Session #2: Jon

*Analyze the church you attend in terms of Van Gelder's typology of churches in American Life.

Van Gelser’s 5 rules (pg. 57) seem like something I need to present at out next congregational meeting. In response to Van Gelder’s typology of churches, the church in which I serve is a combination of the village (reflective of when it was founded:1835) with a lingering Seekers centers approach that has remained as a result of a significant growth period of the church. Since that growth period in the 80’s the church has split and decreased in numbers to about half. We are a long established church that is hovering around 100 in attendance. Although I would like to read more than just the chart on page 66 to learn about the village church, because we could just as likely be the family suburban church. Our church is very family centered, but hasn’t reaped the benefits of the generational expansion in recent years. It does seem as though we have a number of families that have a connection to our church, and that there is always one person or couple that is involved in the life of our church. Meanwhile the rest of their family is connected, but much of their loyalty it to the family, and not the church (or the Lord for that matter).

*What is your response to Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional?

I have a difficult time understanding to what the term “Christendom” specifically refers. As a result is it difficult to agree or disagree with this statement completely. I would agree with the statement that the church as a whole has lost its missional focus overall, but I also believe that is because we may have a limited view of what it means to be missional. I think traditionally we think of missional as presenting the truth of the Gospel with people that have never heard it before. Today, everyone has heard it, and it is the church’s responsibility to explain and possibly re-educate people about the truth in Christ. The difficulty here is that mere words don’t work. Anyone can say anything, but people won’t believe until they experience it today. As a result there is a stronger emphasis on welcoming others into a community (by some churches). The difficult thing here is to distinguise between the churches that are truly missional and desire to connect with culture in such a way as to help express themselves, and the ones that draw a line around their church and expect visitors to behave a certain way once they cross it. So, I would agree that thc church is not as missional as it once was, but that in order for a chuch to be missional it may need to be very different from traditional definitions of missional.

*Discuss your reflection on Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture.

Okay, Kaiser’s essay was solid, but a bit tough to swallow. I appreciate his development of the definitions of secularization and how it has evolved in western culture, but in relation to the question here, I believe we cannot determine the future trends conclusively. I believe it is very safe to say that the world is in constant flux and that the idea that our culture’s current relationship with God will remain as it is indefinitely will not continue indefinitely. We can look back at history and see that different cultures’ relationships with the supernatural ebb and flow. I believe ours is the same, and as Christians we can be a part of determining the ebb and/or flow.

*Flowing with Van Gelder's discussion of Postmodernism, how do we participate in God's mission in our current culture? What is the worldview of the gospel? Premodern, Modern, or Postmodern? How does conversion relate to postmodern deconversion?

I love this, because it is such an easy thing to say, but such a difficult thing to do. Similar to Van Gelder’s comments (p. 55) that it is a lot easier to say the church must critique its cultural context, than it is to actually conduct such a critique. Following along his comments on p. 137, I think we need to (1) establish an historical/cross-cultural perspective in our churches, (2) present a perspective of life that has depth and substance mediated through an integrated understanding of thought, experience and place, and (3) live and model unity within the Body of Christ in order to participate in God’s mission in our current culture. Basically we need to lead people through the difficult process of transitioning from a worldview shaped by the postmodern culture into a Christian/Biblical worldview. It is there, we just need to teach and model it.

*Hiebert provides a systems grid to analyze our culture. What is the mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual?

In stealing from H. Richard Niebuhr (Christ and Culture), I believe the mission of the church is to be transformative of the cultural systems that exist. I believe the first step of this is involvement in these systems, followed by careful analysis (because not all societal structures are evil p. 156) and we need to be engaged enough in these systems to diagnose them. The next step is to work towards being an agent of transformation in these systems. This could result in a lifetime of frustration and agony (and apparent failure), but I believe it is how we are called to engage. I do believe there are times in which a person will need to remove themselves and re-engage with these systems, and that there are also people that are called by God to teach and encourage those that are more directly involved, but I believe the ultimate goal of Christians should be to transform the culture in which they exist.

*Reflect on the symbols you encounter in your culture, local church, and the gospel. Discuss their meaning and identity in your life. For example, I come from Amish background; a horse & buggy symbolize a worldview and lifestyle that means faith and faithfulness for me. Today, my DeRosa bicycle, contemplative pottery and candles, and Taize music symbolize some similar values, identity & worldview as an Anabaptist "Resident Alien."

I have adopted a new technique recently in reading people, and myself for that matter. Take a look at the desktop on someone’s computer. As people are becoming more and more reliant upon their personal computers in the home and at work, they offer a revealing glimpse into people’s lives. What image do people have as a background on their desktop? What icons do they have on the desktop? How are those icons arranged? I think it is also accurate to look at a person’s checkbook registry and see what they spend their money on to read a person, but with credit cards, debit cards as well as the fact that it is pretty intrusive to look at someone’s checkbook, a glance at their desktop can be revealing. For example, I have a photograph of a sunrise in my backyard as my background image. I only have one icon on the desktop, but a number of icons across the bottom of the screen (Mac user). With the many competing commitments in my life, I have a strong desire for peacefulness and simplicity. I believe my desktop reveals this. When I think of some of the modern symbols in our society I also think of the cell-phone, and clothing people wear. The cell phone is becoming very individualized with colors and functions varying tremendously. One of the teens at church even glued plastic gems on the outside of her phone to be unique. One of the best questions I can ask teens today is “What does your cell phone tell me about you?” That is followed by a half hour of sharing compared to asking a teen to tell me about themselves or how things are going. I also think clothing (specifically labels and brands of clothes) are symbols as well. First clothes are important, and second they communicate something about the wearer.