Session #2: Tammie

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

Analyzing my church in terms of Van Gelder's typology is an interesting exercise in that I can see influences from more than one of the typologies at work.

Looking at the typologies, it seems the ministry center model of the 1970s/1980s is the closest match as we offer ministries much as one would expect in a congregation based on meeting needs. There's a women's group, youth group (separated into junior and senior high), senior citizen group and Wednesday night clubs for children. There are Sunday School classes for most ages. It is often said at our church that we have classes for all ages, but I would have to respectfully disagree as I have yet to see a class developed for college/young adults.

Yet, as the church was established over 100 years ago, I see traces of the institutionalism that would characterize the Old First typology.

At the same time, I sense - and have talked with others who have the sense that the church is on the verge of something new. Curiously, none of us are entirely sure what direction that something new might be.

*What is your response to Shenk's thesis that the church in Christendom is not missional?
Shenk raises valid points in his thesis. After all, if Christianity is the accepted norm in society, there would have been no perceived need for missional thinking. Soon, as we have seen in the history of the church, complacency replaces the tension that existed in the earliest centuries of the church as it lived outside the "acceptable" roles of society. Church as an institution had no vision to live incarnationally as a means of winning people over to Christ because it was assumed everyone was already there. That created the potential that exists to this day for people to live in the margins, to exist as square pegs trying to fit into the round holes of the institutional church in North America. That attitude is changing, however, as more and more churches are latching onto the idea of being missional, rather than relying on traditional means of evangelism which seem to be based in an 'if you build it, they will come' principle. For example, there are people like those at The Simple Way in Philadelphia who live in one a known bad neighborhood and do such things as create community gardens, help children with homework after school and stand with the homeless when the city enforces various laws against them. (Information in example is as I recall it from a book called The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne.)

*Discuss your reflection on Kaiser's proposal that secularism is not a permanent worldview in our culture.
Reading through Kaiser's outline proved one thing - culture is dynamic with subtle and not so subtle shifts in one era giving rise to wholesale cultural change in the following generation. On this basis alone, Kaiser is likely correct in his thesis that secularism can not stand as no worldview seems to have persisted throughout the centuries.

I found it striking that something seemingly insignificant or routine in one era would contribute to a more pervasive cultural change in a later time. For example, the factory systems of the 1900s seemed a model of efficiency in their ability to mass produce the commodities that kept (and still keep) America running. It never occurred to me that the mechanistic way of thinking necessary to the operations of such a system could be a contributor to the tendency people of our own day have to think about their everyday live separately from God rather than to see Him as central to their every waking moment.

That makes the question of what follows after secularism even more interesting to me. If this separation of work and faith rose from an industrial society, what happens to faith as we evolve into a technologically-oriented, post-industrial society in which the work force is becoming increasingly service-oriented?

*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?
Participating in God's mission in our current culture means understanding the culture and finding ways to translate the gospel message in way that is relevant to postmoderns. For example, Van Gelder describes the postmodern culture as being prone to imagery without substance - a contention I find curious because in my work with youth, I find an equal number of students who crave depth along with the imagery. That is the challenge we face. Yes, the postmodern may value imagery, but we don't have to give them empty imagery. We can give them imagery full of meaning and depth as we communicate the gospel.

Personally, I think it is impossible to categorize the gospel as premodern, postmodern or just plain modern. Each of the eras that have preceded us have been able to communicate the gospel message through the lens of their culture and, after much thought and much frustration (perhaps), we in the postmodern era will find ways to communicate the gospel in a meaningful fashion as well. As I thought about this question, I was reminded about something one of the students in my Sunday School class said last week. We were doing an exercise on Colossians 1:15-17 (NIV):

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It was a lectio divina sort of exercise in which the students read the verse and picked out a word that stood out to them and explained why. One of my students picked out what may be the most overlooked word in that verse. She picked out the word "is" because it reminds her that the work of Christ is timeless.

Communicating that timelessness to a fractured worldview is the crux of the relationship between conversion and postmodern deconversion. If deconversion can be described as the relativism and fragmentation we see in the postmodern worldview, then conversion would mean not just believing in Christ on an intellectual level, but also allowing a gospel-based worldview to transform the way life is lived, creating a holistic and integrated life.

*Hiebert provides a systems grid to analyze our culture. What is the mission of the church to the systemic powers human and spiritual?
Whether we are looking at a modern or postmodern view, we need to be aware of how that view affects our culture and society as well as our churches. For example, Hiebert examines how the postmodern mind is not centered on history but on what's happening in the news as it is present-minded. In this context, perhaps, it is the role of the church to recognize this and to help to connect the postmodern to the story of God in history, the way He is working in the present and what His word says about the future.

To take an example from the modern viewpoint, one of the more powerful critiques Hiebert offers is that of individualism which saw the linguistic shift from soul to self and the shift in the church from a covenant community to a spectator sport. This is something that has become all too familiar in our churches. In my reading of blogs and talking with others, it seems that many churches are just a place to which many people go or belong, but hold no stake in its function as evidenced by the fact that a core group of people are usually the ones filling needed volunteer ministry positions.

In sum, we are called to be salt and light, so we need to understand the our society and culture to know where and how that salt and light can best be used to bring others into the kingdom.

*Reflect on the symbols you encounter in your culture, local church, and the gospel ...

Some of the symbols encountered in the culture, church and the gospel have become such a part of my life by this time that it is hard to think of them in individual settings. And, certainly there are cultural symbols that mean nothing to me, such as hip-hop clothing styles, fancy cars or golf clubs, to name a few.

Symbols in my life denote a desire for communication whether it is communication from God to me, me to God or God to culture through me. For example, there's always a Bible, one form of God's communication to his people, in my possession whether it is on my Palm PDA (another symbol?) or in actual book form. Just as often, there's a laptop computer or the already-mentioned PDA or a journal - all of which can be used to capture reflections on what I have read or maybe something that has crossed my mind as a drive to work or a passing thought that might make an interesting blog post or lesson for the youth group.

A desire to communicate is also found in my life, and in the life of most of the universe these days, in the ever-present mp3 players or cell phones. Music serving as a communicator of all types of messages depending on what might be playing at any given time.

As far as the local church, like Jason, our church has a simple cross at the front. There are always two candles lit and a Bible placed on the altar. It is interesting to me that the same symbols can be found in my home, but are used in such a different way. For example, the Bible on the altar at church is rather decorative; mine is for everyday use. The candles on the altar are just two simple taper candles, but I use numerous candles in my personal devotions from time to time. And, setting up a prayer area similar to one that I might personally use caused an unexpected reaction from some in my church who did not read them in the same manner, symbolically speaking.