Letters to the future church

C: I’ve been thinking about letters this summer. I preached a paraphrase of the Letter to the Ephesiansfor four weeks. I did that with Romans earlier, I think it helps, the congregation can get past the past tense nature of God’s message.

A: And?

C: Well, it has me thinking about what kind of letters will be sent to congregations of the future—how will those 21 questionsplay out in congregations 21 years from now.

A: I doubt they’ll be letters, won’t they be emails?

C: probably, but I’m still not feeling entirely great about the internet.

A: Okay, so you’re thinking about the ancient practice of letter writing... what kinds of letters a Paul figure would write to congregations having issues with the disestablishment of the church, the overarching phenomena of decentralization and the ethnic and economic demographic shifts in America?

C: Wow, I’m glad I was able to talk to you about this Augustine, that’s exactly what I’ve been mulling over in my head.

A: Should I expect you will write a letter to a congregation struggling to confess when non-white folk have more clout in America and demand a truer account of the Church’s complicity in racist policies?

C: Yeah, maybe.

A: Or a missive to a congregation that only meets online, and the disembodied and decentralized nature of the internet makes it impossible for them to meet or even communicate with each other in a Christian manner?

C: That sounds like a good one too!

A: Or a letter pleading with a congregation to understand its worth as coming from its baptismal identity after all the favoritism Christianity has been show by American society is spent and it just hurts to admit that blessing and national bias are different things.

C: Yes! All of that and more!

May a Christian Participate on the Internet as it is?

May a Christian Participate on the Internet as it is?

By Old ‘Gus

I know I am a hypocrite, typing and transmitting this question in such a manner, and likely to continue to engage on the internet going forward, yet I feel I need to ask the question: May a Christian Participate on the Internet as it is?

              I have observed and used this tool for well over a year, and am both over awed and disgusted by it. My primary concern is that it is anti-incarnational. My secondary concern is what social media does to us in our flesh. It is addicting, distorts our sense of time, and is set up to be innately divisive. Thirdly, it makes me ask the question What Spirit does it foster? Finally, I wonder if there was an inflection point where it could have been something more than it is?

The internet is a secondary source, a simulation of the world around us. The sun is not as bright as a screen and my friend in the flesh is more real than an avatar. Its use promotes “slactivism.” We post, or more likely re-post, links and memes and other such things, and feel like we’ve done a good deed. We have become people who believe we have done something, but have done nothing. There is a hungry man and we make a meme about it; does a man live on memes alone? There is sojourner in need, a caged child even, and we make sure we’ve said the right thing about her, does that set the captives free? A hashtag without real world results is dead. All actions on the internet are indirect actions, but it seems we have forgotten it, and in so doing we have constructed a Platonic cave for ourselves.

              A good case can be made that the President is addicted to twitter along with 420,000,000 other people. The refresh button constantly promises a fresh chance at salvation, another hit of headlines and hot takes.

The internet offers a hit of immediacy, that’s its stock and trade. Everything goes down the memory hole, because we value the newest of news; presentism is the unnamed dogma of the age. Imagine how easy it would be to keep a population passive if you kept it chasing new outrage after new outrage.

And that need for newness, it fosters division. Everyone has to have an opinion on a thing, before they can process its actual meaning or implications, and so, we borrow meaning from others who are as ill-informed as us, but a little wittier. And soon enough, grasping for moorings, we cluster together into partisan groups, noting how ill-informed the other side is, and often they are, even as we recycle our own instant answers to questions we have never pondered, and never will, because there is a picture of a frog that explains it enough that we can move to the next new thing our little doped up brains have latched onto.

And, all of this vexes the spirit, and needs to be discerned. Like Paul, we need to ask which side of a great spiritual battle is buoyed up by this technology and our participation in it? Does it promote: fornication, vicious immorality, uncontrolled debauchery, the worship of idols, belief in magic, bouts of drunkenness, nights of carousing, and the like? Or worse still: instances of irreconcilable hatred, strife, resentment, outbursts of rage, mercenary ambition, dissensions, separation into divisive cliques, and grudging envy of the neighbor’s success?

Or does its use promote: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faith, gentleness, and self-control?

There was a time when people like my host, Chris, were foolish enough to believed the internet would bring about a second Republic of Letters, his blogsite focused on bringing about that reality has since been scooped up by a company selling alternatives to power point. Was such a possibility wishful thinking from the start, or has something changed on the internet? Was it the popularization of the internet (after all the Republic of Letters was a rather elitist institution), or Google’s method of sorting the internet, or the advent of facebook (or SixDegrees or Myspace?), or the limit of 140 characters on twitter (after all, hot takes get a lot hotter when they are so short), or the creation of the smartphone (sending messages out while doing number two does degrade discourse in a very particular way)—what made the internet what it is today? Was it inevitable? How and should a Christian use it?

Ol’ ‘Gus responds to Rod Dreher’s article about the United Lutheran Seminary

Chris: Man, ‘Gus, this article by Rod Dreher about the Seminary made out of the seminary I graduated from really makes me mad!

‘Gus: Why?

Chris: I’m not quite sure… I mean, I still have really strong feelings about how everything went down—I mean it all shows how human we all are—but wow… I don’t even know, it feels like an outsider just poured gasoline on my house after part of it had already caught fire. I just… I just... I just wish he’d understand how meanspirited and unchristian he’s being.

‘Gus: Maybe he can, maybe telling a story could help him to repent and see how short sighted he is being.

Chris: I’m too angry to tell stories right now.

‘Gus: Let me see what I can do…

There once was a man named Dave. Dave impregnated his girlfriend his freshman year of college. They decided to have an abortion. Dave’s conservative parents disowned him for convincing his girlfriend to do this. He was so impressed with a family run fringe pro-life organization “White Shields for Choice” an Evangelical organization who, using all means necessary including violence, kept abortion clinic protestors from harassing people seeking those services. They welcomed him into their co-op and let him stay for free, and eventually he became their executive director.

              Later he had a “born again” conversion experience and left the organization. He was ashamed of working for an organization that he came to despise as baby killers and wasn’t sure how to reconcile his younger self with his new self.

              Dave ended up getting a Divinity degree and Ph.D. from Wheaton and became a successful, sane, evangelical pastor and academic. His focus was on reconciliation in South Africa and he advised Latino students, he was seen as especially equipped for that position due to spending 3 years in Peru after getting his M.Div.

              Two Orthodox seminaries a few hundred miles from one another, one in New Oreans that tended to have Greek Orthodox students (and a unique program that included a small population of often ignored Latino seminarians and professors) and one in Morgan City that tended to have Russian Orthodox students, decided to merge and function with a two campuses one Seminary model, seeing modern technology as a way to bridge the geographic divide.

              The initial merger was far from smooth. Many faculty and staff lost their jobs, or took major pay cuts, also the perk of campus housing for faculty was axed, in fact, they began to have to pay rent. There was much uproar, some of the discomforts with these major changes were masked by charges that the seminaries were becoming either too Greek or too Russian. The Latinos continued to feel like the whole thing was silly and they were being ignored, as usual.

              After the initial merger work, the seminary presidents of each seminary stepped down and a board made up of members of both seminaries was created. They looked for a president who was not beholden to either seminary and was neither Russian nor Greek. They also looked for someone who spoke Spanish and had some understanding of Latino culture. They find Dave.

              Dave only puts things on his resume that happened after receiving his M. Div. Does he do this as to not reveal his time as executive director of White Shields for Choice, or because that’s just what he does? Perhaps he doesn’t know his own motivations for making this choice.

              Eventually he comes clean and tells the Chair of the Board, Phil, who is the Orthodox Church representative on the board of National Right to Life, about his time at White Shields for Choice. He calls a few Evangelical friends and a member of National Right to Life and asks about White Shields for Choice. They don't really seem to know anything about the organization. Phil shrugs it off.

              Later two random Evangelicals show up on both campuses and asks a few faculty members “Why do you have a pro-abortion nut job as president?” They go to the board about this. Phil shrugs it off. Dave says he’ll tell everyone when he’s damn well ready to tell them.

              The Latino students and faculty in New Orleans feel listened to for the first time in a long time.

              Eventually a student googles President Dave and notices that near the end of the first page of Google there is a pro-choice page. The news about the President’s past involvement with White Shields for Choice breaks, the students feel betrayed, the faculty feels betrayed.

              Soon enough other conservative seminaries start to send letters saying they don’t feel comfortable sending their Orthodox students to a seminary where the President hides his pro-choice leanings. The faculty, still bruised from all the horror of the merger, takes a vote of no confidence.

              The Latino students point out that when Trump was building a border wall and deporting their families the faculty and students stayed silent or even silenced them… but now that it is an issue of abortion everyone has went nuts. They are largely ignored.

              There are protests, donations plummet. Dave calls a meeting where he discloses his past and the board describes who knew what when.

              Things get stirred up on social media, anti-abortion activist alumni put out petitions that many people sign. Dave responds with a set of steps for going forward that seem to include punishment of students and faculty who use social media.

              The next day the board fires Dave and removes a majority of its members. Phil is removed as Orthodox representative to National Right to Life.

              Dave responds by trashing the Seminary in the media.

              Bad press all around. Christian community hurting and bruised and in need of words of hope. The Orthodox church as a whole is wounded! My God!

              Then along comes Marilynne Robinson, on her book tour about her new book “What are We Doing Here?”. She pens an essay that does not describe the situation at the seminary in the best possible light, but instead insists that the whole episode proves that Americans don’t properly understand the Puritans. Liberals, both Christian and Secular, hold this essay up to complain about how Evangelicals, and Conservative Christians in general, are uniquely responsible for Donald Trump’s election and that these events expose the hypocrisy of the Right writ large. Ex-members of the Orthodox church see this as one more example of why they no longer are members of such a backwards faith. Other, more malicious folk, claim this article prove that Christianity is illegitimate.

Chris: Quite a story, you missed some point and embellished others and maybe even got a few facts wrong… but a good story. Do you think there is any change Rod Dreher will repent for his article?

‘Gus: Well, he is a Christian, isn’t he?

What's "Old 'Gus: On the Kingdom of Heaven" been up to this year?

This blog has been around for nearly a year now… and it seems like time to reflect on it a little bit. 

In 11 posts Old ‘Gus and I: 

-looked at the Parables of Matthew’s Gospel

-the implications of Donald Trump from ‘Gus’ longer view lens

-considered the future of the Church and my own vision of where we ought to be going, 

-speculated about societal differences between moderns and ancients.

I think these subjects are still worthy of reflection in the new year—so expect “On the Kingdom of Heaven” to continue in 2018.

Thank you all for reading and I hope you will continue to do so!

Trump Vs. the 3 D’s

‘Gus: Have you ever thought that your analysis of where America is going could be wrong?

Chris: Of course, but what’s wrong with it in particular?

‘Gus: Well, not wrong, but that it is not inevitable.

Chris: Honestly, I guess I assumed if the 3D’s, Disestablishment, Decentralization, and Demographics are major factors shaping my country and my church, then they are inevitable.

‘Gus: You might be wrong, at least about inevitability… In point of fact, I think this Trump guy everyone is so obsessed with might be trying to curb the inevitability of the 3D’s, or maybe, in point of fact, is doing the same thing you are thinking of doing—figuring out the best way to ride them to a particular end.

Chris: I’m not like Trump!!!

‘Gus: Hold up… your end goal is to create people who fear, love, and trust God, using the historical practices of the faith, in a world shaped by the 3D’s.

Trump’s end goal is making America Great Again, he will do this by using the 3D’s, in a world where people are worried about American Strength, Safety, and Pride.

Chris: How is he using the three D’s… oh, my!

‘Gus: Exactly.

Chris: He’s telling everyone he’ll make people say, “Merry Christmas” again—it is a grievance against the Disestablishment of Christianity in America.

He’s used Twitter, a traditionally decentralized thing, to create a centralized narrative—everyone is talking about what he says, he’s shaping the discourse!

And his rattling the cages of anti-immigrant nationalists and stoking the hurt of white middle class people who see their economic demographics shift—it’s all there.

‘Gus: I wouldn’t put it all together like that, but essentially, yes.

Chris: So… he sees the same zeitgeist as I do…

‘Gus: Without saying things like “Zeitgeist.”

Chris: Right…

On Telos

Chris: I was thinking, ‘Gus.

‘Gus: No you weren’t, you were reading.

Chris: Well, yeah, I was re-reading After Virtue.

‘Gus: No you weren’t, you were reading Living Faithfully in a Fragmented World.

Chris: Well, yeah, as I initially said, I was thinking… and there is a hole in our thinking about those 21 questions.

‘Gus: Oh?

Chris: Yeah. Alasdair MacIntyre thinks that all modern moral reasoning is flawed because it ignores the question of telos the aim the objective of the thing… He thinks moderns ask “Where are we at, what do we need to do to get there” and forget the most crucial step, where are we going?

‘Gus: And?

Chris: We’re doing the same thing!

‘Gus: Ha! You’re learning on your own!

Chris: Yup… So… we have:

An analysis of where we are, the 3d’s.

And 7 habits to get us where we are going.

But, we have no Telos, no idea where we are going… what the idea end is.

‘Gus: You don’t know what the goal is, what the chief end of the Christian faith is?

Chris: Well, as a Lutheran we’re a little more ambiguous than some, right. Luther wasn’t a systematic thinker, so we don’t have an answer like the Presbyterians, “Q. What is the chief end of man? A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”

‘Gus: I'm not Lutheran... but... sure you do.

Chris: No, Luther has a whole bunch of Solas—Grace, Faith, Scripture.

‘Gus: You might not be systematic, but Luther does better than you are letting on, look back to the Catechism.

Chris: Okay, well, the goal of Lutheranism is to help people have awe, love, and trust toward God above all others.

‘Gus: There you go.

Chris: So… that means… the context of our 21 questions is this:

1. Our world is Decentralized, Disestablished, and changing Demographically.

2. We seek to help people be awe-filled, love, and trust God above all things.

3. We do this through the 7 central things of the liturgy both inside and outside the church.

‘Gus: That’s right on. Break it down even more simply.

Chris:

3D’sà7CenteralThingsàAwe,Love,Trust.

Meaning all 21 questions ought to be phrased slightly differently. For example, “How do we gather without the explicit approval of our society, so that people might fear, love, and trust God?"

‘Gus: I think you’re now asking the right question.

21 Questions about the Future Church

‘Gus: Dear Lord man, you may be the most unsystematic thinker I know!

Chris: How so?

‘Gus: I’ve been poking through your “blog” and I wonder how you’ve not noticed you have all the pieces to think deeply about the faith for the world as it is, in order to get a sense of what the Church shall be.

Chris: I what now?

‘Gus: My Lord… you’ve done a lot of work on thinking about how a piety centered on what happens in worship can widen out into the day to day life of Christians. You even created a prayer book devoted to the idea. At the same time, you’ve also diagnosed a few trends in the world where this faith is to be lived—your “3Ds.”

Chris: Oh, you mean Decentralization, Demographics, and… oh, I never remember the third one…

‘Gus: Disestablishment!

Chris: Yeah, that’s the one.

‘Gus: Your 3Ds that will shape the church have shaped the church before. In fact, they were all bubbling up in my world too.

I wrote City of God in response to the reality that disestablishment was happening, that support of Church by State was deeply in jeopardy. The Church saw in the Roman Empire the culmination of the Kingdom of God, we’d fused the two, we’d become an established church. The sack of Rome called all that into question, it was a kind of shock disestablishment.

There was plenty of decentralization of authority—by what authority were the Donatists making their divisions? Pretty soon any ass with a quill—I think especially of Pelagius of Brito—could make a claim on Christian doctrine.

For that matter, demographic shift within Christianity is not new—though in my day the weight was shifting from South to North, instead of North to South, as it is now. I mean, what were we to do with all these non-Mediterranean Christians? They had their own culture, and ideas, which of them were amenable to the faith and which were not?

Chris: So, nothing new under the sun.

‘Gus: I wouldn’t go that far… my point was that the church faced deep changes, and we made it through faithfully, and so can you. Some of it is just asking the right questions, and that’s what I think we should take some time with tonight.

Chris: Shoot.

‘Gus: Look at this chart:

	Disestablishment	Decentralization	Demographics
Gathering in Community	How do we gather without the explicit approval of our society?	What does gathering look like in a scattered world?	How do we gather in a racially ethnically and economically diverse world?
Confession and Forgiveness	How do we confess and forgive in a disestablishment world?	How do we confess and forgive in this decentralized world?	What especially needs to be confessed and forgiven in these new demographic realities?
Baptism	What parts of our baptismal identity shine through differently in a disestablished church?	How can we be centered in our Child of God-ness in a decentralized world?	As racial and economic identity shifts in our society how do we affirm our baptismal identity—in what ways does it shift or stay the same?
Word of God	What themes in scripture draw attention to themselves when read from outside the cultural mainstream?	How may the Word of God be preached and trusted in a decentralized world?	How do we hear and respond to the Word of God differently when we are ethnically and economically different than we were a generation ago?
Thanksgiving	For what aspects of disestablishment ought we give thanks?	What new ways can we give thanks when everything is decentered?	What methods of thanksgiving are found in non-Eurocentric cultures?
Meal	In what ways have we wed Holy Communion to the powers that be in our society?	Where do we have the holy meal in light of decentralization?	What aspects of Holy Communion can be expressed differently for a wider variety of cultural contexts?
Sending	Who have we neglected to go to in order to impress the powers that be?	Where and how are we sent when we’re already dispersed?	How are we sent differently to the new demographics in which we live?

Chris: Oh, wow, I can start answering those questions… for example,

How do we gather without the explicit approval of our society?

Gathering in community is harder when there are no blue laws, and employers aren’t embarrassed making their employees work on the Sabbath, and being a good sports ball player is now as important to being a good citizen as being a Sunday school attender or weekly confirmation student.

‘Gus: Sports ball player—is that what they call them these days?

Chris: Maybe…

‘Gus: But yes, those are the kinds of questions and thoughts that this should raise, but also the positives. For example, what opportunities arise from being community when its not the norm?

Chris: Okay, let me try again, when we think about

What does gathering look like in a scattered world? We can note some plus sides. We learn the ways technology can help, even as we stay aware of its potential negatives. Can we do online church? Does our society’s propensity toward decentralization mean small groups are a necessity, not a luxury? How does worship need to change to change with the times? Does it require decentering the pastor… any authority figure? How can egalitarian church be done?

‘Gus: How about:

How do we gather in a racially ethnically and economically diverse world?

Chris: Yeah, I mean do we lean into multiculturalism, and try to ensure all churches are diverse, or does it make sense to invest in communities of non-white backgrounds, even if they are mono-culture? For that matter, there is the economic angle, what it means to be middle class is not what it once was, we are more time and money poor… but could that mean our gathering together could look less like a hobby group and more like people seeking salvation together?

‘Gus: You’re getting the idea… but maybe you just need to sit with those 21 questions, otherwise you’ll shoot from the hip, and that’s likely to put an eye out. So just pray on those questions for a while.