is religious fundamentalism in today's world? How should the Church respond to it?

It was today's show -- Talk of the Nation -- on NPR which caught my ear this morning.  Richard Haass was helping to field suggestions by callers as to what we should call this current age we are in.

We came through the "Cold War" era, and some have used the term "Post-Cold War" era -- but Haass and others think that we have yet to experience the definining "thing" which will end up designating this era we are currently living in.

Any suggestions?

(Note: an "era" here is understood to be a span of time encompassing, let's say, 3,4,5 decades)