c. scott andreas

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

I’m one chapter from finishing a paper/e-book by Tim Bednar about blogging and the participatory church.

Tim describes blogging as a process of spiritual formation in which people can share thoughts, ideas, experiences, and struggles with an online community of faith. People read and respond to one another’s writing, build them up, critique them, and join them in their walk with the Spirit.

He also writes that this is a humble process by which individuals offer their perspectives in an atmosphere that invites discussion - rarely as the last word of a propositional truth that solicits only an “Amen!” but instead initiates a conversation among fellow pilgrims.

I’m not sure what form or direction this thought will take. I expect that it will be met with the same discomfort I feel toward it. I also hope that it will be met with the same beautiful hope and potential that I find in it. Such beautiful tension.

As I read Tim’s article, I began to realize that many of my ramblings advocate a position on somewhat unconceding ground. But I’m coming to realize something that I’ve been saying all along. There is a great amount of diversity within the church. And that is an excellent thing. Just as one may be called to share the Gospel in Japan, so another might be called to live their life on a perpetually missional journey. While some might devote significant energy toward environmental sustainability and ecological healing, others might toil to produce an apologetic defense of certain theological positions.

And just because I declare that “something must be done” (see my Uganda post below) does not mean that everyone must do it. It means I believe that some should. And if that “some” is a closed set that begins and ends with me alone, then perhaps that’s fine, too; I’ll share what I have to offer. I’m not here to tell you what to do. And it’s certainly not my place to tell you what to think.

What’s “true” for me may not be true in the same manner or degree that it is “true” for you. And vice versa.

I’m using the word “true” a little differently here…not to indicate an absolute, but to describe truth as resurrection life as experienced by one individual. For instance, I could say something like this:

Steak-n-Shake’s Fried Chicken Salad is the best dinner under $6 on Earth!

I know quite a few people who would quite quickly line up to nail 95 theses to my door concerning the grave heresy that I do not acknowledge the Frisco Melt to be the world’s greatest sandwich. Or maybe even something from Taco Bell (gasp!). Arguing either point constitutes a failure to recognize that this amazing salad is one of many great-tasting cheap (albeit un-nutritious) meals available to you.

When I say this, I mean to highlight the beautiful diversity that flares forth within God’s church. It is by no means a statement of moral relativism and I do not intend it to be. That’s a strong statement and a popular epithet; perhaps it should be wielded with care against only that which warrants it. Like the word “terrorist” (but I’m rambling). Instead of being a relativist statement, it is a celebration of the fact that the catholic church is not a monoculture. Tim notes that there are at least 33,830 Christian denominations. Which one is the “true” church? Are all the others completely “false”? Perhaps Truth is all over the place and can be redeemed anywhere it lies. (This is also the case for falsehood; a minefield, it’s not easy and none of us are exempt). As Rob Bell said, “Why should this surprise us?”

Though I believe it is terribly important to work toward living a sustainable lifestyle of minimal consumption and waste, you may find no higher calling than rationally responding to skeptical inquiry. I may never write a systematic theology (and there are so many of these) and you may never give up your SUV. But at the same time, we can encourage one another to experience our life with Jesus Christ as others do. So I might read a little Strobel, McDowell, and Grudem and subscribe to Ravi Zacharias’ podcast, and you might recycle a bottle or three.

And we’re all better for having shared these perspectives. Doing so allows us to experience, understand, and know Christ in a way we might not have considered before.

So please forgive me for asserting certain positions in absolutist terms. That’s not my desire; I’ll leave it to someone more qualified than myself, as a mere student and amateur writer. But what I do hope to initiate is a conversation about these ideas. How true are they? If, as in this case, truth is a value between zero and one rather than either zero or one, we’ve much truth to celebrate. And much falsehood to discard. We all experience Christ in different ways, all of which unite in Him. How do you experience this resurrection life? I’d love to hear.

This is not to say that there are no elements that are “absolutely True.” I certainly believe that there are; Christ proclaimed Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The purpose of this post is to help me consider which things are absolutely True and that which I merely call true. This seems like a worthwhile task.

So let us purify Truth while redeeming and celebrating what is true. And let us cast off what is false.

This celebration of unity and diversity is the hope of postmodernity as I understand it. It’s not all “existential desert.”

Though I cannot dance, there’s a lot of dancing to be done.

- c. scott andreas