Don’t count on me…but don’t count me out.

My friend Bob Carlton posted this excerpt from  David Scharfenberg’s op-ed in the Globe, “So maybe the slackers had it right after all”…

…[We] understood, before most, that something had shifted – that we were moving to an economy of telecommuters and independent contractors and less-than-loyal employers.

And while the best minds on Wall Street cooked up the real estate mess that destroyed a global economy, we were sensible enough to steer clear of that overpriced condo and move into a dingy, three-bedroom rental with a few of our meathead friends.

You see, while Alan Greenspan and Countrywide Financial were creating a capitalism of disastrous excess, we were busy working on a more workable model. Not without its indulgences, of course. The exuberance of the dot-com bubble was undoubtedly irrational. But we did pretty well, this little slice of Generation X.

We brought you the Internet, worked on green technology, and filled the ranks of Teach for America. We crossed the color line, ate local produce, and bought secondhand clothing. We lived in smaller spaces, drove smaller cars, and took the subway to work.

It all seemed like a quaint liberal fantasy at the time. And on some level it was. But now, with a creaking economy and an overheated planet, it reads more like a survival manual: a guide to multicultural living in an increasingly diverse society, an incubator for the technology that might save the American auto industry, an antidote to our awful adventures in sprawl.

Of course, we could abandon this life as we get older, I suppose. We could grow impatient with our little apartments and cramped hatchbacks. We could set our sights on the kind of suburban existence we’ve forsaken. But I’d like to think we’re smarter than that.

We created something worthwhile – a sustainable neighborhood, a tech future, a life we can manage. And we won’t let it go too easily.

At least I hope not. As the nation rebuilds a crumbling capitalism, it could use a little perspective, a little wisdom. Bet you didn’t think you’d get it from us.

I wonder what religious historians might say about my generation of spiritual quirks. While Gen-X & Yers have been described as postmoderns, sometimes “relativists,” “comfortable with ambiguity and contradiction,”  and even non-conformists, I often see just as much polarization, infighting, and conformity to greed in these generations as in our predecessors.

We are still in a world of transition, to be sure. But old habits die hard, especially those ingrained in our genetic memory.  Nevertheless, we hope to help create a better world…and maybe even a more Christ-like spirituality. It may look like a mess, but I think it can be a beautiful thing…although beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Anyway, I have hope.

Older generations are skeptical of us. Hell, we are skeptical of oursleves. So don’t count on us! …But don’t count us out either.

 

Is Orthodoxy Overrated?

Here’s an excerpt of the main point I was trying to make in a comment I posted on a good friend’s blog recently. This lacks full context, so please excuse any apparent gaps in reasoning, but this helped me organize my thoughts around the subject:

I think of statistics showing the fact that today’s Christians are statistically no different, in terms of overall morality, than non-Christians. And so this is an assertion that some postmodern Christians are trying to make: Orthodoxy may not be the transformative thing we have thought it to be for the past thousand years or so.

So what is that thing that really transforms us? If right belief seems only to create exclusive social groups that only welcome those who submit to their criteria for inclusion, and if this right belief, before which we have prostrated ourselves for centuries, statistically is not the essence that both initiates and sustains transformation, perhaps we need to admit the value of semper reformanda, humble ourselves before God and each other, and keep searching…Or at least admit that we may not be so sure as we have led on.

As a reminder, the Fathers said to each other during the canonization process, (you know the exact council more than I do, I’m sure), “This seems right to us and the Spirit…” They were not certain. I think we have all become so certain that all we are about is proving the validity of our certainty. And I’m willing to venture beyond that.

 

Including Me…

Somewhere I heard that some of us don’t believe in God until we need someone to blame.
I’ll add to that…

some of us quote God only when we need someone to justify our own words.

some of us search the Bible only when we have a point to make.

some of us cite the teachings of Jesus, but mostly to support our own side’s agenda, be it
liberal or conservative or even “both and neither.”

some of us pray, but usually just to beat the other guy and win the game.

some of us write witty musings like this, but often to make people think we’re wise or deep or cool or whatever…when we’re really just trying to figure things out for ourselves and find some sort of comfort in our own storm of contradictions and hypocrisy.

 

Gentle Reminder

Blogs are supposed to be original I suppose, but I can’t pass up the opportunity to share this gem of inspiration:

Do not be too quick to assume your enemy is a savage just because he is your enemy. Perhaps he is your enemy because he thinks you are a savage. Or perhaps he is afraid of you because he feels that you are afraid of him. And perhaps if he believed you were capable of loving him he would no longer be your enemy.

Do not be too quick to assume that your enemy is an enemy of God just because he is your enemy. Perhaps he is your enemy precisely because he can find nothing in you that gives glory to God. Perhaps he fears you because he can find nothing in you of God’s love and God’s kindness and God’s patience and mercy and understanding of the weaknesses of men.

Do not be too quick to condemn the man who no longer believes in God, for it is perhaps your own coldness and avarice, your mediocrity and materialism, your sensuality and selfishness that have killed his faith.

–T. Merton

 

The Next Schism

Felt like blabbing a bit today…. So while reading this, keep in mind that I am not making any theological points here whatsoever, and the apologetics of all this will have to wait. This does not consider at all what many may regard as the essentials of the faith, so I’m sure I’ll piss someone off. Oh well.

Peering into my cracked crystal ball

Here’s what I think the Christianity of the not-so-distant future will look like: Catholimainlinevangelical (I’ll call it “CME”) on one side and Post-whatever (PW) on the other; of course, somewhere in the background we’ll always have the Orthodox. (I’m not being scientific with all this here, so humor me.)

So in addition to the few past schisms (about every 500 years or so), we are having a new one now, and I imagine when the waters subside, a quadrant of volcanic islands will be left: CME, PW, and Orthodox, then a fourth one I’ll call “other,” for lack of time in thinking up a more clever label. That fourth one will sloppily lump in those others like Quakers, etc., etc, that have contributed greatly to our faith but might not neatly fit into the PW category and certainly don’t fit in the other two… Although the PWs just might even more closely resemble this “other” than anything else.

(Now, to really screw with this line of thinking, I’ll also pose here this thought: Beyond all this, I can imagine a day when most other religions will complete their own cycle of turmoil (which is also happening right now) and we’ll end up with a really confusing thing…one island, and it’s not called Universalism. It’s much bigger than that. I really think this could happen, although to be sure, it most definitely will be a “volcanic” island and will be in development for centuries and will be in near-constant flux.)

Anyway, the first thing that may perk up people’s ears is the seeming improbability of the merging of Catholicism, Mainline Protestantism and Evangelicalism, which in the 20th century (at least) apparently swore to leave each other on their own. But the inescapable fact remains that all three of these grand traditions are in dramatic flux, or at least in a period of significant reevaluation and adjustment, and I think they are increasingly becoming more dependent on each other for survival in our postmodern era. I won’t even go into the lessons the leadership of both the Catholic and Anglican churches learned in centuries past in confronting major global philosophical shifts. And this goes well beyond the ecumenical movement. That effort to bring all churches together was just the first overt manifestation of what must inevitably happen if “traditional” Christianity is to survive at all beyond the 21st century.

Although historically speaking Evangelicalism’s departure from Mainline was quite recent, I think both of these parties are realizing that the need for each other goes beyond just tolerance for the other. And while each still occasionally berates the other, signs are showing that the twain shall eventually meet again, for more than just an ecumenical council. I think a blog from iMonk hints at both the struggles and the requirements associated with what I think will eventually result in a merger, although at first glance of his blog one might be tempted to think otherwise.

10 Facts

(Again, not scientific, but I’m sure most may identify with this list. They get more abstract/futuristic as you go down the list, so I won’t bet on anything, but they are my prediction…)

1. Mainline churches are still suffering from mass aging/die-off, literally, as is traditional Catholicism.

2. While mainline churches have been in decline for many years, they are showing signs of new growth (see Bass interview, part 1).

3. Some of the new growth is from post-evangelical attendance.

4. Other post-evangelicals are heading elsewhere.

5. Some of those have gone back to Rome (Catholicism).

6. Others of those have gone (way) back to Constantinople (Orthodox).

7. Still other post-whatevers (including post evangelicals, post-catholics  and post-mainliners) have given up on traditional church altogether, but not on God/Jesus, and have found PW homes, such as house churches, “emergent” churches, New Monastic communities, etc. Note that I’m only including those post-whatevers who would maintain that faith/God/jesus, etc., are still big parts of their daily life; this does not include those who have rejected all forms of faith, etc.

8. The PW faith (many currently refer to it as “emerging/emergent” or even postmodern spirituality, but I think it will go beyond that) is not just an obscure new theory. It is not merely a mood, as Ravi Z. has described it. It is a fact of life that reflects a thoroughly recognized, fundamental shift (see Bass interview, part 6) in the global philosophical mindset. In fact, signs of this “post-ness” can be seen in almost all of the other major religions of the world.

9. Traditional churches, including the massive Roman church, will become increasingly niched while the PW faith develops and dominates the landscape (even if that landscape does not include church buildings).

10. PWs will grow tired of having to call themselves “post-”  and will seek a more positive orientation that illustrates what they are “for” instead of what they are against. This will eventually result in a more “organized” (even if it is anti-organized) model to reflect their values. It is human nature to organize, even for nonconformists. This is why I think the movement will eventually have to be named something other than by its “post” moniker, because it will become “post-post” because of the need for futher development.

Why?

I’ll leave the answer to that for another time. I’ve already blabbed on enough, so maybe others can take it from here. In addition to the several links I’ve provided above, I will say much of my (flawed?) thinking was inspired by The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle and A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, by Spencer Burke, among several others.