{"id":21908,"date":"2019-02-28T15:51:57","date_gmt":"2019-02-28T23:51:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=21908"},"modified":"2020-06-28T19:01:33","modified_gmt":"2020-06-29T02:01:33","slug":"i-have-an-itch-would-you-mind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/i-have-an-itch-would-you-mind\/","title":{"rendered":"I have an itch; would you mind?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>I was conned, misled and entrapped in the most cunning of ways. Calling a book \u201cTo Change the World\u201d when the content of the book argues that such a thing is not possible, is a writer\u2019s sleight-of-hand at its best.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Personally, the book scratched an itch that I have had for a number year. The itch is more like a bad case of eczema that has been almost untreatable without facing the truth: healing means isolating parts of my long history with the church growth movement. It\u2019s entirely possible that much of it was wrong.<\/p>\n

The readings of the last few weeks have considered the nature of our social and economic transformation of the last five centuries. The intermingling of the renaissance, reformation theology, enlightenment and scientific categorisation\/systematisation and philosophical sociology have all had a voice in the \u2018coming to be\u2019 of the modern western world. Moreover, of course, it is all too easy to ignore the cultural formation of the 365 European wars (national and civil) of the last 500 years.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Given all that we have experienced as culturally diverse humans, Hunter\u2019s Basic question is simple, \u201cHow is religious faith possible in the late modern world?… Is it possible? How does the encounter of religious faith with modernity change the nature and experience of faith? Alternatively, for that matter, modernity itself?\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

At the heart of his three essays is a question of culture. How is it formed? How it is changed? And who are the true change agents in any culture\u2019s history?<\/p>\n

Four years earlier, in 2001, Charles Taylor wrote a journal article titled, Two Theories of Modernity.<\/em>[4]<\/a> Taylor conceived of two opposed categories of modernity which he called \u2018cultural\u2019 and \u2018a<\/em>cultural\u2019.<\/em> The former is a recognition of civilisations with their own unique human culture. For example, medieval Europe was a different culture to our present western society \u2013 they are not the same. A<\/em>cultural modernity is a view of global humanity that emphasises the demise traditional society and the rise of the \u2018modern\u2019; a set of transformations that any culture can go through and will be forced to go through because they transcend history. That of course was Vincent Miller\u2019s understanding in his book, Consuming Religion; <\/em>we extract historic objects from their original context in order to make use of them for current consumption with a different meaning.[5]<\/a> For mechanisms, a<\/em>cultural modernity uses management, strategic planning, big car parks, comfort and user-friendliness as its primary tools for social development and has thus been the framework on which secularisation expanded. Also, because secularisation is a movement away from religious ideas and institutions as beneficial for human wellbeing, a<\/em>cultural modernism\u2019s social equations, programmes and techniques have become the arbiters of human meaning and purpose.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

From the above, it follows that Miller would write, \u201cI contend that the dominant ways of thinking about culture and cultural change are flawed, for they are based on both specious social science and problematic theology. In brief, the model on which various strategies are based not only does not work, but it cannot work.\u201d[7]<\/a> Combine this with Os Guinness\u2019s reasonable argument that a<\/em>cultural modernity is anti-intellectual (it prefers empirical data over theory), then society, along with the modernised church, is prone to a mindless \u2018development\u2019 pragmatism that never finally succeeds because it is never reflective about its agenda.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

So, going back to my uncomfortable itch, I would argue that the unreflective agenda of the Church Growth Movement adopted a<\/em>cultural modernity\u2019s tools of social development to reshape the church. Why? Because in order to achieve this redevelopment, the leadership and management practices of a<\/em>cultural modernity have been incrementally applied. The emphasis on numerical growth through programmatic evangelism, meeting homogenous social needs and the adoption of secular leadership methodology, is ample evidence of this.<\/p>\n

In my 30 years of ministry, most of the pastoral ministry talk has been centred on the need for leadership, and that leadership discussion has been about \u201cChanging the Church to Change the World\u201d. Yet the question, \u2018what are we changing the world to?\u2019 is rarely considered. In most cases, it appears to be the desire for a certain group of Christians to form the whole world in their leaders\u2019 particular image.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Unfortunately, the images are typically a<\/em>cultral \u2013 they can be applied anywhere to anyone without reference to their civilisations culture. That being the case, I agree with Hunter\u2019s assertion that we abandon talk of \u201credeeming the culture,\u201d \u201cadvancing the kingdom,\u201d \u201cbuilding the kingdom,\u201d \u201ctransforming the world,\u201d \u201creclaiming the culture,\u201d \u201creforming the culture,\u201d and \u201cchanging the world.\u201d [10]<\/a> Christians need to discover again who they are in their part of the world, not how they can change it. The latter has been a failed exercise, and a quick look at countries like New Zealand reveal why. In 1993 Elaine Bolitho researched the growth and decline of the Baptists in New Zealand, the largest denomination in the country. She found that church growth was directly linked to church decline. Baptist \u2018nicked\u2019 congregants from the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Brethren and burnt-out Pentecostals in the 70\u2019s and 80\u2019s.[11]<\/a> The developing leadership model was about growth and transforming society. However, by the early 90\u2019s growth had stopped, and decline set in. People were leaving the church altogether; a<\/em>cultural ministry had done its damage. We weren\u2019t changing the world, we were messing up the church. The questions we should have been asking were questions from exile: \u201cWho are \u2018we\u2019 and who am \u2018I\u2019 in a strange land?\u201d<\/p>\n

Hunter makes a good point in his second essay, \u201cRethinking Power\u201d.[12]<\/a> The eight-century prophets spoke from within a theocracy, or what the people believed was a theocracy. The aching question is, \u2018why need prophets in a theocracy?\u2019 Because Israel was doing deals with the devil (international security arrangements), while still claiming allegiance to Yahweh. They lost any sense of who they truly were.[13]<\/a> The problem, Hunter rightly claims, is that self-righteous western Christianised countries (especially the United States of America) confuse themselves with Israel. Left and Right wing Christian groups see themselves as prophets to the country when they clearly are not. In a similarly depressing way, New Zealand Christians prophetically announce that the church must \u2018recover\u2019 its place in society and reclaim our position as a \u2018Christian Country\u2019, which ironically, we have never been. Indeed, I\u2019m not sure there is any such thing. Until we realise that, we will continue to play the a<\/em>cultural game of \u201cHow NOT to Change the World\u201d.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> James Davidon Hunter, The Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> A basic List of conflicts in Europe https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe<\/a> (These exclude America, the Pacific, Africa and China.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid. ix<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Charles Taylor, \u201cTwo Theories of Modernity,\u201d The International Scope Review 3, no. 5 (2001).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Vincent J. Miller, Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture<\/em> (London: Continuum, 2005).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Taylor, \u201cTwo Theories of Modernity\u201d. 7-8<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Hunter, The Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em>. 5<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Os Guinness, Dining With the Devil<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993). 45<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Hunter, The Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em>. 260<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Ibid. 280<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Elaine E. Bolitho, Meet the Baptists<\/em> (Auckland: Christian Research association of New Zealand, 1993). 114<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Hunter, The Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em>. 97ff<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a>\u00a0 Ibid. 147f<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bibiliography<\/p>\n

Bolitho, Elaine E. Meet the Baptists<\/em>. Auckland: Christian Research association of New Zealand, 1993.<\/p>\n

Guinness, Os. Dining With the Devil<\/em>. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.<\/p>\n

Hunter, James Davidon. The Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World<\/em>. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.<\/p>\n

Miller, Vincent J. Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture<\/em>. London: Continuum, 2005.<\/p>\n

Taylor, Charles. \u201cTwo Theories of Modernity.\u201d The International Scope Review 3, no. 5 (2001): 1\u20139.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I was conned, misled and entrapped in the most cunning of ways. Calling a book \u201cTo Change the World\u201d when the content of the book argues that such a thing is not possible, is a writer\u2019s sleight-of-hand at its best.[1] Personally, the book scratched an itch that I have had for a number year. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":124,"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":[5],"class_list":["post-21908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-hunter","cohort-lgp9"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21908","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\/124"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21908"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21908\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21911,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21908\/revisions\/21911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}