Taking a look around

We are far removed from the origins of the products we buy. One marxist critique of capitalism was that it separated people from what they produced. This division of labor dehumanized people, they could not see the finished product they had made. The consumer then buys a product that seems to have come out of thin air, never hearing the stories of the people who created those goods.

Even our food comes to us as a finished product. For example, when we buy bread, we are removed from the fields of wheat, the mixing of the ingredients, and the baking. We simply enjoy the completed product.

How can we become reconnected with the origins of our goods?

In our discussion of the emerging church in class, I began to think about how some traditional churches have reduced the emerging church to stylistic differences rather than dramatic differences in ecclesiology. Essentially, mainline denominational churches have taken their concept of the emerging church and are using it as the new “church growth” movement. They have ignored the major ecclesiological differences, and have embraced the neo-liturgical, free-spirited aspect of their cultural approach. In other words, some churches are using the methods of the emerging church as an attractional model, which is precisely what the emerging church has sought to avoid. Real change will come as denominational and traditional churches embrace this new ecclesiology, and not merely the cosmetic alterations to the service.

On pg. 80 in Cobb, H. Richard Niebuhr is quoted discussing Tertullian

“one of the foremost illustrations of the anticultural movement to be found in the history of the church”

I wonder if “anticultural” means countercultural, or if it is describing a complete renunciation of popular culture.
Tertullian understood the potentially corrupting side of culture, and he understood how the church was called to be an “alternative society” in the midst of this world. Contact with culture was ok to him, so long as it what on the believers terms.

We tend to enjoy the extremes. Either a Christian will renounce all that is not explicitly Christian and enter a proverbial “bubble” of Christianity to avoid worldly influence……..or….. a Christian will so seek to be in the culture and among other people and ideas so much that they begin to embrace the worldly (in a bad way) elements around them. They forget that they are to be “set apart”.

How can we be deeply involved and connected in this world, but live in a way that we are “not of it”? We are not to minimize contact with the culture around us as Tertullian may have wanted, but nor are we meant to blend in until we are indistinguishable.

Tough balancing act.

I relate to Harmony’s struggle with “Father” language, but in a different way. First, it is hard for me to abandon saying “Father” since it is used hundreds of times in Scripture. I don’t know exactly why, but it just is. Jesus himself spoke frequently of the Father. Certainly, I agree that God has no gender, but that does invalidate expressions like “Abba Father” etc found in scripture.

My main concern though comes as I think about the connotations of “father”. I know that many people singing songs about the “Father’s love” etc. often struggle, because of their own lack of a dad, or because of a critical or abusive relationship. I hesitate to use excessive “father metaphors” in teaching due to the images of hurt or pain that could arise. Nonetheless, “father” (even though God isn’t a man) is in the Biblical text, and I must find a way to communicate the intended greatness and comfort of that word.

In short, my concern is not that somebody will think “God is a male”, but that someone will be confused and hurt by “Father” images due to their own past.

What exactly does one say about the “notion and use of models”? This is pretty dry material. But alas…
I guess Dulles’ argument that models could help sort out questions in theology had a pretty big impact on things… Each model of theology offers a different way of looking at the mystery of the Church. One cannot help to wonder what debates on theology would look like without these models. What impact have models had so far, have they added coherence to arguments or just ways to categorize them? Additionally, what provisions do they make for emerging theologies and new thoughts?

What exactly does one say about the “notion and use of models”? This is pretty dry material. But alas…
I guess Dulles’ argument that models could help sort out questions in theology had a pretty big impact on things… Each model of theology offers a different way of looking at the mystery of the Church. One cannot help to wonder what debates on theology would look like without these models. What impact have models had so far, have they added coherence to arguments or just ways to categorize them? Additionally, what provisions do they make for emerging theologies and new thoughts?

Barker’s discussion of Globalization was very engaging. While most language concerning globalization seems to be pejorative and focused on the “McDonaldization” of the world, a definition offered in this chapter seemed to give the possibility at a good spin for the commonly barraged term.

Barker offers a description of Globalization as an “increasing consciousness of the world”. What if we harnessed the power of this seemingly unstoppable force as a means to share the message of Jesus Christ? Our only hope can be to bring the thought of Christ into this ‘consciousness’ and let Globalization take its course. I guess the point is: Can there be some redemption for globalization?

Where is the borderline between nature and nurture? This basic question posed at the beginning of the reading is addressed from multiple perspectives throughout the chapter. When thinking about nature/nurture, I think about how some people offer prejudiced stereotypes about various races (intelligent, unintelligent, good at music, lazy, driven etc.)

It is clear that these things are a combination of culture and nurture, and have very little to do with nature. One people group may generally place emphasis on academic success, another may lack interest in learning to play musical instruments, and another culture may be stuck in a seemingly hopeless cycle of poverty and lack motivation or social mobility to gain higher education. The goal must be to get to the bottom of the issue, and build a foundation for those who have been left behind or have been discounted on account of their bad “nature”. If it’s not about nature in these cases, then that means that there is a way out, and that bring me hope.

I found the discussion on “producer” churches to be quite exciting. Todd Hunter, a former Vineyard leader said “We don’t want to give the consumer anything to consume”. How refreshing and divergent a path from the church mentality of the 90’s! In these new churches, there are no more passive roles, being apart of these communities is an actual commitment, they are intentionally designed to stand against spectatorism. Fullenbach claimed that “the kingdom demands the transformation of all human reality”. This reality includes the Church. As the Church transitions from spectators to active participants, we will see much change in how Christianity is perceived.

“Ben, make sure you play ‘Take My Hand, Precious Lord’ in the meeting tonight. Play it real pretty.”

These were the last words that Dr. King said to a musician after having been shot. What an incredible man. I pray that his life is never merely reduced to that of a generic historical figure, whose actual life and contributions are forgotten. Today, the average person does not even realize the importance of this man’s life, and sadly, the significance of his death. MLK lived 39 years, what changes could have taken place if he had lived to 79? Dr. King died a martyr, and his legacy grows more each with each passing day. This was a man who exemplified love for God and neighbor, may we learn from his life.

A man who worked with Dr. King said this:
“We remember him with parades and galas and banquets, things that are really irrelevant and silly regarding Dr. King’s legacy,” he said. “If we really want to honor Dr. King, we should do something about people who live under bridges. That would be a great tribute.”