Here is the problem: Within the youth of this nation there is developing two distinct groups fundamentally different than the way these groups have been construed in the past, primarily due to the influence of adults (parents, youth leaders, the media). I starting thinking about this a bit more while reading an article in Rolling Stone entitled “Teen Holy War” about BattleCry – a radicalized movement focused on Christian youth for the purpose of compelling them be at war (literally) with those forces opposed to their understanding of the Christian faith and American society.
The first group comprises those who are “secular” in the sense that they have not been raised in any faith tradition. I’ve known many parents who claim that they do not want to involved their children in any particular faith tradition when the kids are young because they want their kids to be able to choose for themselves what faith to adhere to when they are adults. (It sounds all altruistic and modern on the surface, but it is a cop-out, generally, for lazy parents. Sorry, but that is my experience.) Then, there are those parents who themselves are “secular” whether due to being atheists or being honest and admitting that they just have no real interest in faith development. I have to say, I have more respect for the second group than the first, but that’s just me and it doesn’t matter who I respect or not.
These “secular” kids grow up not knowing the conceptual frameworks of “faith” in general and religious faith in particular. What they know comes from the media and perhaps some few friends who are able to talk about their own faith experience/expression. (One downside of this way of raising children is that it gives the kids no foundation upon which to make judgments about what is or is not legitimate religious expression, opening them to exploitation and recruitment by cults, which are still quite active on college campuses). Enabling kids to make sound judgments as adults does not mean we do not expose them to something while they are children.
The second group are those who might be called “religionists” and who are the type of youth that are raised within the radicalized segments of American Christianity, BattleCry being the prime example. I went to BattleCry’s website right before the official launch. At the time, I thought this may be an interesting and productive effort, but I think I’m changing my mind. While I don’t think there are any like groups on the radical-left side of the Christian faith, the same way of thinking is certainly evident among many “liberal†groups and people.
I understand the primary instincts and emotions of the adults who propagate this way of thinking and being concerning the faith, culture, economics, politics, and other religious expressions outside of Christianity. At the base level, the reasons are good – giving the kids the tools they need to be open and honest about their faith, protecting them from exploitation by unscrupulous marketeers and the like, giving them a sense of self-esteem even when ridiculed within the general culture, exercising their Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, and passing on the faith to the next generation. All good things, frankly.
The problem is that the adults of groups that include the politicized Religious Right, radicalized leftist groups, and youth ministries such as BattleCry, is that they demand a form of the faith that is confrontational in the extreme, very narrow in its thinking, fundamentalist in its view and practice of the faith, uncompromising with anyone who holds differing viewpoints and beliefs, and then taking the next step of demonizing the other and declaring them “enemies” that must be properly dealt with.
So, in the coming years we will be confronted with the battle between these two groups as they grow into young adults. Of course, numbers of them will moderate their way of thinking and being and some will even crossover to the “other side.” Yet, patterns of understanding, thinking, and behaving will have already been imprinted. If something doesn’t change, and soon, the current “Culture Wars” will seem like a garden party in comparison. Radicalized Secularists vs. Radicalized Religionists. (Or, in the case of BattleCry, radicalized Christian Religionists vs. Everyone else) What will be lost is civility, the ability to live peacefully in a democratic society, loving one’s neighbor as oneself, and a culture that is free and respectful of difference.
What is lost is the middle group of balance and thoughtfulness. What will be/is being lost is the ability of the two extremes – “secular” young people growing into adulthood and the “religionist” young people growing into adulthood – to understand each other, to work together, and the ability to compromise within the over all system so to build a respective and civil society where freedom of thought, speech, and action are still considered inalienable rights.
What must be done, frankly and regrettably, is that the “middle-way” must be asserted forcefully enough to be heard and recognized but not so much as to become a third group within the radicalization. What must be done, too, is support for those forms of the Christian faith that promote intentional maturity into adulthood, intentional faith development and maturation, intentional programs that encourage respect and understanding of differences (without political correctness or identity politics), and those programs that allow students to have a firm foundation build strongly and yet allows them to question and search for themselves. This is readily possible within Conservative Christianity and within Liberal Christianity, but rarely possible in Anti-Liberal Christianity or Anti-Conservative Christianity (and this is where we are in most of American faith-politics right now).
Here is a YouTube video produced by BattleCry, and I think the message itself is important and good – we need to do something to reach our young people.
Here is a Nightline piece on “Teen Mania” and “BattleCry”
Eatable Vestments
So, Reverend Lovejoy and his wife on the Simpsons rekindled their sex life after getting Homer and Marge’s mattress. (To understand how they got the mattress in the first place, you will have had to have watched the episode.)
The Lovejoy’s station wagon pulls up in front of the house. They jump out and run towards the front door. The Rev. Lovejoy says, “You put on the Michael Bolton CD while I put on my eatable vestments.”
Eatable vestments. That’s funny.
Emergent and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Speaking of the Church of England, just a couple new links of the melding of Emergent and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
hOME
“techno-mass” Listen to the Gloria and St. Patrick’s Breastplate in a slightly different way.
Speaking of Lexington, KY (when?)
vine+branches
Oh, we Anglicans
I found this graphic on the Vindicated weblog. I stole it off of the Flickr site. Now, I know this is the mother church, the Church of England, but the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree for us Episcopalians.
Will I arrive?
We truly know not what our future holds. I do not know.
“Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.”
If we know what is in store, we may never arrive.
What is “Anglicanism?”
I was talking this morning with Fr. Cullen after Morning Prayer as I walked to the subway and he walked to the gym. We were discussing what to do about the Study Guild provided by the national Church Center to be discussed by the Church concerning the Primate’s Communique. We were lamenting the mess we are in.
Anglicanism is not an organizational structure. Anglicanism is a way of approaching the faith. Anglicanism is realized through organizational structures, but not contained within them. ( “Catholicism” may be applied commonly to the Church of Rome, but Rome cannot contain the faith “Catholic.” Yes, lots of disagreement about whether that is true or not – whether Cranmer was a heretic – yadda, yadda, yadda.) It rests within a notion of “Common Law.” Perhaps, this is becoming more difficult to live into the further we move away from the British understanding of the “Common” – “Common Prayer”
It is a shame when those structures that are supposed to be the embodiment of Anglican Faith tend to no longer act Anglican. Anglicanism will survive, by the grace of God, even if those structures do not.
Emergent and Contextualization
The following comes from regular e-mail updates I get from Emergent Village (the website for the ongoing Emergent Church conversation). Brian McLeran posted about his experiences this past year traveling all over the world and listening to many different and other voices.
From Brian McLaren:
“I have become convinced of two things in this travel. First, we Christians in the West or North (and especially in the United States) live in an echo-chamber; it’s so hard for us to hear “the voice of the other” over the clamor of our own incessant and redundant broadcasting. Second, we desperately need to hear these voices, for our own good and for the potential of increased partnership in the future. I hope to introduce as many of these voices to as many people as I can in the months and years ahead.
“For example, in a recent trip to Malaysia (arranged by the hospitable and charming master-networker Sivin Kit and friends), I met a young Malaysian theologian named Sherman Kuek. Sherman sent me a piece he wrote recently on contextualization and tradition, from the perspective of someone involved in the emergent conversation in Asia.”
Sherman is an itinerant minister and an Adjunct Lecturer in Christian Theology at Seminari Theoloji Malaysia (STM). He spends much of his time journeying with his friends in reflecting on faith, life, and culture in a profoundly theological and yet simple way. Sherman blogs on www.ShermanKuek.net.
From: Sherman YL Kuek, OSL
In speaking of contextualisation, there are (rather simplistically) two trends of thought:
1) The gospel consists of a “static universal core”, a series of articulations which is time insensitive and perennially unchanging. The contextualisation project is simply about enfleshing this core with a cultural facade for the facilitation of communication and understanding. The core, essentially, does not change.
2) The gospel consists of a “dynamic universal core”, a series of articulations which is time sensitive and perennially changing with the development of our theological understanding. The contextualisation project, whilst being about the cultural expression of this “dynamic universal core”, is also about allowing the enfleshment process to provoke us to re-examine the legitimacy and relevance of the universal core. This means that the universal core, by its sheer dynamic nature, is vulnerable to being modified, changed, eradicated, retained, or reaffirmed in accordance with that deemed necessary.
I suspect that the “emerging” people are those who are more ready to embrace the second of the two approaches, and not anyone is willing to sit well with this methodological vulnerability.
But anyone who is seriously going to engage his/her context authentically would almost immediately see that the second of the two is probably the only way by which one can be authentically contextual in his/her theological methodology.
II
This section dwells on some further sustained thoughts pertaining to the “dynamic universal core”. If we posit that the dynamic universal core is “time sensitive and perennially changing with the development of our theological understanding”, what reasonable sources possess legitimate ascendancy over the dynamism of the core?
It is open knowledge that the emerging people are serious about engaging with the dominant culture confronting the Christian gospel (in the West the postmodern culture, and in Asia perhaps the postcolonial ethos). First and foremost, this engagement is about the vulnerability of allowing the dominant culture to challenge the Christian gospel with serious questions regarding the adequacy, accuracy, and even the absolute rightness of the latter.
But it is probably a misunderstanding beyond proportions that these people engaging with culture are actually permitting the culture to redefine the core. It is most likely that culture raises questions which shed doubt on the perennial universality of the core, but not necessarily that culture redefines the core.
In my observation, it seems to me that whilst culture is permitted the role of the “interrogator”, the contextual thinkers are going back into the Great Christian Tradition to seek solutions for these problems raised by culture. They do not claim that culture itself provides the answers. They seem to have an implicit understanding that the Great Christian Tradition itself possesses more than a sufficient wealth of wisdom to provide plausible solutions for challenges posed by culture. The Great Christian Tradition causes one to expand and deepen the core such that one realises that his definition and demarcation of the core may have been overly limited and unnecessarily fossilised.
Thus, it is not uncommon for contextual thinkers to move beyond the boundaries of their own limited traditions (i.e. their denominational / traditional boundaries and familiar scope of theological positions) towards other even older traditions in search of responses to the problems posed by culture. This explains the openness of the emerging people towards the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions and their willingness to listen to other ecclesial voices beyond that with which they are familiar. Again, this is not something deemed acceptable to every Christian thinker of every tradition. Some traditions are, by their sheer nature, implicitly closed to conversations which challenge the rudiments of their all-familiar categories.
The Christian faith is more than 500 years old. In fact, the memory of the Christian Church goes back beyond 2,000 years. The contextual thinker holds on to this wealth of ecclesial life and therefore understands that there is no need for theological insecurity, for he has a long, long history – a Great Story of which he is a part – consisting of multiple voices of wisdom who have come before him and who would be able to infuse wisdom and impart solutions in his endeavour to be a relevant voice within the present scheme of life. This is the reservoir of ecclesial jurors for the contextual thinker which many others fail to observe or choose to ignore all together.
For him, the challenges posed by cultural confrontations do not cause him to pander into a state of intimidation and self-preserving defensiveness, for he looks beyond himself and his restrained traditional familiarity; and behold, a world of endless possibilities is open before him as he gleans from the voices of his many Fathers who once treaded the path on which he now finds himself. Someone aptly comments (and the contextual thinker certainly mirrors it well): “It’s not about the old ways, it’s about the much older ways”.
I want to add that, and it is my humble opinion, that Anglicanism provides the medium in which all these things can be realized in a more full and complete way. Why? Because Anglicanism encompasses within itself all these indices – ancient and mysterious faith from its Catholic side going back to the introduction of Catholic Christianity in Britain during the earliest days of the Church, in its Evangelical side with the long, storied history of vibrant personal faith and missionary zeal, and in its Broad Church tradition which pushes the church to question and think diligently.
Yet, we are caught up in pulling ourselves apart because of, what? Oh, lots of reasons. The only thing that matters is that the genius of Anglicanism is being compromised and made ineffectual by those determined to do the unAnglican thing of imposing their perspective on all others. We are missing the door open to us because of our own myopia and selfishness. What a shame! What a tragedy.
iPod Shuffle – 4:45 pm
On a relatively nice Wed-nes-day, music…
1.’Till Tuesday, What About Love, from ‘Welcome Home’
2. Original Wicked Cast, Something Bad, from ‘Wicked Soundtrack’
3. Rufus Wainwright, Oh What A World, from ‘Want One’
4. Halloween Alaska, Telling Me, from ‘Halloween Alaska
5. Smashing Pumpkins, Zero, from ‘Rotten Apples’
6. Kat Williams, Here’s That Rainy Day, from ‘Here’s That Rainy Day’
7. Anna Nalick, Breath (2AM), from single
8. U2, Rejoince, from ‘October’
9. Sigur Ros, Hoppipolia, from ‘Takk…’
10. Silversun Pickups, Common Reacter, from ‘Carnavas’
11. Snow Patrol, Same, from ‘Final Straw’
The rules, for bloggers who want to play:
Get your ipod or media-player of choice, select your whole music collection, set the thing to shuffle (i.e., randomized playback), then post the first ten songs that come out. No cheating, no matter how stupid it makes you feel!
Idea originally from Fr. Jim Tucker of Dappled Things
The Word of the Lod
Quoting Habakkuk 1:5, in The Acts of the Apostles 13:41 –
” ‘ Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.’ ”
What may be the “something in our days” that the Lord is doing – something that we might hardly believe?
The exact quote from Habakkuk reads as follows:
“Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.”
One might find it interesting to read further on in Habakkuk. My question above isn’t meant to follow the course of action found in Habakkuk, but to simply ask us to think about what God might have up-his-sleeve for our time – beyond what we can think or believe, beyond our wildest imaginations. God usually works beyond our imaginations, I think. We need to expand our expectations and hopes – to begin to understand and see through the perspective of God’s Way of things. There is another verse in the O.T. (don’t remember where right this moment) that says something like, “God’s eyes go to and fro looking for someone to prosper.”
Another example of the sea change…
I’ve been saying for the last 10 years or so that there is a generational sea change being realized in North America, particularly in the U.S. To be honest, I’m less familiar with what is going on in Canada, but I suspect something similar.
I’ve said over and over again that the tail end of Generation X, Gen Y, and whatever is next, are of a different temperament when it comes to what resonates with them within the whole Christian melee and spirituality more generally. The Social Gospel of liberal, mainline Protestantism is dead (not to suggest working with the poor is dead, however!), the Baby-Boomer Seeker church experience has run its course, the liberal “god is dead” or perhaps “Process” theological perspectives have shown themselves to be not very satisfying to most people. The younger generations, so demographers and generationalists suggest, seek after something more solid and ancient (read, not trendy), something that restores a sense of mystery, and something that is respectful and none-condescending – unlike much of what passes for “modern” church.
I’ve said before that I hear more and more from younger people that they prefer the language of Rite I (Elizabethan English), they like the more formal liturgies, that they find resonances with contemplative and monastic-like spiritual experiences.
Now, I know that what I hear does not represent all young people and there are those who want absolutely nothing to do with High Church liturgy, old sounding English, or contemplative quiet. That’s fine and good, but on the whole, there is a difference between our parents’ generation and the younger generations. I find that older people in the Church (the 1928 Prayer Book generation) and the young seem to have much more in common then the big group in the middle that now controls the Church. Funny, how that works. But, it is a good thing that within The Episcopal Church, and Anglicanism at least as it has been traditionally practiced, there is an allowance for the flourishing of different forms to meet the differing needs of various peoples.
I’ve also found that young people tend to want to be challenged to think and seek, but not told what to think or do by “authorities.” They respect the authorities generally, but want them to help them seek and find rather than to indoctrinate them. No easy believe-ism for these folks!
Groups that do challenge, that take seriously the young people’s wants and desires and NEEDS, that provide a way to the faith that shows seriousness and respect, are growing. Those that pander to political and social whims are not. I believe we will shortly witness a migration out of the neo-conservative political and social “Culture War” churches.
So, I found it interesting today when I took two young seminarians to lunch. One is 23 (or 22, I don’t remember) and will probably be our seminarian this fall. The other is a young married guy. A lot of our conversation revolved around the Church, the young, what is happening, and what the future may hold. I listened, mostly (at least I think I listened, mostly).
These are smart guys. They go to General. They talked about their class and the attitudes and desires of their classmates. They even talked about an obvious difference between themselves and the “1960’s hold-overs” that reign right now in the Church. “If the church can survive past the baby-boomer generation, there might be hope,” from a rector friend of theirs who is a baby-boomer but recognizes both the good his generation has enabled and the baby they threw out with the bathwater.
I look at what is happening among the Emergent Church crowd (See the Episcopal/Lutheran Church of the Apostles in Seattle, Washington). Anyone who does not recognize the sea change either doesn’t want to acknowledge what is happening or is truly blind. Again, not all are going to like High Church liturgy, etc., but there is a fundamental change nevertheless.
These two guys said there is even a semi-secret group at General that is regularly saying the Rosary. The Oxford Tradition of General is not dead, despite the 1960’s “reformers” who want it to be so. How frustrating it must been for these folks whose life work has been to remake the Church into something else (what, I don’t know), only to see young people raising the hands in front of them saying, “NO!” The “reformers” are now “The Man,” and they are experiencing the rebellion of the youngsters and they don’t know what to do with it (after all, aren’t they the ones who are supposed to cast down tradition and authority and institutions?). Their work for naught, perhaps. Who knows…
One guy talked about his wife at Yale. An Episcopal Church in Newhaven has a regular chanted, candlelit Compline and the sanctuary is packed with young people. The rector doesn’t know what to do – totally surprised by the result. I’m not.
Today, in the New York Times, an article entitled “Monks Who Play Punk,” about a relatively new Roman Catholic monastic order in the Bronx.
“Upstairs, a 100 or more young people lingered in the quiet, candle-lighted sanctuary after an hour of prayer and song in front of the Eucharist. Brother Columba Jordan strummed his guitar and sang in a soft voice…. Two friars with heads bowed sat on either side of the alter, listening to the confessions of men and women waiting patiently in line.”
This is New York City, folks. I see this kind of thing all over the place! And, then, there is also Revolution Church, which gets at the same thing in a very different way.
“The monthly holy hour of prayer and song and ensuing music festival are part of an event called Catholic Underground…” [By the way, some of the monks have a Funk and Punk band, complete with long beards and gray, hooded habits.] “…the creation of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, a religious order founded two decades ago this year in the Melrose section of the Bronx. Members own no personal possessions and beg even for their food. Nevertheless, the order’s 10 friars are bursting with new recruits at a moment when many Roman Catholic religious orders are struggling simply to maintain their current numbers.”
“Yet despite the simplicity of the order’s lifestyle, the Fr4iars of the Renewal see their message as one othat has a powerful appeal to young people in the 21st century.
‘We don’t advertise, we don’t promise you glow-in-the-dark Frisbees, none of that,” said the Rev. Bernard Murphy, the order’s head. ‘Young people are idealistic, and so we live in a community that lives a high ideal.'”
“‘The millennial generation is a spiritual generation,’ said Brother Paul Bednarczyk, of the vocation conference. ‘I think they are searching for meaning in their life, and I think they are looking to do something that is going to have an impact on the world.'”
In the article, as it ends, the are a couple comments made by people who the order ministers to. We read comments like, “When you’re running on an empty tank, they’re pretty much there to fill up the tank;” or this from a women who lost hear let when she had an encounter with a fire truck, “Ever since I starting coming here, I feel better about myself. I want to live again. Everything I eat here is spiritual.”
Interesting, ah?
I’m afraid a good many people in The Episcopal Church (and within many churches!) still don’t get it. Not only do they not get it, they actively try to keep their heads in the sand. As a seminary friend of mine used to say, “I can’t wait until this generation of leaders in the Church retires. Then maybe we can get back to being the Church.” I understand the point and count-point between all generations. There is always idealism among the young and a reaction to their parent’s generation. This is nothing new. Yet, I still say there is as much of a profound change in this generation and the Boomers as we saw between the War II generation and the Boomers. We shall see what happens.