What are we doing again? And why?

As a new voice here on the “Church and Postmodern Culture” website, it is most prudent for my first post (or few, perhaps) simply to establish my personal starting points, commitments, limitations, aims and so forth. While admittedly a bit unorthodox or trite, I see this as a necessary first step into a “conversation” riddled with abstract and oftentimes challenging issues of philosophy, culture and theology—not all of which I agree with. In so doing, then, I hope not only to set some necessary groundwork for my future posts, but also to raise some crucial points of practical consideration so that this post can stand as an intellectual contribution in its own right. This, hopefully, will set an example for other persons to consider and recognize similar concerns in their own thinking and writing on whatever topic is at hand, including here on the Church and Postmodern Culture. For this post, to start, I will temporarily put aside much necessary groundwork (i.e. on my theological commitments, my cultural experiences, my intellectual limitations, etc.) and address just one point toward this end—our purpose or mission.

As professionals and as persons, we cannot overstate the value of occasionally stepping back from our workaday marathon lives (or in this case, blogging) and asking ourselves: “What are we doing again? And why?” Therefore, one of my aims for my authorship on this site is to remain true to [my own tweaked version of] its stated purpose. I see four places from which to sketch a holistic vision of what we are even doing here. First, the title of this website is: “the church and postmodern culture: conversation.” Second, the tagline reads: “contemporary philosophy...for the church...in the vernacular.” Third, the right sidebar states the purpose of this site as “offering discussions of high-profile theorists in postmodern theory and contemporary theology, for a non-specialist audience that is interested in the impact of postmodern theory for the faith and practice of the church.” Finally, the about page states our purpose as “to bring postmodern theory and contemporary theology into conversation with concrete faith and practice of the church.”

So what are we doing again? And why? It seems to me, based on the four quotations above, that through our participation and authorship on this website we intend to do several things that cohere into one holistic purpose: We intend to (1) write on the church, (2) postmodern culture, (3) contemporary theology, and (4) contemporary, especially postmodern, philosophy, in order to (5) have a [fruitful] conversation and discussion. In the process, we intend to (6) write in the vernacular, (7) so that we are understandable to a non-specialist audience, (8) and, in the end, contribute something of value to and for the Church, (9) expressed through concrete faith and practice. Your words, not mine. Sounds good. This is a purpose with which I am very sympathetic and to which I am excited to contribute. As a regular reader turned contributor to this website, however, it is evident to me that we can do far better than we are currently. In fact, it seems to me that both our authors and readers would do well to remind ourselves of what we are doing here, and why.

But who am I to come in and ruffle postmodern intellectual feathers? Maybe I am just a young, pompous, overly critical aspiring academic. Maybe not. My friend Eric will be a junior this fall at a large, public, highly selective university in a progressive city. He is majoring in political science with a minor in philosophy; he is twenty years old, kinda artsy, loves to think, ask questions and be cognizant of what is going on in the world. Every week we meet in a local coffee shop and he asks me probing questions about Christian theology, philosophy, church history, college, relationships, and the like. Eric is what Western evangelicals and professional developmental psychologists, albeit with different meanings, have called an emerging adult (see Arnett 2004). He is our demographic. He is an archetype of the person who is currently living out the questions and issues surrounding orthodox Christian faith, postmodern culture, and contemporary philosophy. Would my friend Eric gain something from this website? Would he even be able to understand our posts and engage with useful questions and topics regarding the Christian faith and the culture in which he lives?

Throughout my stay here, I will aim to provide critiques, commentary, reflections and insights on social theorists (or more accurately, their theories), postmodern or otherwise, as they apply to the local (visible) church and the global (invisible) Christian Church composed of all regenerated followers of Jesus throughout region and history. As a scholar and student of sociology more than philosophy, I will also speak regularly to the relationship between the local church, the Christian faith, and postmodern culture. And I will do so with Eric in mind. Again, this is for the church and for the Church. I am most favorable toward Driscoll’s recent definition of the local church as: “a community of regenerated believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. In obedience to Scripture they organize under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, observe the biblical sacraments of baptism and Communion, are unified by the Spirit, are disciplined for holiness, and scatter to fulfill the Great Commandment and the Great Commission as missionaries to the world for God’s glory and their joy” (2008:38).

If our thinking and writing fail to advance the global Church, and its tangible expression in the local church, then we ought to “commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” My intention here is not to be harsh or overly critical. Instead, my intention is to “consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds” [Hebrews 10:24]. Included in “love and good deeds,” I believe, is to “love the Lord your God…with all your mind” [Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27]—as we are pursuing here. But our purpose is not to use unnecessarily big words, engage in fruitless abstraction, impress readers with one’s knowledge of “high-profile theorists,” or mere intellectual masturbation. We have been called to a much greater mission—the Missio Dei. I urge you, then, to live, think, and write in a manner “worthy of the calling you have received” [Ephesians 4:1]. Please come alongside me as I pursue this divine purpose.

Comments

[geoffrey holsclaw]

hey brad...you actually gonna hold us to our words? I love it. Brilliant.

and for those working at the intersection of the church and university it seems we all begin as "young, pompous, overly critical aspiring academics" (i'm probably still there). but we don't live at that intersection without having some sort of edge, right?

[geoffrey holsclaw]

and i meant all that in a good...just want to be clear as inflections and nuance get lost in these comments.

[Jeremy]

Is Driscoll to be featured as one of the high-profile theorists that will be covered?

[James K.A. Smith]

Thanks for the prompt, Brad. This is one of the reasons we wanted to recruit a new set of team members. I would say that I've become comfortable with churchandpomo.org trying to do two things: On the one hand, like the book series, we really want to reach beyond the circle of specialists and speak to practitioners, students, and others. On the other hand, the site has also become a bit of a home for discussions in "continental philosophy of religion"--and I'm OK with that as long as we don't lose the project you're reminding us of here.

But if you ever quote Driscoll positively again, you'll be banned from any future posting.

I'm only sort of kidding. Well, no I'm entirely kidding: we're not censoring. But I can't imagine Driscoll ever being helpful. I'm not surprised that Driscoll can only consider "the local church." This is because these "new Calvinists" know pretty much nothing of "Reformed" ecclesiology.

[Jeremy]

Ok, glad to know someone else was concerned that Driscoll was being quoted on ecclesiology. Given the fact that he represents so much of what is wrong with the misogynistic and pseudo-masculine American gospel, I was just hoping he would not be used too much in the future. Also, I saw a funny video of him claiming God was male because Jesus was male, just absurd.

[brad]

See...now we have the potential for fruitful conversation! Please fill me in on "Reformed" ecclesiology and how Driscoll falls short. [not sarcasm] PS. I can't believe this reduced to a conversation on Driscoll :(

[James K.A. Smith]

Like you, Brad, I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of Driscoll (he doesn't deserve it). Let me sum up part of the problem in just one word: "non-denominational." Anyone who thinks they're Reformed but is part of a "non-denominational" group, and thus not accountable to a classis and synod, knows nothing of Reformed ecclesiology.

[brad]

What readings do you suggest on the relationship between denominationalism, ecclesiology and modernity?

[James K.A. Smith]

I don't have any particular readings that come to mind. Book IV of Calvin's Institutes perhaps. The general ethos is the Reformation's suspicion of human fallenness, and hence an aversion to the concentration of power in the hands of one or in structures that lack accountability. (I note this despite my own penchant for episcopal/fascist structures!) So it is pretty universal in Reformed ecclesiology that there are nested levels of plurality and accountability: a local congregation is governed by a consistory, a plural board of elders; congregations in a region meet within a classis; and classes participate in and are governed by a national synod (the names for these levels are different within different sectors of Reformed-dom).

A non-denominational congregation is, against this standard, a private shop, a rogue congregation. Now, I would also concede that the Reformation unleashed forces that could logically end in this proliferation of non-denominational "ministries." But I consider that to be sort of the Frankenstein-ish outcome of the Reformation and perhaps not endemic to its spirit as an Augustinian renewal movement within the church catholic.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

perhaps driscoll is off topic, but perhaps not when part of the purpose of this site concerns the "church" and therefore how we use that concept (use in the Wittgensteinian sense).

Two things from Dave Fitch, and other contributor here.

The first is actually someone's comment making a distinction between reformed theology and neo-reformed, which is usually neo-puritan.

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the-gospel-coalition-and-post-christendom-will-it-be-a-coalition-or-expedition-some-reflections-and-concerns/#comment-6387.

The second is a post of his on the new reformed.

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/why-the-neo-radical-young-and-restless-reformed-is-not-the-way-forward/

[brad]

As Geoff pointed out, on a website about "the church" and culture, we need at least to work through what the church is. It is absurd to think one cannot be both biblical (that is, reformed) and non-denominational. To be clear, then, I am working with Driscoll's definition of the church. I work for Jesus and His Bride, not some dying denomination. We always need more lines in the sand, right?

[James K.A. Smith]

Who the hell vetted our new contributors?! ;-)

Yes, we need to think through what the church is. That doesn't require that I have to head down the dead-end of non-denominational megachurches. And I'm not using "Reformed" in the weak sense you do here, Brad (as when you suggest that "reformed" is just a synonym for "biblical;" it's not).

If we're drawing lines in the sand, I just want to be clear that I think non-denominationalism is the bane of the church, a particularly modern (and American) rendition of Christianity as free-markets (though this clearly "sells" around the globe, too). It's usually connected to some kind of naive primitivism about "New Testament church principles" and comforts itself by extolling "biblical" principles.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[rodney neill]

6) write in the vernacular, (7) so that we are understandable to a non-specialist audience, (8) and, in the end, contribute something of value to and for the Church, (9) expressed through concrete faith and practice

Brad

I welcome your emphasis on these points - as a non-specialist I appreciate contributors who try to write in the venacular so I can try to understand what is being said....sentences like 'we need to reread hegel in order to fully understand derrida' do not convey a lot to me!

Rodney

[geoffrey holsclaw]

I could be wrong, but the reaction was probably more forcused at Driscoll himself rather than just the definition you quoted. For the most part he represents the more reactionary instances of the church within postmodernity in retrenchment via doctrinal purity and authority. This is confirmed in his association/affiliation with "The Gospel Coalition". (I can't help it because we are good friends and co-pastors, but here is yet again a post by Dave Fitch regarding this: http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the-gospel-coalition-and-post-christendom-will-it-be-a-coalition-or-expedition-some-reflections-and-concerns/.

Anyway, I'm not against definitions of the church, and often on this site I argue against those who refuge any kind of definition at all and reduce the church to any action that is subversive and mildly linked to jesus.

So about his definition:
“a community of regenerated believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. In obedience to Scripture they organize under qualified leadership, gather regularly for preaching and worship, observe the biblical sacraments of baptism and Communion, are unified by the Spirit, are disciplined for holiness, and scatter to fulfill the Great Commandment and the Great Commission as missionaries to the world for God’s glory and their joy”.

I quite like the elements linked between "gather" and "scatter", mostly because I'm a sucker for liturgical language and because indeed it is very useful by centering on the gathering in which we worship the risen Lord. Often the movements of gathering/scattering are lost in missional/emerging discussion in favor of seeking Jesus in the face of others via social action or something like that (which is true but can't be separated from discerning Christ in the Word and Table.

The phrase "community of regenerate believers" seems very odd to me, as if they were trying to both emphasize and not emphasize individualism and personal regeneration. I would like to think this is a dialectical tension between the communal and individual, but "In obedience to Scripture they organize" seems to tilt this toward an understand of the church as an association of believers who 'organize' around the distribution of goods. Also the "in obedience to Scripture" part isn't so bad on the face of it, but in a non-denominational setting and an understanding/hermeneutic of Scripture as perspicuous and transparent (I don't think I'm assuming too much on their part) this becomes problematic. Lastly, the understanding of "for God's glory and their joy" is vintage Westminster Catechism (and there could be worse), but the formulation of God's sovereignty which stands behind it, and the metaphysical assumptions within it are again problematic.

so in summary, I find part of it helpful and part of it unhelpful, but the part that is unhelpful as read through the context of those speaking it I find very unhelpful and often harmful. But you might not share that same context (or you may, I don't know) so you might give a different gloss to those parts to which I object. I would love to hear that in the future.

[Ben]

Brad, I find this too paranoid:

"But our purpose is not to use unnecessarily big words, engage in fruitless abstraction, impress readers with one’s knowledge of 'high-profile theorists,' or mere intellectual masturbation."

Is this another attempt, in the name of a collusion between a piously disciplined, overly pragmatic and marketing driven mindset, to police out the joy and pleasure of a faith seeking understanding through intellectually communing with the profundity of reality? What about, instead of fearfully running from theory, calling people to think of theory otherwise than in modern terms of an austere, disenchanted analysis and abstraction? What about pursuing intellectual discussion as a festive exchange of ideas through a creative array of theoretical and contemplative discourses that seek not only to critically engage but also charm and be charmed by, in ever greater ways, God's awesome gift of existence (like much of the theologians in the early and medieval church as well as in this blog)? Or is this intellectual endeavor just more impotent masturbation when it should be following instead the cult of practical efficiency and virility and actually fucking things base-like?

Sure, arrogance and wasteful expenditure (in certain forms) within intellectual discourse need to be checked (and theory and practice need to be integrated), but the bigger problem is the great simplification of reality and the dulling of rigorous thought to accommodate the marketing demands of modern mass culture as well as protestant evangelicalism's complicity.

This blog has so far provided a site for Christian thought that has fostered freely creative and critical thinking beyond the commodification of Christianity, so let's not now surrender this vocation to a call towards Americanized christianity.

[brad]

You're right Ben. You convinced me.

[Barry R]

"But our purpose is not to use unnecessarily big words, engage in fruitless abstraction, impress readers with one’s knowledge of 'high-profile theorists,' or mere intellectual masturbation."

I've never read anyone on this site who does this. The very suggestion is absurd.

On the other hand, perhaps Brad is using hyperbole (!). If so, it's pretty obvious what he means, and it's a fair point, that should be noted by any academically minded individual seeking to communicate to non-academics.

[rodney neill]

If the website is to be an intellectual discourse of specialists from a highly academic background only then using jargonised/technical language is appropriate as a shorthand for communicating complex ideas - such forums are necessary and I do not wish to play the anti-intellectual card.

However please redefine the websites purpose to reflect this and remove these points 6) write in the vernacular, (7) so that we are understandable to a non-specialist audience

Rodney

[Carl Raschke]

After spending my winter sabbatical visiting and lecturing to various postmodern Christian groups in Continental Europe, from Amsterdam to Prague, I came back with some rather striking insights. In America, even in pomo circles, we endlessly go back and forth about theory and practice, with the "practitioners" tirelessly chastizing academics for their allegedly jargonistic philosophy and "theology", while championing some sort of utopian communalism of "plain folk." This is a unique American pathology that has been observed and commented on for generations (cf. Hofstadter's ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICA) which goes back more than one generation.

In Europe they respect theologians, and even strive to incorporate their thinking in various forms of experimental practice. This is why I am convinced, and I believe Andrew Jones would back me up on this, that the future of postmodern Christianity belongs to "dead, secular" Europe, not America. Right now pomo Christianity is starting really to take off in the German-speaking countries, and when that happens, watch out. There's a big conference this fall, for example, in Karlsruhe, Germany. And many of these communities are really starting to grow.

Alan Hirsch meets Juergen Moltmann meets Heidegger meets Derrida. Note I didn't mention Mark Driscoll.

[brad]

Carl: That sounds like an amazing winter in Europe! And I doubt that anyone would disagree that there is a unique rift between Christian practitioners and academics in the United States. Mark Noll (now at Notre Dame) investigated anti-intellectualism particularly as it applies to American evangelicals in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" (1995). For the record, though, I did not intend my post to demean or diminish the life's work of academic philosophers or theologians. In fact, I consider part of my project to link the two in fruitful ways.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Dr. Raschke,

If we were going to bring Hirsch into this could he rather meet J.B. Metz meets Wittgenstein meets Lacan? Wonder if the future of missional theology must pass through Moltmann-Hiedegger-Derrida? isn't this merely giving us a death of god redux and/or a religion w/o religion?

I'm not saying that is what you are up to, just that those are the typical moves...

[Justin]

To Ben's paranoia:

I too lament over the anti-intellectual bent in the US church...a cultural and epistemological jet-lag, if you will. And like those who frequent the site, I long to see the body as a whole understand the zeitgeist our culture so it can truly engage it.

YET, as a friend who has lengthy and nuanced talks with Brad about 'these' matters, let me clarify that this post was NOT "another attempt, in the name of a collusion between a piously disciplined, overly pragmatic and marketing driven mindset, to police out the joy and pleasure of a faith seeking understanding through intellectually communing with the profundity of reality".

The vantage point isn't that we need to sacrifice intellectual rigor to be 'practical' and 'productive'(and sadly many hold that view)...rather make sure that our rigor is fruitful and missional, to be clear and accessible in our insights.

I understood the post as not an either/or argument, but rather a both/and argument.

[ben]

Dr. Raschke and Geoff - how about meeting Balthasar meets Adorno meets Agamben? Or does meeting Balthasar bring one through too much thick pageantry for the likes of a Wittgensteinian or Heideggerian (not that either of you are strict followers of these in any sense)?

Justin - you sound like a good friend. Keep up the good work.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Ben, I can dig some von B. with the double 'A's.

you should check out d. stephen long's new "Speaking of God" where he brings together Barth, von Balthasar, Wittgenstein, and of course...Aquinas.