You are here: Home / Archives for Culture

Presbymergence, Postmodernism, and Perl

July 3, 2007 By 4 Comments

I met Chris (an ordained elder in the PCUSA) through presbymergent.org, and we’ve been emailing back and forth for a few months now about the emerging church and its place in Presbyterianism.

One of the topics we keep circling around is “postmodernism.” It’s a word we in the church toss around quite often, and it has been alternately praised, villanized, abandoned, and embraced hesitantly (see McLaren’s chapter in EMOH). Personally, I tend to have an instinctual understanding of the concept — it’s permeated the culture and air I’ve breathed since my childhood.

Unfortunately, “instinct” doesn’t always make for clear conversation, so I dusted off the Derrida and other texts from my college literature classes in search of a more precise (ha! — that’s irony) language to use. That didn’t help too much. Pete Rollins is a bit more accesible, but in the end, the voice that resonated with me most was (go figure) a hacker.

Larry Wall is the guy who wrote the Perl computer language, and also happens to be a quite committed Christian — something rare among top-tier geeks. In 1999, Wall gave a talk titled, “Perl: the first postmodern computer language.” It’s about Perl, but his understanding (and conveyance) of postmodernism is quickly becoming my favorite on the subject. Over on my personal Wiki, I’ve shortened it a little (taken out some of the computer lingo) and interspersed my own comments on how it relates to the emerging church. If you’re interested in a unique angle to the postmodern question, you are welcomed to read it and comment on the discussion page:

Postmodern Perl

For a teaser, though here are some experpts (Larry Wall’s text in bold italics, my comments in small font):

It used to be that we evaluated everything and everyone based on reputation or position. And the basic underlying assumption was that we all had to agree whether something (or someone) was good or bad…. We could argue all day long about whether postmodernism came about because Modernism succeeded or because it failed. As a postmodern myself, I take both sides. To some extent.

This would bother a Modernist, because a Modernist has to decide whether this is true OR that is true. The Modernist believes in OR more than AND. Postmodernists believe in AND more than OR…. We can use Perl as an example. In Perl, AND has higher precedence than OR does. There you have it. That proves Perl is a postmodern language. 

Wow.  This plays out hugely in church -- Exclusivity (OR) vs. Inclusivity (AND), for
example.  Also in scripture debates:  Multiple possible interpretations (AND) vs.
"one true interpretation" (OR).  Actually, even the word "debate" is an "OR" kind of
concept, where "conversation" seems to imply "AND." Is this why modernists are so
bent on the idea of "only one way to God" (OR) vs. postmodern popularity of the "many
paths" idea?
Perhaps this is also why Evangelicals keep pressing those in the Emerging Church to
clearly define where they stand on issues (one has to believe EITHER this OR that).

I do not view deconstructionism as a form of postmodernism so much as I view deconstructionism as the bridge between Modernism and postmodernism. Modernism, as a form of Classicalism, was always striving for simplicity, and was therefore essentially reductionistic. That is, it tended to take things to pieces. That actually hasn’t changed much. It’s just that Modernism tended to take one of the pieces in isolation and glorify it, while postmodernism tries to show you all the pieces at once, and how they relate to each other. 

Yes!  One might say that the whole "Emerging" church thing is simply another form
of deconstructionism, whose ultimate purpose will have been to build a bridge
between modern churches and post-modern ones.
Beautiful comparison/contrast.  The reductionism of modernistic churches: emphasis
on "core values," "fundamentals," and "non-negotiables" -- even the three reformed
"solas" come to mind). Postmodernist churches often try to emphasize the "mosaic"
approach, emphasizing holistic integration of beliefs, practices, and living instead
of simply focusing "right belief."  I realize that some modern churches are good at
integration, too, just as some post-modern churches have "core values."  Still, it's
a matter of perceived emphasis.

I’d go so far as to call myself a strong postmodernist. Strong postmodernism says that all truth is created. But this really isn’t a problem for anyone who believes in a Creator. All truths are created relative, but some are more relative than others. A universal truth only has to be true about our particular universe, so to speak. It doesn’t much matter whether the universe itself is true or false, just as long as it makes a good story. And I think our universe does make a good story. I happen to like the Author. 

And this, more than anything else, is what the church needs to hear.  This is the crux
of where we can BE Christian AND postmodern.  Like Wall, there may be things about
postmodernism that we decide suck.  We are not bound to postmodern culture any more than
we were bound to modern culture, but we have the freedom in Christ to shape culture (and
our understanding of it) according to our faith.  We live in an AND world, where we don't
have to choose between Christ OR Culture.
Filed Under: Culture, Presbymergent

Emerging Church for Hackers, Anyone?

May 24, 2007 By 11 Comments

I Just finished reading Eric S. Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar. If you’re unfamiliar with this work, it’s not (despite the title) anything about church. It’s actually the seminal text on the history and rationale behind the open source software movement, from one of its key architects and proponents.

That said, although ESR (as he is generally referred to in hacker culture) cautions against the expansion of the open source label to other fields (ie music, books, politics, etc), I was amazed in reading this book just how much potential application there is for the world of theology. Actually, I think the open source movement paralells the Emergent movement in many ways. Here are a few of my favorite observations from the book:

  • How to Be a Hacker. First of all, ESR differentiates between the media’s great misunderstanding of a hacker as a punk teenager who “creates problems and destroys things,” and the original understanding of a hacker as a computer programmer who “solves problems and builds things.” To “hack” code is not to break it, but to add something to it that makes it more valuable for one’s self and for the community. Sharing, obviously, is a big part of hacker culture. In response to the question, “How do I become a hacker,” ESR says that “You aren’t a hacker until people in the hacker culture call you a hacker” on the basis of your contribution to the community.

Yeah. There’s an old song — “They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they will know that we are Christians by our love.” How awesome would it be if, rather than slapping a chrome fish on the bumper of our SUV and then driving like a**holes (can I say that here?), we simply refused to call ourselves Christians until others recognized the Christ in us?

  • The Cathedral and the Bazaar Metaphor. ESR compares proprietary software and programming to a cathedral — development and release of the “product” are tightly controlled by small, exclusive group of people, shrouded in secrecy and authoritariansim. The result is large, costly, and frozen in time. Contrasting this is the bazaar right outside, which ESR compares to open source software — open, ever-changing, where anyone can produce and/or consume a diversity of products.

The theological implications here are pretty obvious, especially since it’s already a “churchy” sort of image. In his book The Emerging Church, Dan Kimball actually points out the fact that most European cathedrals are largely empty on Sunday mornings, a relic of another time. Most local marketplaces (my favorite = coffee shop), on the other hand, thrive, and often provide more service to the community than just the products they sell. Note I said “local.” IMHO, Wal-Mart is more of a cathedral than a bazaar.

  • Sale Value vs. Use Value. Since most open-source software is free (as in “no cost,” although it’s always, by definition, free as in “liberty” or “speech”), some people fear that its rise would have damaging economic effects on the software industry. ESR points out that the current industry over-emphasizes “sale value” (immediate exchange of good for cash up front) over “use value” (think support & service) to the detriment of the consumer. If the biggest profit comes from the up front sale, companies have more incentive to provide a nice slick “box” and a marketing campaign than they do to provide something that actually works or has any sort of longevity. If the product is free, companies are forced to compete to provide the best support and service to make their profit. The book was written in the late 90′s, and already this idea is becoming industry standard, even in companies like Micro$oft.

From a theological standpoint, this one really jumped out at me: Often in Evangelical Christianity of the past two decades (and ocasionally in our beloved Presbyterian ones, too) we find a *huge* emphasis placed on “salvation” and “alter calls,” (sale value) while we have largely ignore things like ongoing spiritual education and practice (use value). It seems we have taken the position that the most important question one can be asked is “Are you saved?” rather than “How do you live your life?” And, like the software industry, the church is often guilty of slick marketing campaigns and “packaging” of our product at the expense of the real stuff Jesus did, like caring for the sick, the poor, and the oppressed. Come to think of it, Jesus was pretty big on “service and support.” (Matt. 20:25-28)

Finally, I was encouraged to read this in the final chapter:

The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music — actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them “hackers” too — and some claim that the hacker nature is really independent of the particular medium the hacker works in.

So, I think I want to be a hacker when I grow up. An open-source software hacker, yes. But also a music hacker. A literature hacker. An education hacker. And a Presbymergent theological hacker. Book of Order, look out…

Filed Under: Culture, Theology

A New Church For a New Century

May 11, 2007 By 7 Comments

Professors at Columbia Theological Seminary have the chance to write and dialogue on an online journal geared toward “theological investigations in church & culture.” The online journal is called @ this point, and their newest online version is a collection of essays based around the theme, “A New Church For a New Century.” Included in this issue are the following articles:

@ this point is geared toward PC(USA) church members and all content from the journal can be downloaded and reproduced without charge. I’m hoping to get a chance to interact with some of these articles, as I had both Rodger and Steve for classes this semester, and I know Martha mainly through my wife when I helped Sarah babysit her daughters. I really like the authors, and look forward to what their thoughts are on Emergent. At any rate, please check out the journal and enjoy the conversations hosted there.

Filed Under: Culture, Emergent, Resources

Hope for the Church

May 7, 2007 By 2 Comments

When our kids come to be confirmed in the church they provide a sense of hope for the future of our church. But for many of our congregations this may in fact be the only source of hope! Should it be that way?

Typically, for growth and stability most of our established mainline churches rely on two sources for membership: 1) The kids they confirm in the faith, and 2) “churched” folks that circulate between churches. Our reliance on these ‘established’ sources for members reveals an “us vs them” mentality permeating our churches.

While the culture around us swirls in a sea of change, we are hard at work making sure our churches remain a safe haven for “us.” Fortressed in our buildings, we do church by gathering for worship on Sunday morning. Meanwhile our congregations have little contact with or real impact upon our neighborhoods, our communities, and the world around us.

In the early church through a vision shared with Peter, God shattered the “us vs. them” mentality that was keeping the faith within the confines of Judaism. Thus the doors were opened into the Gentile world. The “Way” has not been the same since Peter dared to share in fellowship with the Gentile household of Cornelius.

The real source of hope in our churches is not found in our confirmation kids.  As it was in Act, it is found in our ability to break down the barriers between “us and them,” between the church and the communities in which we live.

This is a brief summary of a complete sermon which can be found here.

Filed Under: Churches, Culture, Emergent

Better late than…

March 19, 2007 By 11 Comments

Sorry to be so late. I hesitated leaning into this site for many reasons:

The main one being time sensitivity. While serving as a validated minister inthe PC(USA) for a couple years since seminary, I recently joined my practices with a historied community of Presbyterians 30 minutes north of my neighborhood as their solo-pastor (their’s got to be a better word to get this point across). How I ended up there/here is a conversation for another time. But the responsibilities of pastoring a redevelopement-transformation congregation on top of buying our first family home (in our old neighborhood), my wife starting a small buisness (scrap booking), and organizing the mainline emergent/s event at Columbia have been about all I’ve had time for.

The secondary, underlying, reason for my being a late bloomer for Presbymergence, is the suspicion I hold for denominationally centered renewal movements. I, like many of you, have connected to the PC(USA) late in life for reasons that I can understand and ones I don’t know (how/why God and God’s new creation have conspired to bring me here, is still being discovered). Here are a few I have begun to articulate

1. because of the utility of the reformed articulation of faith practices (tangling Word, Sacrament, & Shape)

2. the polyvalence of a book of confessions (tangling many people/contexts)

3. the dialectical tension between tradition’s handing over of belief and the openness of conscience (tangling past/future with the need to act generatively now)

But I must confess I’m brutally pragmatic about these things. I’m not so sure that being tangled to some “good thing” that does not accomplish its end, is actually that “good”. At the Mainline Emergent/s thing I learned a bit more about this. We Presbyterians PC(USA)ers share many of the same blind spots and benfitted from Cooperative Baptist Fellows and Episcopalians, etc sitting next to us. I also learned that all the fruit the Mainline Emergent/s event brought, was intended for then; for that day/week/season. The future of missional communities in the way of Jesus will continue to necessitate the cross-pollination of the institutionally encrusted and naive, but cannot center on the cross-breading of the two. Emergence implies a comming anticipated newness, not a calculated hybrid. And so to preserve the generative and timely ethos of the Mainline Emergent/s event risks forming yet one more special interest group within the denomination and risks totalizing the naive or encrusted. In short, our dreams and realtionships get tangled up in helping the church, instead of edifying the church in her task to join the transformation of God’s world.

In the seven months I’ve been at Church of St. Andrew I have begun to learn the need for my colleagues here to know what will happen to “their our thing”. The existence of an established entity creates an inertia toward seeking the future of its establishment. The church, PC(USA) included, must continually give itself away to God’s creation, as Christ has for us all. I have my vows and tangles within this congregation, and the Presbyterian church. To truely serve with energy, intelegence, imagination, and love, I (and you) need more than the PC(USA), we need all of the church, and even beyond the church where the Spirit is moving and regenerating…
BUT, I’ve been reading the site and enjoy what I see. I am usually the last kid to jump in the pool or the river, but eventually I get in all the way and laugh and play. So, all that being said, I’m in. I hope that we can together seek the future of Presbyterianism God’s creation, utilizing all of creation the Reformed tradition that might be of help- and not the other way around.

peace | courage | beauty

Filed Under: Churches, Culture, Emergent, Leadership, PC(USA), Polity, Presbymergent, Theology

Christian Faith and Culture

March 13, 2007 By 13 Comments

As I’ve reflected on the “labyrinth” discussion and the material I’ve seen from groups like Lighthouse Trails a few things have really stuck out to me.

1. The belief that there is a strictly “biblical” way to do things. I’ve attended churches that say they are biblical – but I see nothing biblical about using auditorium seating, projectors, theatre lights, pews, hymnals, organs, etc. As I see it there is no such thing as a “biblical Christianity” because the Christian faith always comes embedded into a culture – including our own. Even people who are from a Reformed Presbyterian background who practice the regulative approach to worship (in other words doing nothing in worship that isn’t specifically mentioned in the bible) still have a cultural expression of the Christian faith by the means of the very language that is used in worship. Even our bibles that we buy are come wrapped into a culture – they’re printed in English and marketed to us like any other product. Christians don’t learn to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek – we translate the bible into our own languages and we write songs that reflect our culture. Hence, we are forced to adopt cultural tools and symbols in our practice of worship. Remember that once upon a time the organ was a popular bar instrument that was then used by the churches because that was the popular music of the day. There is nothing wrong with adopting cultural symbols – it’s how things have been done for thousands of years. Most of the Old Testament treaties appear in a form common to the cultures of the time, Jesus entered into cultural debates of his time, and Paul’s form of arguments are similar in style to other authors in in the Greco-Roman world at the time. To try and be “culture free” is senseless and impossible. What the emerging conversation has helped me to realize is not how awful culture is, but the embedding nature of the faith and the recognition that our churches embrace cultural norms for communication, etc.

2. That being said, the issue of using “eastern” methods of spirituality seems to have gotten a lot of heat lately, and I don’t understand why. It’s true that the labyrinth doesn’t have a specifically Chrisitan past – but why should that stop us? We use many things that don’t have a specifically Christian past. Ask anyone who has attended seminary that you’ll find that pastors are given a basic introduction to psychology. After all, Pastors work with people and it’s helpful to know how people tick. Pastors and Christian Educators are also introduced to the work of educational psychologists, whose work isn’t exclusively Christian. The methods we’re taught are helpful in fulfilling our callings. If the labyrinth (and other meditative practices) can be an effective tool in Christian faith formation, why not use it? We’ve adopted cultural tools for years and made them tools in our ministries. (Just look at your church and count the number of TVs)

3. We only need the bible. This is perhaps the most naive claim out there, because what is really being said is “we only need my interpretation of the bible”. My view is no one reads just the bible – we read it through our own eyes and from our own social location. In fact, to say that there is only one correct interpretation of the bible actually de-values and disempowers the scriptures within a given community. The power of the bible comes not from its intrinsic value but rather from the power of the Holy Spirit speaking through them. To argue that how we interpret the bible yesterday is the same way we must interpret it today and tomorrow simply closes our minds to what God might be saying to us down the road. The bible is not the end, but the means to the end (and in case you think I’m being un-reformed and heretical, see Calvin and Barth on scripture and you’ll find a very similar understanding in both authors). The bible is a tool and should be used like one rather than a user manual that you read once and put away.
That’s my three cents. Thoughts?

Filed Under: Culture, Theology