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.

 

Post-Post: A Post-Postmodern View of Christian Spirituality?

Will we ever move beyond trend-setting Christianity?

Even in reacting against commercialized, monopolized (even established) religion and attempting to create an ‘independent,’ roots-focused form of Christianity, we always end up packaging our own version of it, just like those before us, who we accused of doing the same.

It reminds me of the senior paper I wrote years ago on Surrealist poetry. The surrealists were an outgrowth of the Dada movement, which was entirely, radically anti-establishment, at least in terms of literature. True to its intended form, Dada quickly devoured itself as soon as its adherents began seeing signs of organization. (How punk of them!) The Dadaists who remained after the implosion, or at least those who had emerged from their drug-induced hibernation during WWI, gradually coagulated into a milder form of Dada, the surrealists.

The surrealists (at least the poets who started the whole thing) were a rag-tag group of artist-wanderers who could never feel at home within the traditionalist, established art-snob bubble. They continually pushed boundaries. They were constantly experimenting. they were lively. They were nihilists, but not as self-destructive as the predecessors. And the outside world started paying attention to them because they were just reputable enough to hold the attention of the establishment. Then came other artists who had been growing tired of snob-dom and found a new home within the ranks of the surrealists. People like painter Salvador Dali. They were welcomed. And then, somehow over the years it became cool to be surreal. Next thing you know, more and more established artists began experimenting outside the traditional bounds. And many saw that it was good…and some did not.

Ironically, perhaps the one thing that started the packaging of surrealism was “The Surrealist Manifesto,” composed by a variety of kewl, hip boundary-pushers. it was supposed to be an anti-manifesto. and in a sense it was. But it was also the primary sign of selling out. And though one could never really say surrealism became the mainstream, in a way it did. Just look at Pollack and other modern abstract practitioners. You think they were taking cues from traditionalists? Not quite. And now we have Low-Brow…oh, that’s so kewl. Sure selling out has its advantages: It spreads the word. Millions and millions of others around the world accept the revolution…and a new world is born because the boundary-pushers were finally recognized by the world at large. But seriously, is a ‘new world’ really born? Or is it just the same-old, same-old in a new package that has potential to increase…not awareness…but market share?

I suppose the argument may just dwindle down into the half-empty, half-full argument. Maybe I’m just an eternal cynic, even of movements I deeply appreciate….

Ravi Zacharias once said that postmodernism is a mood. I entirely disagreed with him. Because it is now a simple fact of life…much more than a mood or a trend. (Watch my conversation with author/historian Diana Butler Bass about this here…click on the thumb that says, “Part 6: Postmodernism”.) However, in some cases, I’m starting to believe him, to a point. Instead of simply accepting our present worldview as just something we are/do, enterprising Christians are gradually packaging our ‘new’ way of life into the zip-locked category of ‘postmodern spirituality.’

I was speaking with Spencer Burke late last year when he was planning a webcast conversation called “Has Emergent Been Shrinkwrapped Too?” As you may know, ‘emergent’ has become synonymous with postmodern spirituality. But it starting to seem like Emergent Village, by default, may unintentionally (I hope it’s unintentional) be monopolizing a precious move of God’s spirit throughout the Church at large. A movement that roots down at least 30 years ago at the Greenbelt festivals in the UK is now being touted to have started here in America with the Leadership Network, and now is headquartered within the Emergent Village organization. And almost every major (Christian) book publisher has started a new line targeting this new niche. So now it’s been reduced to a market niche. Sad, but true.

Now don’t get me wrong, Doug Pagitt (one of Emergent Village’s founders), is a truly wonderful person with wonderful goals and he’s sincerely trying keep the soul in it all. I admire him. But, once gain, it just seems to be happening by default. Maybe it’s just that the commercial machine has already started overtaking the tracks of the trailblazers. (By the way, notice that I have not mentioned Brian McLaren here. This is intentional, and maybe I’ll explain it in another post.)

But the hard part of all this is that the all the positives are also the negatives, and vice versa. So, although I am so happy to hear that some in the established church are finally catching wind of this movement, I am also concerned that the heavy hitters are simply going to monopolize and commercialize yet another sincere, precious thing. Sure, I want millions of others to appreciate it and learn and grow from it all…but, like so much else, not at the expense of the soul behind, within and under it.

Of course, what’s new? The exact same thing happened with the very first version of the teachings of Christ. Once it gained the attention of the emperor (Constantine), it became an empire. Unfortunately, that’s just the way things seem to go.

But do you think there could ever be a way to prevent this? Some way of delicately balancing revolution and commercial success? Somehow finding the line between spreading sincere, positive change and superficial popularity? Is there a way to spread the word without diluting it?

If you know the answers to these questions, please let me know. In the meantime, I’ll just categorize myself as a post-postmodern. Maybe I’ll start a trend. Next thing you know they’ll have a music section with that name in Family Christian Bookstores racks….Then maybe I’ll be one of the cool people.