c. scott andreas

We launched the official Sacred Space site today.  I’ve been writing over there lately, which has come at the cost of content here.

Check it out at http://www.sacredspacepdx.org!

Sacred Space is a city-wide urban renewal project sponsored by Imago Dei in Portland, Oregon. On August 12, nearly one thousand church and community members will partner together to bring new life to fifty spots around the city.

I’ve been tasked with developing the visual identity for this project. So far, this has consisted of a logo, letterhead, business card, DVD cover, and training pak labels.

Most significant, however, is a short promotional video that I wrote with a few others, then shot, edit, packaged, and distributed. Watch it below, or download an iPod Video-compatible version here.

< [iquicktime width="320" height="254" mov="sacredspace-values.mp4" poster="sacredspace-values.png" dir="/media" /]

sacred space 2006 :: click to play

I’m dating myself a bit here…but does anyone else remember Dr. Sbaitso? Alan Turing never knew what hit him.

[Middle English exil, from Old French, from Latin exilium,
from exul, exsul, exiled person, wanderer.]

I spent an hour at a Seattle’s Best café inside Borders watching the rain pummel disaffected hoosiers as they scurried about the plaza’s sprawling wet desert of a parking lot.

While drinking a cuppa, I read a couple chapters of McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. I say that not to preface this thought, but to give you an idea of the waters in which I’m teabagging my mind at the moment.

“The church functions best when in exile.”

I should first say that though this statement is a product of my own mind, I don’t think I agree with it. But the nature of this disagreement is rather complex. I’ll explain this in a few articles, but for starters, here are three premises (which you’re free to disagree with).

1. From the time of the ancient Israelites’ slavery under the Egyptians until the oft-suppressed rise of Jewish religion as we know it today, the Jews have largely existed under (or in opposition to) a larger host culture. That is to say, Judaism is essentially a religion of diaspora. Though this group of people has ostensibly existed and on occasion thrived, it has done so without political authority or even respect — often in disfavor and persecution.
2. Christianity in its various forms, as ostensibly the default religion of modernity in the West, has enjoyed almost 1700 years in the sun beginning with the conversion of Constantine in 312 until some time in the last three decades.
3. Today, we find ourselves in a culture that is less likely to accept or understand Christianity or its mythology (in any of it’s “official” 33,830 forms) as implicitly “true.” That is, individuals now must identify themselves as “Christian” and explain what that means — this identity is not simply assumed (or understood). Conscious engagement of biblical narrative (though still very much alive in the poets of our age) is very slowly but gradually fading from popular American discourse.

I often wonder what many Christians mean when they talk about “ministry in a post-modern world.” It seems that many confuse postmodernity with life in a culture that does not implicitly accept “Christianity” (as we’ve built it) as “true.”

We speak a language that has been “Christian” since its emergence as we know it today. Here, I speak of English as a “Christian language” from a diachronic perspective. In other words, English is a Christian language because it has been teabagged in biblical themes, both birthing, communicating, and transforming them.

But though our words and metaphors are steeped in centuries of Biblical myth as a framework for reality, we find ourselves approaching a time in which this myth will become less-understood by and less-accessible to our secular neighbors. As fewer and fewer recall or are subjected to years of flannelgraph indoctrination, we’re left of distillations of Noah’s Ark as “the time when God destroyed the Earth while Noah and his family floated in a boat with all of the animals.” Tales of the apocalypse are not stories of a renewed creation, but “when the earth will be destroyed like in Armageddon but Tom Hanks won’t save us.”

Perhaps the heyday is nearing its apex. For what are we without our language? And who is our God in a language that speaks of him as many speak of the NSA?

As Rob Bell said, should we turn up our noses, purse our lips, and say “People just don’t care about truth any more?” This seems like a logical response…and one that I’ve seen. But is there a better alternative? Can we productively engage it? And what might this look like?

Check back soon for more. I’m enjoying this.
Until then, what do you think?

c. scott andreas

Sometimes I wonder if Chinese greeting cards quote Maya Angelou.

I’m visiting family in Columbia City, IN this week. It’s good to be home, but at the same time, there’s a lot to be said for Bloomington. But that’s next week. Until then, some thoughts:

My habits change quite a bit when I come home. I’ve driven about 20 miles a day so far this week compared to my usual zero to two, in Bloomington. I didn’t think twice about using some disposable cups and plates. I’ve walked less than a mile since Sunday. And I’m drinking instant coffee.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Am I reverting to my “home face,” exposing some latent bad habits, or just adapting to Northern Indiana culture? Something for me to think about as I live the rest of this week out of a box.

Two celebrations:

• Jill ran incredibly well at the NHC track meet yesterday (photos soon-ish)
• A postcard (also from PostSecret): I AM STILL ALIVE.

And a conversation-starter from PostSecret: “Silly”

Be well.

This evening, I read an article at Church Marketing Sucks called “Ditching Sermons for Drama.” It’s about a church in Pittsburgh that is abandoning the sermon as a communicative medium in favor of drama (in totality), and calling themselves “emergent” by virtue of this fact.

This is certainly an ambitious undertaking. I suppose that my perspective on the idea might be conditioned by the very many poorly-constructed or executed church dramas I’ve seen. I would love to see drama redeemed as a didactic form — and I imagine that it could be a beautiful, excellent thing when used by those well-versed in its intricacies.

I’m also a little concerned by the manner in which Hot Metal Bridge portrays pastoral teaching and leadership…it’s as if these are elements that are no longer accessible to (proto-post-)modern congregations. Perhaps approaches such as this underestimate the potential of their members?

But perhaps I’m underestimating churchgoers’ capacity (and potential) to consume drama with a critical eye. Maybe this congregation pays close attention to these dramas and analyzes them not unlike Shakespeare. This analysis is an absolutely critical step if drama is to be a subtle form of teaching that does not beat people over the head with overt concepts and themes. Can we be counted on to take this step? Or are we more likely to consume it passively, much like a film or TV show, amusing ourselves to death?

I find many of Brian McLaren’s perspectives refreshing and some challenging, and in a very productive way. But I’m not convinced that he (nor most emergent thinkers/writers) would argue that being “emergent” necessitates an abandonment of traditional teaching methods; though both content and form shift to new media, why must current approaches be abandoned? Should this be considered an accomplishment?

If it works for them, excellent and congratulations. But it seems that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to compress a teaching to a medium reserved by our culture for the purpose of entertainment (or occasionally, fine art).  I’d be interested to see what congregants take away from this.

Finally, I’m a bit troubled by the Post~Gazette’s characterization of emergent:

“Hot Metal Bridge is part of the emergent church movement that rejects rigid orthodoxy and strives to use hip language and culture to draw in young Americans who stopped, or never started, attending church.”

“Emergent” (by virtue of the postmodern paradigm and the very nature of words themselves) is not a monolith. But this description does not resemble the emergent I know. It’s not about the rejection of orthodoxy, but realizing that orthodoxy is far more generous than we may have thought.

-csa