Subversion

Imagine your a Jew in Babylon. You've grown up in a small tribal family, most likely with a rural upbringing. You're culture is one of the extremely few in the entire world that contends that there is only one God. The worst part about it is, the popular cultures surrounding you think that your belief system is just downright weird. It makes no sense. A God who doesn't even show his face to people, who declares that all the other gods that are obviously controlling the various systems of the world don't even exist. Not only are these claims crazy, they're dangerous. A Babylonian has little doubt that such claims could easily incite they're powerful gods to anger and bring down the whole society because of a few insubordinate, stubborn Jews.

If you're a Jew the sharp glances of your Babylonian superiors makes you question if your faith is really one that is in your best interest to hold to. It's never been easy to be a monotheist.

You ended up in Babylon most likely because your family was one of the more influential families of Judea. The Babylonians came into your country with 'shock and awe', and in order to keep the peace, took all the educated officials and influential people that could incite a rebellion and shipped them back to Babylon to live in a ghetto 'for Jews only'. There they were watched carefully. Now socially isolated in an alien land, it became increasingly hard to remember why you should remain a Jew. The Babylonian gods certainly appeared to have silenced YHWH, the omnipotent God of your family. For being omnipotent, he sure did seem powerless in the current situation. His people living in a Babylonian ghetto, eating the table-scraps of the Babylonians. Within thirty years, the kids raised in exile were assimilating into the dominant culture. The Jewish faith was powerless.

It was in this context that the Hebrew Oral Traditions became Hebrew Scriptures. There is no evidence that any of the OT was written before this time. Surely the stories had circulated for quite some time, but it wasn't until they found themselves a generation away from disappearing into Babylon's culture that monotheism became Holy Scripture. Brueggemann refers to it as Text (Babylon) vs. Countertext (Israel). There is a dominant paradigm that comprises the prevailing text, and the subversive paradigm that is the countertext.

The subversive paradigm though does not intend to go head to head with the dominant. It instead hopes to simply be the "pea between the mattresses" that disturbs the larger culture from lulling everyone (including the children of exile) from falling asleep. Or, it could be said, it seeks to be a shepherd boy who does not attempt to do battle on Babylon's terms with sword, shield and armor, but instead, uses a small rock and the grace of YHWH to bring down a nine foot tall warrior with gear weighing as much as a tank.

The OT is not history. It is code. It's a subversive language designed to offer an alternative. Yes I'm sure the traditions of that gave birth to OT Scripture are rooted distantly in some historical occurances, but when we turn our eyes to those we miss the entire point. What God did is secondary to what we need God to do. What he can do, should he choose. If all God offers is a convoluted book of historical facts saying 4,000 years ago he parted a sea and and collapsed some city walls, then the gods of Babylon are still more relevant. I'm glad the God of Israel can do magic tricks, I live in Babylon now, what's it got to do with me?? But. . . . if these writers are giving me examples of the kind of God he is, and the power he still has, and the superior character that he holds against the gods of Babylon . . . . maybe it's not yet time to just assimilate and get it over with? Maybe he's on the verge of doing something amazing. Maybe Persia is coming??

Christian faith is built on, and intended to simply offer an alternative. The alternative is not intended to blow the dominant paradigm out of the water. Rather, it is providing just enough irritation and awkwardness to the prevailing view that we all stand back for a minute and ask some questions. If God had intended to simply download us with a prepackaged paradigm, wouldn't it make sense to at least make the Bible a little more readable, and probably a heck of a lot longer. At least the Qur'an is unified in authorship and only requires me to learn one fifty year historical-political context! If the Christian/Judaic Bible is God's total self-revelation, meant for mass consumption as a coherent life guide, then I'll take Modernity any day.

In the fight against the Enlightenment/Modernity, Christianity attempted to suit up with sword and shield. Before long we ended up so messed up we fought for the Philistines in the name of YHWH against his own people. That's the best metaphor I could find for 500 years of church splits and complicity to colonial oppression. That's the best metaphor to explain the Religious Right and Capitalist Christianity.

As a Christian I have another proposition: There is one God. I can't explain him, so I won't. There is a Son. He gave no explanations, but did offer a better way. There is a Spirit that lives among this community. He gives us values that are totally different and often opposed to those of our world. There is Agape, it is nothing like love as we've heard it. There are Stories. I don't care how factual they are. Their truth has little to do with facts, and they will still cause Babylon to fall.

So What??

As I, along with every other theologically-minded Christian practitioner, have now sufficiently bludgeoned the "Modern" church to death, my friends have grown impatient and now ask me to explain what an acceptable church would look like. And, here is the problem: I don't know because I've never seen it. I've seen how every church has small puzzle pieces that, if we could somehow fit them all together, would result in a downright amazing church. But, puzzle pieces are hard to come by. So it seems.

I've been reflecting on this a lot over the past year. Why is it that I am so unsatisfied with all the good churches I come into contact with. I think the answer falls back on the big, difficult concepts of paradigms, worldviews, and the cliche Modern/Postmodern debate. To me these are not just fancy words and concepts that make me feel smart, they are actually the only things that sufficiently explain to me why I feel the way I do about many things, and what is going on in the world around me. Here's why:

Our age is complex. We have been born into a world that at least intellectually has said that "Modernity" is not sufficient to explain reality and experience. For around 500 years up to the 1960's the big complicated systems of science, empiricism, and philosophy dominated our world. They were assumed to fully explain everything. If they hadn't explained it yet, it was only a matter of time before they did. That is modernism in a nutshell. . . . . now, when we talk about postmodernism, what we mean is a rejection of the tyranny of modernism. To be postmodern is to reject (at least partially) what is modern. That is the simplest way to put it.

The problem is that postmodernism is not a paradigm or worldview. Postmodernism offers very little to replace what has been rejected. It just says its not good enough and leaves it at that.

So this is the world we find ourselves in. Where the most coherent worldview available has been rejected, but not replaced. It is a very chaotic set of circumstances to be living in. This is why modernism as a whole is still prevailing. It is why in plenty of regions, modern churches are growing. Many people are aware of postmodern arguments, but when no other worldview is offered they opt to stick with what has worked (though imperfectly) up till now. Notice that we still refer to our own time as "modern day". It is also apparent that we are not far removed from the values of our parents. Our society is still materialistic and individualistic, etc. just as most of the 60's children turned out to be. We still seek "spiritual experiences" like them, and as it turns out, these typically are very materialistic experessions of spirituality. The fact of the matter is no one can live without a paradigm/worldview to interpret experience, and that is the challenge and complexity of postmodernism.

Postmodernism looks at a foundation that we had thought to be impregnable concrete and finds countless cracks that eventually would bring down anything built on top of it. It sees the Titanic and proceeds to name the countless icebergs; any of which could bring it down. It does not tell us of a better foundation or a more indestructable method of ship building. It seeks only to humble the pride of an old worldview that is not so perfect and omnipotent as it once claimed itself to be.

It is this cynical side of postmodernity that I find entertaining, maybe too much so. I have grown up in the midst of churches all setting their roots in a Modern paradigm which has been called out as a fraud, even if it still has plenty of power in many regions of the world. This is the biggest problem with cynicism: it can bring a crowd to a roaring laughter at the expense of the arrogant, but when asked to offer up an alternative, it is quickly silenced. I enjoy calling out the Modern church. I think it has a lot of hubris that needs to be exposed and humbled. Yet, when asked what to replace it with . . . . . I've got a few puzzle pieces, but I'm quite short of a coherent picture.

I'll admit my bias. I strongly dislike modernity. There are aspects of it that I think are cool. Still, I feel that I grew up in what could be considered the pinnacle of a Modern upbringing, and feel very adamant that moderninty is and will continue to fail us. My denomination is one of the most Modern denominations I can imagine, and I see the mess that has led us into. I hear the many promises of modernity, and then take a sober look at our world and realize that oppression is growing in power, not freedom. Materialism is overcoming us, not spirit. Selfishness is growing louder, not love. Isolation is prevailing, not community. All these things are happening contrary to what modernity promises. Yes, diseases are being cured, and the world is getting smaller, but at what cost?? I have been surrounded by modernity my whole life, and though it is very enticing, I nonetheless cast my vote against it. I want it to lose.

The problem with church these days is that it has become so intertwined with modernity that it is hard to be postmodern and Christian at the same time. To deconstruct modernity means taking out pillars of the church. (somedays I mourn that, often I laugh . . . to be honest) I realize how that will seem to most older generations and more than a few from my own that I am against Christianity as a whole. I simply look to the Oregon and Western Europe and think about how my kids and grandkids will live in a Dallas that will most likely be more like Portland or Paris that the Christian Mecca it often resembles today. This is why I can say, I don't know what a church that satisfies me would look like, but the best place I've found to start is emphatically stating what it can't continue to look like. As for what it should . . . everyone is picking up pieces as we go along . . .

I think this is why community is so important. If we compile what we each have, who knows what God might create with it. Whether I am ever actually a part of a church plant or not, I know that my generation will have little choice but to reconstruct the church. It's not something that a professional ministry staff, university professors, or professional theologians can do for us. I like to think. And, I hope that thinking is a gift of mine that builds up the body in a fresh way. Still, I must say immediately, I have far more questions than answers, and far more cynical critique than fresh ideas. So far, that is the best response I see to the ridiculously complicated situation I have been born into.

Sports, Spectators, and Stadium Chrisianity

I figured it'd be fun to write a critique of sports in light of my last post. I'll start by saying I love sports. Whether watching, playing, or talking about them, I enjoy them thouroughly; as do most people I know. Nonetheless I think that sports have come to occupy a ridiculous place in modern life. I think a case can be made that sports are unquestionably the greatest religion in America and Europe. This is ironic given the very nature of sports. To call something a sport, at least 50 years ago, literally meant it was something to not be taken seriously. Sport was something on the periphery of life, that was ultimately insignificant. . . . a far cry from something worth the trillions of dollars currently spent on it worldwide. This can also be seen in the way the word "game" has gone from meaning a leisurly competition involving an otherwise insignificant activity, to being the pinnacle of fullness: what is it that most children now days dream of being when they grow up?

Our priorities in the modern world have shifted so that now we are willing to award a baseball player the total gross national product of Haiti for hitting a ball with a stick and consistently knocking it 400+ feet in a general direction. Think about it: today people with little disposable income will often surpass tithing to purchase season tickets, memorabilia, or television sports packages to watch activities that don't matter.

Now if that doesn't apply to you, then stand back for a minute and ask how many concerts you go to, how many movies you view, and critique any form of poster that adorns your wall. "Spectatorism" goes far beyond sports, but sports still appear to me to be the most acute of pagan religions in America.

I think that sports/spectator events are actually setting the model which most "Modern" churches are now attempting to follow. Not too long ago I attended a church where the pastor criticized those who would not cheer for God. Now, I'm not opposed to someone doing that if that is what is in their heart to do, but this pastor was suggesting that everyone should cheer for God at the climax of the worship time, since after all, they would cheer at the climax of a football game. I see his point, but still feel it to be largely misguided. Would he emplore us to do the wave for God too. How about serving large quantities of beer for communion (that would solve the lack of enthusiasm and undoubtedly result in exponential church growth). This also a church that plans intends to grow to be at least 30,000 members in the next ten years, having a "sanctuary" that will hold that many. I wonder what box seats will go for there?

I think the people of this church are good people. I believe them to be brothers and sisters, and I learned quite a bit from the time that I spent with them. But, I think the form of their church is based on the prevailing American religion. That being spectator events. Worship is a concert. The preaching turns into theatrics, where in the end the audience is encouraged to "play their role" in the spectacle: cheering, coming forward in tears, asking for prayers, getting baptized. Ultimately it is an event where one walks away, able to say "I was there man!", but is still scarcely any different than the world around them.

Consider for a minute: which religion is winning? People will drop $60 or more to go to a concert. Hundreds of dollars for good seats at a sporting even. The collection plate at church goes by empty. They invest the total depth of emotion in watching there team win, but struggle to find emotion at weekly worship in their local congregation. NFL players encite considerable help to the United Way, and Katrina relief, but often pastors struggle to get their congregations to display a true spirit of charity.

Some of this is due to resistant hearts, but only some. I think more of it is due to the fact that spectator church is a syncretized church. It is adopting the practices that stem from a consumer/capitalist worldview. I think the tension between the demands and claims of the gospel and the methods and models of spectator religion is one so great that it is ultimately unbearable to any who are enlightened to it. This is why the back door in mega-churches is so huge. People come in, hear the promises and challenges of Jesus, and get little more than a weekly concert. The discrepancy is absurd, making Christianity absurd. Seriously, why stay?

I don't think God is displeased if we gather to cheer for him, but I emphatically doubt that he is satisfied with that either. The core of the gospel is the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom is not stadium-friendly. If we need pep-rallies for the Kingdom, great. Let's do it. But, I have been to more Jesus-rallies than I can count, and the Kingdom results have been negligable. Pop-Christianity is failing us, and it's time to move on.

I admit that I am often one who dances between the two realities. I love UT. This past season I followed them religiously. That might not be totally wrong, but it's definitely a bit skewed from the Christian worldview that I do believe to be more accurate concerning the way things are and the way I should live. I have no intention to stop watching sports, but I do hope that they return to the place of insignificance the very word "sport" implies.

As for spectator Christianity, my ties to it are rapidly breaking. I no longer have the patience for it I once did, because I find it largely at odds with the gospel and its ability to fulfill my divine need is proving to be very much bankrupt. I realize my need for words of life that come from Jesus himself, and I'm questioning how much time he actually spends in "church" as I have understood it for too long.

Fulfillment

A friend last night expressed concern that I had not posted about one of the greatest moments of all time, that being watching Texas prove it is better than California. The delay can be attributed to the fact that there are no words to express what I truly felt.

I've been a UT fan for about seven years now. I didn't really get into football until I was almost out of high school. I got really into it just in time to go to a school in Arkansas and be surrounded by Oklahoma fans who for four strait years managed to rub it in nicely that we couldn't win a big game. By the time I graduated my pure, unadulterated hatred of OU was growing past my love of UT.

This situation has led to a shaky faith in UT. I really didn't firmly believe they would win any game this year. After living through the Chris Sims era, and seeing us throw away a national championship opportunity to Colorado, it's been hard to really believe in my team.

The game last wednesday fulfilled what I've hoped for. OU fans can deal with the fact that they got beat down pathetically when they had their chance, UT won.

The game also proved that the Heisman trophy is trash. Reggie Bush gets 500+ yards on a crappy Fresno State defense and it's his. Never mind that two weeks before that Vince got 500+ total yards against Oklahoma State. They should hold the trophy until the Championship is done. If anybody from USC deserved the trophy is was LenDale White, but there's a fourth and two play that would call that into question, and a fourth and five play that announces to the world that Vince Young is more valuable that Bush and White together.

So I'm now glad to express the fact that the University of Texas has emphatically force-fed all the critics their own words for two strait years now. If you are one of them, then eat up, it's about time you got humbled instead of me.