{"id":20762,"date":"2019-01-13T06:28:24","date_gmt":"2019-01-13T14:28:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=20762"},"modified":"2019-01-13T06:28:24","modified_gmt":"2019-01-13T14:28:24","slug":"how-not-to-be-a-secular-missionary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/how-not-to-be-a-secular-missionary\/","title":{"rendered":"How (not) to be a secular missionary"},"content":{"rendered":"

When I reflect on my experience in Seminary, I realize that studying Christian history and theology did not give me any answers; but rather, made me comfortable with my questions. Instead of becoming one who was sure of what she believes, I became one who was not unravelled by how much she doubts. Perhaps this is why I was captivated by what James K. A. Smith wrote the introduction to his book, How (not) to be secular: reading Charles Taylor<\/em>. \u201cWhile stark fundamentalists\u2014either religious or secular\u2014get all the press, what should interest us are these fugitive expressions of doubt and longing, faith and questioning. These lived expressions of \u2018cross-pressure\u2019 are at the heart of the secular.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Indeed, we are in the secular age, and as Taylor explains, both believers and unbelievers occupy this same space, which he calls the \u201cimminent frame.\u201d The imminent frame \u201cconstitutes a \u2018natural\u2019 order to be contrasted to a \u2018supernatural\u2019 one, an \u2018imminent\u2019 world over against a possible \u2018transcendent\u2019 one.\u201d[2]<\/a> This imminent frame is so ubiquitous to us that it runs in the background of our consciousness, and acts as the starting point for our way of understanding the world. Smith explains, \u201cthe question isn\u2019t whether or not we in habit the imminent frame, but how.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

The challenge for us as believers in general, or for me as a missionary specifically, is to accept this reality of the secular age rather than base our engagement with the world on a wish that it simply wasn\u2019t so. Unfortunately, this is not what we tend to do. Thus, Smith astutely poses this question\/challenge:<\/p>\n

A lot of contemporary apologetics, bent on \u201cdefending the faith\u201d against the charges of the new atheists, seem to offer a transcendent \u201cspin\u201d as the alternative to immanent \u201cspin.\u201d \u00a0What might a Christian apologetic look like that offers a transcendent \u201ctake\u201d on our experience, even at point recognizing the force and persuasive power of an immanent \u201ctake\u201d?[4]<\/a>,[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

I think that this is one of the key issues that missionaries and missionary sending organizations need to address in order to create a process of evangelisation that is relevant in the secular age. As Smith observes, we as Christians can fail to acknowledge and validate the \u201cdifficulty of belief.\u201d[6]<\/a> When inhabit the immanent frame with a \u201ctranscendent spin,\u201d we can belittle or ignore the reality of those who have an \u201cimmanent spin.\u201d Add in the reality of the \u201crise of the nones,\u201d (the fact that many from Christian backgrounds are moving away from a place of faith), and we confront the possibility that our own \u201cimmanent spin\u201d provides too rigid a framework for the unavoidable presence of doubt within the immanent framework of our secular world.<\/p>\n

As I sought to consider my response to the challenge that Smith presents here, I was reminded of something I read in Velvet Elvis, <\/em>by Rob Bell.[7]<\/a> Bell describes theology as our communal attempt to understand God, and he explains that we can either have \u201cbrick wall\u201d theology or \u201ctrampoline spring\u201d theology. Brick wall theology could be compared to having a \u201ctranscendent spin\u201d in the lexicon of Smith. If one has \u201cbrick wall\u201d theology, and one of the bricks gets called into question then the whole thing crumbles. For example, imagine that seven-day creationism is part of one\u2019s theology\u2014and imagine that that person was confronted with undeniable proof that the earth was 14 billion years old. If the \u201cyoung-earth brick\u201d gets pulled from that wall, then that person believes all else\u2014the truth of the scriptures, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, the afterlife\u2014becomes suspect. Contrast this with \u201ctrampoline spring\u201d theology, which allows for changes in our understanding of God to emerge as we have changes in our understanding of the world\u2014or in the parlance of Smith, we recognize the \u201ccross-pressure\u201d that defines our culture. [8]<\/a> A person with \u201ctrampoline spring\u201d theology has more of a \u201ctranscendent take,\u201d (as opposed to a \u201ctranscendent spin\u201d) allowing for one spring (for example, young earth theology) to come off without compromise the entire structure or basis of their theology.<\/p>\n

Of course, this idea, as with many of Bell\u2019s ideas, gets dicey if taken to its extremes. A trampoline with only a handful of springs would cease to be a trampoline\u2014it would simply be a tarp. So I would propose that there are some immoveable springs that\u2014like load-bearing walls\u2014cannot be touched. But I do think that having a more flexible theology enables me to better witness to an unbeliever\u2014and to sympathize with the \u201cdifficulty of belief.\u201d Even more so, I know that such a theology enables me to stay in difficult conversations with adult children who are teetering on the edges of becoming \u201cnones\u201d themselves. And finally, \u201ctrampoline spring\u201d theology allows me to have fellowship and community with believers who differ from me on non-essential (non load-bearing) issues of faith.<\/p>\n

So perhaps this is the starting point for my response to Smith\u2019s challenge.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> James K. A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor<\/em> (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014). 14.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Smith. 92.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Smith, 93.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular<\/em>. 96.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> If I have understood correctly, Smith uses the word \u201cspin\u201d to describe an over-confident way of inhabiting the immanent frame (the assurance that one\u2019s way of thinking is correct) and the word \u201ctake\u201d as simply an unchallenged way of inhabiting the immanent frame (not having considered one\u2019s way of thinking as right or wrong, but blindly accepting it.)<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular<\/em>, 5.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith<\/em> (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2012).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular<\/em>, 104.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When I reflect on my experience in Seminary, I realize that studying Christian history and theology did not give me any answers; but rather, made me comfortable with my questions. Instead of becoming one who was sure of what she believes, I became one who was not unravelled by how much she doubts. Perhaps this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":106,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[835,833],"class_list":["post-20762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-charles-taylor","tag-james-k-a-smith","cohort-lgp8"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/106"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20762"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20762\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20763,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20762\/revisions\/20763"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}