The Anchor and Compass

“This is a philosophical story we are in, and we will confront opposite philosophies at each fork of [the] road . . . .  Time and history do not matter now.  The same philosophies, the same alternatives, the same choices that confront you in your world, we ancients had in ours.” — Peter Kreeft, The Journey

In this remarkable little book, philosopher Peter Kreeft presents an allegory after the model of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress and C. S. Lewis’s Pilgrim’s Regress.  “I thought about entitling it Pilgrim’s Egress,” he writes, “since it is about a pilgrimage to find the meaning of life, and about an egress, or escape, from ten wrong turns on this pilgrimage.”  Kreeft opted instead simply for The Journey, and in it he imagines himself being led by Socrates on a quest for the meaning of life.

This journey begins in Plato’s philosophical “cave” with the first challenge set forth before a step is even taken in any direction:  “Shall I question?  Shall I go on this quest for truth at all?”  The first philosopher who appears to dissuade “Kreeft” from proceeding is Epicurus, who beckons him to simply stay in his “garden of delights” and “make the most of the only world you have”–that of worldly pleasures set before you.  “Eat, drink, and be merry.”

Tempted, “Kreeft” asks Socrates if he can provide a reason why traveling on would be better than staying.  “I cannot,” Socrates responds.  “I am asking you to question  . . . , to wonder.  Philosophy begins in wonder, you know.”

“Suppose I choose not to wonder?”

“Then you have chosen not to choose.  Remember–you do not have a choice between some philosophy and no philosophy, only between good philosophy and bad philosophy.”

And so they begin.  As they make their way, they encounter ten “crossroads” where various philosophical or religious figures attempt to convince them they’ve either arrived at their destination or why there’s no sense in going further.  Each crossroads takes them through a progression of humanistic worldviews:  skepticism, cynicism, nihilism, materialism, relativism, atheism.

Having discerned the limitations of each potential “stop,” the travelers must now face the biggest question of all:  how (or does) God fit into all of this?  And if so, what is the nature of this God?  New religious options arise:  pantheism, deism, polytheism, monotheism.  What’s to be made of the claims of the Jews to be “God’s Chosen People” and the source of a “Messiah” in whom alone the fullest and truest meaning of life could be found?

Kreeft’s The Journey makes an excellent companion to go along with this class.  In it we see the Socratic Method employed to understand the premises of various worldviews and follow them to their logical ends (their telos).  Partly from Kreeft, partly from Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World, and partly from twenty years of broad reading and reflection, I’ve come to see five themes that transcend time and culture in which all worldviews are anchored.  The themes are not entirely progressive–that is, one is not completely surpassed by the next.  But most have enjoyed a period of ascendance and cultural hegemony that pushed others to the margins of cultural influence.

1. What’s Your Story? – understanding the world through the imagination.

• All human civilizations begin with a “myths,” stories which provide answers for the “Three Big WV Questions.”  These stories are rooted in culture and language, they incorporate narrative archetypes, and they often include an element of revelation.
• Myth and religion in early human history are intricately connected; both use stories to provide imaginative explanations for human origins and reveal deep truths about the human experience.
• What do ancient sacred writings, drama and literature reveal about truth, beauty, goodness, and the nature of our humanity? Where should we exercise prudence and caution in the realm of imagination?

2. Making Sense of Things – understanding the world through senses & experience.

• “Natural philosophy” in many civilizations challenged imaginative stories and supernatural explanations as the valid ways of understanding the “real” world.
• Naturalism focuses on what can be gleaned only by experience using the senses, leading ultimately to science as a primary foundation for explaining the world and the materialist presumption that only physical substances and forces constitute “reality”.
• How do science and empirical methodology shape our understanding of our humanity and our place in the natural world? How do we respond to scientific reductions of all things to mere materiality?

3. What’s on Your Mind? – understanding the world through reason, logic, intellect.

• Classical philosophers in the Greco-Roman world, Asia, and Medieval Europe considered “thinking man” one of the defining characteristics of our humanity.
• The relationship between mind and body and the role of reason and logic was a primary concern of philosophy, theology, and ultimately the social sciences in modern times.
• How do classic philosophical questions show us how to live life in proper relationship to our world and our fellow humans? What is the source of morality and ethics? What defines goodness, truth, beauty?  Is it all up to us, or is there more

4.  How Do You Feel About That? – understanding the world through feelings & emotions.

• Enlightenment Rationalism emphasized the “thinking individual” and his/her place in society over traditional structures of authority.  Optimistic faith in progress manifest in social reform movements and the politics of human rights.
• Modern Romanticism revived the place of the imagination, giving primacy to the “feeling self” as the sole interpreter of transcendental truth.  “Creative genius” is celebrated and idolized in the “high culture” of the arts.
• Is progress inevitable?  What role do our feelings play in our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world? Where are the lines between self and society? How do the arts reveal goodness, truth, beauty?

5.  Truth Be Told – understanding the world through the claims of the Gospel.

• The Gospel is the essential human story from Creation to Covenant to Christ to Church to Consumation.  It makes fullest sense of the Created order: it provides the fullest meaning and understanding to the Big Questions of life; it gives fullest expression to our deepest needs and longings.
• The identity, incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus as the Christ is the ultimate “hinge of history” and the fulfillment of God’s design, purpose, sovereignty, love, and grace.
• A Gospel understanding of the world animates and reveals the Truth in the previous 4 themes, while also providing the wisdom and discernment needed to navigate their claims in this fallen world.
• How do you reconcile the Truth of the Gospel with other truth claims such as those of Islam and other religions, scientistic evolution, relativistic pluralism, non-religious spirituality?  How do you balance the exclusive claims of the Gospel with the pluralistic realities of contemporary culture?

Stay tuned for more as eventually I hope to unpack each one of these themes in a series of classes (and corresponding posts)

“The angels worship God in heaven, but we cast up our prayers from the gravity and stone of earth. This is the land of our Sojourn. We are Americans, and our Legacy is the stone and weight of this place, this collection of ideas and dreams, of strip malls, and civil war. From here we form our Liturgy, our service of worship to the living Christ. Hear this Liturgy, this Common Prayer through the eyes of America. Worship and Place….Liturgy, and Legacy . . . .” — Rich Mullins

He was known as “Christian music’s restless poet.”  Rich Mullins was almost 42 years old when he was tragically killed in a car accident on southbound Interstate 39 north of Bloomington (IL) on Sept. 19, 1997.  He and his musician friend Mitch McVicker were heading from suburban Chicago to do a concert in Wichita (KS) when Rich lost control of his Jeep.  The Jeep rolled, both Rich and Mitch were thrown out of the vehicle, and Rich was struck by a passing semi-truck.  McVicker was severely injured, but he lived.

CCM magazine published a tribute titled, “Requiem for a Ragamuffin” which reported that at memorial services in Nashville and Wichita, “Friends recalled a man who was equal parts sinner and saint, a man who had no children of his own yet was responsible for feeding thousands around the world.”

Dr. Steven Hooks, a favorite professor of Mullins’ at Cincinnati Bible College, perhaps summed the evening up best: “The bandstand is dark, and the liturgy has been silenced–forever some are saying–by the demon we call death. Do you really believe that? Let me tell you a little secret. Rich knew it well. He sang it often. It was the truth. It stood at the heart of his ‘Creed,’ and it stands at the heart of the gospel: ‘The dead in Christ shall rise.’ …As we gather tonight to honor Rich’s passing over Jordan, some would seek to console us by reminding us that he will live on in his music and in our memories. But I’m here to tell you, he lives on.”

Read this piece at http://www.audiori.net/richmullins/articles/requiem.html, where it is posted on a Rich Mullins Tribute website.  You’ll be able to learn more about Rich’s background and ministry here.  Browse through the timeline and discography tabs, and click on the “Kid Brothers” tab and take a look there (In 1989, Rich and his musician partner David “Beaker” Strasser founded The Kid Brothers of St. Frank. The goal of Kid Brothers was to preach, live and model for others the teachings of St. Francis [St. Frank] of Assisi. Other young men joined them to be in a discipleship community with each other, following Francis’ vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.)

“I am a Christian because I have seen the love of God lived out in the lives of people who know Him.  The Word has become flesh, and i have encountered God in the people who have manifested (in many “unreasonable” ways) His Presence; a Presence that is more than convincing, it is a Presence that is compelling.” — Rich

In the spring of 1991, Rich began to publish a regular column in RELEASE Magazine that was part devotional, part memoir, part . . . Rich.  This arrangement, the editors recalled after Rich’s death, “become a very special relationship – a relationship that would enable not only editors and staff members to learn more about this mysterious artist, but one that would also allow people across the country to draw closer to him. One learned quickly from his columns (just as with his songs) that Rich not only had a lot to say, but a unique way of saying it. He challenged us. He comforted us. He taught us.”

A selection of these columns can be found online here:  http://www.kidbrothers.net/release/dec97jan98art.html

(The quote above comes from the first article posted, “Telling the Joke.”)

For most of his early music career, Rich was a solo act or worked with some back-up musicians.  In 1993 he formed “The Ragamuffin Band,” which took its name from a book by Rich’s friend and sometime mentor Brennan Manning.  A promotional blurb for Manning’s The Ragamuffin Gospel explains,

Brennan Manning’s bestseller reminded us that Jesus did not come for the pretty, pious and powerful. Instead, he came for the “bedraggled, beat-up and burnt-out” ragamuffins who desperately need his grace. Dispelling the myth that you must work to receive God’s gift of grace and joy, Manning, a fellow ragamuffin, reveals the true nature of a freely-given and unrelenting grace that’s available to all. Drop the burden of never measuring up and revel in the comfort of a God who loves you for who you are – not for who you think you should be.

Manning, who died in 2013, was the subject of a 2004 Christianity Today cover story you can find at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/22.42.html.  The article opens with this paragraph:

The first time the late singer-songwriter Rich Mullins heard former Franciscan priest Brennan Manning on tape as he drove through the edge of the Flint Hills in Kansas, his eyes filled with tears. He steered the truck to the side of the road. There, as he later wrote, the message “broke the power of mere ‘moralistic religiosity’ in my life, and revived a deeper acceptance that had long ago withered in me.”

Manning appears several times in video tribute to Rich’s life, Homeless Man, where he notes that the strength of Rich’s ministry was deeply connected to his own brokenness:

https://youtu.be/bajoUcmPrgU

Rich wrote an opening “Testimony” for Manning’s book that included these remarks:

“The concept of seeker-sensitivity, properly understood, is not new and not controversial — because it’s biblical. In fact, the apostle Paul said, ‘Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity’ (Col. 4:5). He also said, “’ have become all things to all people . . . for the sake of the gospel’ (1 Cor. 9:22-23).” — Mark Mittelberg, Associate Director of the Willow Creek Association

“In their zeal for converts, seeker-sensitive churches may convert God’s message into a form more likely to impress but less likely to save the unbeliever. If cultural relevance is our guiding principle for evangelism and church growth, we can become irrelevant to God’s agenda, for the gospel will always contest, subvert, and make foolish ‘the wisdom of the world’ (1 Cor. 1:20).” — Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Denver Seminary

These two quotes capture the essence of the opposing viewpoints that surround the seeker-sensitive model for “doing church” in contemporary culture (the topic of part 2).  Funny how the proponent of each perspective provides a scriptural basis for their point of view.  There are interesting ways in which these seemingly opposing perspectives demonstrate, in different ways, the same reality of “an evangelical church [that] is steeped in and shaped by the modernist mindset” (Glen Stanton’s review of A New Kind of Christian, CT June 10, 2002; which we previously considered).  Stanton (drawing from McLaren’s book) described characteristics of “Christ molded by modernity” that find both sides of the “seeker-sensitive” model wanting:

We run our churches with the efficiency o fthe industrial age.  We make ourselves and conduct our services in the spirit of capitalist consumerism.  In the modernist exaltation of knowledge, we teeter on a biblicism that sees the Christian faith as a religon of the book rather than a relationship with the Triune God and our neighbors.  We often make the Bible the foundation and center of our faith.  But, as Neo tells Dan [again, from McLaren], “the Bible never speaks of itself this way.'” It speaks of Christ as the foundation of the church; thus we are historically known as Christ-ones.

Before we turn to what McLaren and the “emerging church” have to say about becoming “new kinds of Christians,” read the essays by Mittleberg and Groothuis (quoted above) from “Pro and Con: the Seeker-Sensitive Church Movement” posted on the Christian Research Institute’s website http://www.equip.org/article/pro-and-con-the-seeker-sensitive-church-movement/

Emerging Christians

“It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don’t really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they’ve got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.” — Scot McKnight

According to a recent “topics” post in Christianity Today online, the “emergent movement” that was the source of so much evangelical buzz in the late ’90s and early 2000s “has seemingly dropped off the map as of late.” CT assigns some of the blame to “the difficulty in defining just what the Emergent Movement is.”  Led by authors and pastors like Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christian) and Tony Jones (The Church is Flat, 2011), emergent churches “sought to reshape how to ‘do church’ in the postmodern culture, often challenging traditional Christian understandings of faith and practice” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/e/emergent-movement/)

CT first took note of the movement in a 2004 article by Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html?order=&start=1).  Crouch wrote, “not since the Jesus Movement of the early 1970s has a Christian phenomenon been so closely entangled with the self-conscious cutting edge of U.S. culture.”  He described the movements at “frequently urban, disproportionately young, overwhelmingly white, and very new,” noting that few of the churches that identify with the movement “have been in existence for more than five years.”  Crouch’s article focused particularly on the Mars Hill church (established in 1999), pastored by Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren, whose book A New Kind of Christian provided inspiration to Bell.

At the time McLaren was hesitant to to call the “emerging church” a movement (the term “Emergent” is usually used to describe the loose network of churches that identify as “emerging” as a new way to “do church” in postmodern culture).  He considered it more of a mindset–a mindset that grew from conversations about what a “post-evangelical” church would look like.  Crouch describes McLaren sketching “a big circle labeled ‘self,’ a smaller circle next to it labeled ‘church,’ and a tiny circle off to the side labeled ‘world.'”

“This has been evangelicalism’s model, [McLaren] says. Fundamentally it’s about getting yourself ‘saved’—in old-style evangelicalism—or improving your life in the new style. Either way, the Christian life is really about you and your needs. Once your needs are met, then we think about how you can serve the church. And then, if there’s anything left over, we ask how the church might serve the world.”

He starts drawing again. “But what if it went the other way? This big circle is the world—the world God loved so much that he sent his Son. Inside that circle is another one, the church, God’s people chosen to demonstrate his love to the world. And inside that is a small circle, which is your self. It’s not about the church meeting your needs, it’s about you joining the mission of God’s people to meet the world’s needs.”

The video below comes from a report done by a local PBS station in 2009.  The quality isn’t the best, but it does a good job of looking at the “emerging” phenomenon from all angles.  You’ll see Brian McLaren interviewed, as well as Scot McKnight (quoted above).  We’ll come back to McKnight (now at Northern Baptist Seminary), who will tell us more about “Five Streams of the Emerging Church.”

https://youtu.be/Wf79xW6RAh4

Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities. — Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker Academic, 2005)

Scot McKnight cites the definition quoted above in his 2007 CT article, “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html?start=1).  McKnight’s piece presents “five themes” in the emerging church which he describes as “streams flowing into the emerging lake. No one says the emerging movement is the only group of Christians doing these things, but together they crystallize into the emerging movement.”  Here are the key points of his “five themes” (his elaborations on each are worth reading if you are interested!):

• Prophetic (or at least provocative):  One of the streams flowing into the emerging lake is prophetic rhetoric. The emerging movement is consciously and deliberately provocative. Emerging Christians believe the church needs to change, and they are beginning to live as if that change had already occurred.
• Postmodern:  When the evangelical world prohibited postmodernity, as if it were fruit from the forbidden tree, [some of us] chose to eat it to see what it might taste like. We found that it tasted good, even if at times we found ourselves spitting out hard chunks of nonsense.  Postmodernity cannot be reduced to the denial of truth. Instead, it is the collapse of inherited metanarratives (overarching explanations of life) . . . because of the impossibility of getting outside their assumptions.
• Praxis-oriented:  The emerging movement’s connection to postmodernity may grab attention and garner criticism, but what most characterizes emerging is the stream best called praxis—how the faith is lived out.  [he lists some specific sub-categories:  worship, mission, and orthopraxy (right living).  “The contention is that how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes.”
• Post-evangelical:  The emerging movement is a protest against much of evangelicalism as currently practiced. It is post-evangelical in the way that neo-evangelicalism (in the 1950s) was post-fundamentalist. [he offers a particular emphasis here on “post-systematic theology”]
• Political:  Put directly, they are Democrats. And that spells “post” for conservative-evangelical-politics-as-usual.

McKnight’s conclusion:  “If I were a prophet, I’d say that it will influence most of evangelicalism in its chastened epistemology (if it hasn’t already), its emphasis on praxis, and its missional orientation. I see the emerging movement much like the Jesus and charismatic movements of the 1960s, which undoubtedly have found a place in the quilt called evangelicalism.”

My wife is a quilter, so I know something of how the process unfolds from having watched her work over the years.  The finished product we call a “quilt” it is comprised of myriad sections of colorful cloths, sewn together in beautiful patterns, then laid over a sturdier piece of single fabric that acts as a foundation.  In between is sandwiched the “batting,” which makes the whole finished piece much more comfortable.  The three parts are then “quilted” together into what we call a quilt, the delicate stitching being what holds it all together.

If modern evangelicalism is indeed a “quilt,” then perhaps what’s most important is not just the variety of colorful contemporary expressions by themselves; nor simply the plain, sturdy backing of historic Christian orthodoxy; nor even the fluffy batting of cultural relevance that makes everything comfortable.  What is most important is the thread of faith that holds everything together:  one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

Old religious factions are volcanoes burned out; on the lava and ashes and squalid scoriæ of old eruptions grow the peaceful olive, the cheering vine, and the sustaining corn. — Edmund Burke

In part one of this consideration of Christianity in post-Christian culture, we looked at a couple of new Christian movements (Calvary Chapel and Vineyard) that grew out of the “Jesus Movement” of the late 60s counter-culture.  Next we’ll look at the late 20th-century emergence of influential “non-denominational” churches.  Before we go there, a brief review of the idea of “denominations” seems in order . . . .

Ever since the Reformation, Protestantism has been partly defined by denominational divisions.  First there were the various Protestant “traditions” (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptists) with their particular theological, doctrinal, and national distinctions.  Then there were the next-generation denominational identities which grew out even more specifically defined differences in doctrine, polity, even ethnicity (Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Brethren, Mennonites, Methodists; and ultimately multiple “flavors” of each!).  Then a series of revivals–the Great Awakening, Cane Ridge, Azusa Street--and the unpenetrable racial divide created further sectarian distinctions within the existing denominations (particularly in America) and spawned even more sub-groups (such as Holiness and Pentecostal denominations)

As a result, the “most churched” country in the world was also the most “fractured” in appearance.  Nearly every American community has the classic “church on every corner” are near downtown where the classic steeples of the old mainline denominations still stand tall (while the congregations inside age and dwindle).  Yes, the 20th C. did bring about ecumenical efforts toward institutional unity:  Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans in particular gradually brought together many disparate groups withing their denominational ranks into single organizations.  The United Church of Christ even brought unrelated groups such as Congregational, German Reformed, and independent Christian churches (and worked to build broader alliances with other mainline groups).  But Baptists and Pentecostals remained divided by geography and race, and even the newer “Third Wave” fellowships such as Calvary Chapel and Vineyard were unable to resolve some of their theological differences and went their own ways.

The “Non-Denominational” Shift

Enter another “new kind of Christian” development:  the intentionally non-denominational church.  While this phenomenon is generally seen as a recent development, and often associated with the “seeker-sensitive” approach of places like Willow Creek in the Chicago suburbs, it, too, has historic roots.  During America’s Early National Period, something of an “American Reformation” took place as congregations began leaving Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist denominations to become known simply as Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, or Disciples of Christ.  Some of these “non-denominational” churches (the Disciples in particular) later developed very denominational-like institutional structures, but congregations generally retained a high degree of independence.  And even Willow Creek, which we’ll turn to next, was not as much of a new phenomenon in American religion as it might seem (read this article at Christianity today to learn more http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/november13/5.62.html)

As the church struggles to find relevance in a post-Christian culture, how far is it willing to go? Or is the answer not to try to “adapt” at all?  In the mid-90s, as the real-life Church was wrestling with these issues, Gary Trudeau’s popular Doonesbury strip ran an on-going series featuring “Rev. Scott Sloane” (a regular over the years), who has turned the old house where all the main characters lived during college into “The Little Church of Walden” (Walden was the name of their college).  Here’s a sampling . . .

Seeker-Sensitivity

“When I left [the] classroom that day, I went out to my car, put my head on the steering wheel, and cried. The dream of being part of such a church had taken root in my soul.” — Bill Hybels

In 1972, 20-year-old Bill Hybels (quoted above) was a student at Trinity College.  The class he refers to in the quote, taught by professor Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, was looking at the Church in the context of Jesus’s words in Matthew 16:18 (“I will build my Church”) and the description of the New Testament Church in Acts chapter 2.  This kind of Church, Hybels decides, was exactly what the world needed today.

By the 1970s, more people than ever in modern history (including me!) were completely disconnected from the Church.  Hybels and others, rather than seeing this as an obstacle, considered it an opportunity.  This generation of maturing baby-boomers could play a part in creating a new kind of Church, one that played the same role in their lives as the NT Church had played in the lives of early believers.  It would not be encumbered by the denominational baggage and formal traditions of the institutions they’d left behind in childhood.  It would be a real community of believers; one that would be relevant to the real lives and the real needs of its congregants.  Here’s how the online Encyclopedia of Chicago describes what happened (R. Jonathan Moore, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2382.html):

In 1975 leaders of Son City, a successful youth program at Park Ridge’s South Park Church, decided to create a new ministry for unchurched adults. A door-to-door survey of the local community taught them why people stayed away from church. Incorporating contemporary music, drama, and multimedia technology, the new congregation first met on October 12, 1975, in Palatine’s Willow Creek Theater. Within two years worship services grew from 125 to 2,000 people. In 1981 the evangelical church moved to its current location in South Barrington and continued to increase in numbers and size on its sprawling campus. By 2000, it drew 15,000 for weekly services.

Led by Pastor Bill Hybels, Willow Creek Community Church became famous as the prototypical “megachurch,” widely imitated—and criticized—for its entertaining worship style and use of modern marketing strategies. “Seeker services” deliberately target the curious and the unchurched, while members worship at believer-oriented New Community services. To connect people to the church, Willow Creek has hundreds of small groups, devoted to everything from Bible study to singles’ fellowship to car repair. The affiliated Willow Creek Association publishes curriculum materials, runs leadership seminars, and encourages thousands of affiliated churches, extending its influence nationwide.

The Willow Creek phenomenon was indeed “widely imitated–and criticized.”  Notice how it was using the most influential elements of popular culture–contemporary music, drama, media, technology–to create “entertaining worship styles” (as did churches in the Calvary Chapel and Vineyard movements, countless other “non-denominational fellowships.” and eventually almost any church which desired to remain “relevant” to contemporary culture.”  It became known as the start of the “seeker-sensitive” approach to church, with services specifically aimed at “the curious and the unchurched” and separate meeting for believers (also “widely imitated–and criticized”!.  By the mid-90s, the phenomenon was culturally significant enough to warrant continued scrutiny in Doonesbury:

Next:  From “Seekers” to “Emergents” . . . .

“What if the Christian faith is supposed to exist in a variety of forms rather than just one imperial one? What if it is both more stable and more agile—more responsive to the Holy Spirit—when it exists in these many forms? And what if, instead of arguing about which form is correct and legitimate, we were to honor, appreciate, and validate one another and see ourselves as servants of one grander mission, apostles of one greater message, seekers on one ultimate quest?” — Brian McLaren

The quote above comes from Brian McLaren’s 2002 book, A New Kind of Christian.  We met him a couple of weeks ago when we were looking at Christian responses to the postmodern “shift.”  McLaren has continued to press the Church to reconsider its place in postmodern culture with subsequent books like A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN (2004; how’s that for a title?!) and Everything Must Change (2007).  He’s generally recognized among the leaders of what came to be known as the “emerging church” movement (we’ll come back to that after covering some background).

McLaren would be a good representative of Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture in Paradox” type.  Perhaps, as John Stackhouse wrote, Niebuhr “had the most trouble making clear” this perspective because when he was writing, the other four types were predominate in culture:  the fundamentalists and liberals had laid claim to their separate corners the Protestant landscape; Catholic sacramentalism held sway among its own faithful; and “transforming” evangelicalism was just gaining steam.  This ‘paradoxical” fifth type had not yet really emerged; Niebuhr could imagine it, but he’d not really experienced it.  By the time McLaren is writing, both fundamentalism and liberalism had faded; transformational evangelicalism had surged and then plateaued; and Catholic sacramentalism was inspiring new interest among more thoughtful and contemplative Protestants.  In the midst of all this, a “new kind of Christian” had begun to emerge.

An unlikely catalyst for the Church in “paradoxical tension” was, of all things, the cultural transformations wrought in and by “the sixties.”  Young people turned in droves away from institutionalized religion of all types and fled to “New Age” spirituality, both Eastern and Western mysticism, Native American shamanism, Transcendental Meditation, and a host of other alternative “spiritual experiences.”  Church-going Americans began drifting away as well as affluence, leisure, and popular culture provide more interesting things to do with one’s Sunday morning.  And then an amazing thing happened.  On the West Coast, a new wave of hippy-culture flower children who were looking for love and meaning found it in Jesus.  The American Church would never be the same.

Jesus People

What came to be known as the “Jesus People Movement” began in the late 1960s in California, particularly in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco and along the coastal towns of southern Californnia.  The Gospel was spread through dozens of small-press Christian newspapers distributed in the streets and on the beaches.  In Christian coffeehouses and a growing number of independent Christian fellowships, long-haired and shoeless youth gathered to be discipled and sent out to bring more.  A new kind of Christian music, at first more “folky” in style, but increasingly more like rock and roll, was the driving force of the movement.  There was also a hightened sensitivity to “the moving of the holy spirit” to bring healing to the broken, break bondages to drug addiction, and empower believers through “signs and wonders” and “prophetic words.”

Some “traditional” churches, like Chuck Smith’s Calvary Chapel, responded to the need by accepting all who would come to services just as they were and recruiting staff from among the movement to reach out to their peers.  Other congregations were shaken by the challenge of exhuberent praise, rejection of formality, and new music styles the “Jesus People” brought to worship.  Another influential church fellowship to grow out of this time was the Vineyard, which began as a loose network of independent fellowships, sometimes with connections with Calvary Chapel, but ultimately gathering under John Wimber into a distinct movement (more on that to come).