|
| Way back in 2002 when I was a junior in high school, I took a class on European History. I must admit that I forget most of what we learned in that class (sorry to the teacher whose name I also forget), but a few things stuck with me. One of those historical tidbits was the Maginot Line. This particular piece of history fascinated me not only for its amazing story, but also for the lessons it still offers us today.
The story of the Maginot Line actually begins at the end of World War I. The first great war was fought mostly in trenches with very little actual ground being taken or given up. The protracted fighting in these trenches eventually cost the lives of 9 million men in the bloodiest war in history up to that point. After the war, military experts in France (including French Minister of Defense Andre Maginot) wanted to gain the upper hand in the next great conflict, so they constructed a line of reinforced bunkers and fortifications on the border between Germany and France that became known as the Maginot Line.
When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 to begin World War II, the French were fairly confident that their defenses would give them a military edge should Hitler try to invade France. But their hope was a bit misplaced. Without being too simplistic in my telling of history, Hitler's army essentially marched around the Maginot Line and quickly and effectively conquered France using a new German military tactic known as Blitzkrieg (or "lightning war"). The Maginot Line, which is perhaps the most elaborate fortification system ever constructed, also turned out to be totally ineffective.
What is the lesson learned from this great military blunder? If anything, it is that you can't fight the next battle with the tactics from the last battle. The Maginot Line was the right idea for the wrong war.
How does this apply to the church? My sense is that that church is essentially building an epistemological Maginot Line in their response to the new Postmodern world in which we live. So much ink has been spilled over this new worldview that I don't want to attempt to describe it in detail here. It is simply enough to say that Postmodern thought views absolute knowledge as inherently unattainable because true objectivity can never really be achieved (I know that's a simplistic definition, but it will work for now).
Postmodern thought gains more and more cultural ground everyday. You can see it on TV, hear it in popular music, read it in literature and experience it every time someone qualifies a thought by saying, "of course that's just my opinion." There is an inherent understanding that the idea that someone can know something with 100% confidence is totally illogical (ironically perhaps the best example of this is in the scientific discipline of Quantum Mechanics, but I digress).
So how has the church responded to this new cultural and epistemological reality? For the most part we have dug in our heals. We have taken a defensive posture, adamantly claiming that truth does exist and can be known and that knowledge is essential to our very existence as humans and the people of God. We have started groups like the Gospel Coalition and created curriculum like The Truth Project all meant to defend our worldview against this Postmodern invader at the door. We affirm the existence of truth more now than we ever did in modern times.
The problem is that, like the Maginot Line, we are using tactics that were perfect for the battles of Modernism, but are totally obsolete in a Postmodern world. The arguments we make are answers to questions that no one is really asking anymore. The world is marching around us, and we are so entrenched and immovable that we cannot adapt to stop it. It is inevitable: Postmodernism will win.
I know that last statement probably scares many Christians. But the truth is that this change is not a bad thing. This is where the Maginot Line metaphor breaks down. Postmodernism is not Hitler. It is not the end of the world or the collapse of Christianity. It is simply a new reality that the Church must learn to adapt to and engage in a positive way, just like every other cultural change through history.
Does that mean Postmodern thought carries no dangers? No, there are some real difficulties with the potential implications of this epistemological philosophy. But there are also some very important positive developments in this new world, including the ability to have better, more productive conversations with those who disagree with us and to define our relationships not by our differences but by our similarities.
Whatever one thinks about this change, the truth is postmodernism is here and it is not going away any time soon. In order for the church to avoid loosing all its influence in the surrounding culture, we must find new ways to engage the world around us and not fall back into old patterns that are now ineffective. It is time to fill up the trenches and begin moving out into the world to join with God in his mission.
One would hope that the French learned from the Maginot Line. As the old saying goes, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." My concern is that church is doomed to repeat a very old military blunder in a battle that doesn't even need to be fought. In my opinion that would be most tragic. | | |
| Of all the controversial issues facing the American church today, none is so explosive or so complex as the issue of homosexuality. In secular society, the legislative and judicial branches of our government are busy attempting to form reasonable public policy regarding homosexuality in a number of public spheres (i.e. proposition 8, don’t ask don’t tell, etc.). At the same time, churches attempt to do for their own policy within a biblical context.
Unfortunately the discussion and debate over these issues has become heated and passionate in a potentially damaging way, both inside and outside the church. Lines have been drawn, factions assembled and de facto leaders chosen from those with the loudest and farthest reaching voices.
As someone who works in a church and also seeks to engage the culture, I feel a certain level of frustration with both sides of this issue. It seems that so much has been put on the line that no levels of compromise or tolerance can exist between those who differ on this issue. Families, congregations, even entire denominations have begun to split over this issue. And while I have my own strong feelings about homosexuality and the appropriate response from the church and society at large, I do think there can be common ground that both sides can agree on.
So I offer this proposal for the church about some common ground for both sides of the debate on homosexuality. I know this will not be the solution to the debate, nor will it address every issue. But I think this can at least be the starting place for some more constructive discussion.
------
Assertion 1: Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin.
Without getting into the much deeper theological waters of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I think we can all agree that it is not the unforgivable sin. Jesus made it clear in his interactions with the sinners and the outcasts of society, that no one is beyond forgiveness or redemption (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding). Adulterers, murderers and traitors among others all received the love and forgiveness found in Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, in today's society it seems that many churches are much more willing to love and interact with adulterers, murderers and traitors than they are with people from the gay community. And it is not only practicing homosexuals that receive the church's cold shoulder, but often those who admit any sort of same sex attraction at all.
In my opinion, the church must change its approach to people who identify as a part of the LGBT community. This is a reality of our culture that we must engage as part of the mission of God. But more importantly, these are people made in the image of God whom God loves deeply and sent his Son to die for. Sexual orientation does not change that fact.
Assertion 2: Marriage, Fidelity and Monogamy are still the Biblical ideals.
I remember back in 2004 when then New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey announced he had been having an affair with another man and officially came out as a homosexual. Many from the gay community, both inside and outside the church, applauded him for his courage to challenge the social norms and be true to himself. What was not heard from the gay community was any sort of regret or sympathy for the wife he had betrayed or the family he had broken through this affair.
Whatever one's convictions on the issue of homosexuality, all should be able to affirm that the same categories of sexual sin that apply to heterosexuals apply to homosexuals as well. This includes lust (often manifested in viewing pornography), adultery and promiscuity. Coming out as a gay person does not automatically invalidate one's wedding vows. Nor does it give free reign to engage in whatever sexual practices a person desires. There needs to be an acknowledgment that there is a difference between gay couples in a committed, monogamous relationship, and gay people who are promiscuous.
That said, it is also worth acknowledging that the church has done a pretty terrible job of holding its members accountable to sexual sin. Any policies regarding monogamy for homosexuals must also include heterosexuals as well.
Assertion 3: Pastors and church leaders should be able to follow their consciences on this issue.
Several stories have emerged in the past few years from countries in Europe of pastors and church leaders who have found themselves in legal trouble after either speaking of homosexuality as a sin or refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. There is some concern that the same public policies that are driving those legal proceedings may one day reach across the Atlantic to the U.S.
The fact is that there is legitimate debate on what the scriptures say about homosexuality and the appropriate response of the church. Regardless of what side of the debate people find themselves on, everyone should be able to affirm that all pastors have the right of conscience on how they respond to the issue of homosexuality in their churches. This means that no prosecution or civil suits should be filed against those who refuse to perform gay weddings or those who speak about homosexuality as a sin. Likewise it also means that divisions and schism are not automatically required when a denomination makes a particular decision on the issue.
This affirmation of conscience does not mean that all approaches to homosexuality are acceptable. Inflammatory and hateful speech should never be tolerated in the church, including on this issue. Love must be the guiding principle in all circumstances.
-------
These three assertions are relatively simple and straightforward. And I believe they can be affirmed by every well intentioned, gospel-loving Christian. Again, they will not satisfy every argument or situation, but I do believe they represent a place where everyone can come together in agreement. And hopefully that will lead to a better conversation than the one that has been so polarizing for the church. | | |
| Ok so I know it's been a while since I've written on this blog but I have some things to write and I don't have anywhere else to write them, so here goes:
The Fractal Gospel
The other night I stayed up later than I had intended because I started watching Nova on PBS (yes I'm a geek) and really got into it. The program was on Fractals. For those of you who don't know what fractals are, here's a brief history. Since the time of the Greeks, geometry was essentially limited to constructs that included straight lines, curves and angels. This type of math is known as Euclidian geometry. It worked very well for the theoretical and human constructed world (perhaps a tribute to the forms of Plato) but could not describe the reality of the natural world. But then in mid 20th century a guy named Benoit Mandelbrot proposed a new geometrical construct know as Fractals. This geometry was based on the rough broken shapes seen in nature like those of mountains, coastlines and weather systems. In essence, Mandelbrot had discovered a way to quantify these shapes and patterns. Since then, fractal theory has been used in everything from movie animation to medicine to astronomy to telecommunications. And the list of disciplines influenced by this somewhat archaic mathematical method grows every year.
The detailed equations and fractal sets are beyond my limited mathematical understanding, but there are a few basic principles that required to have a pure fractal. The first is the idea of pattern. Fractals are made of complex patterns. In essence there is no randomness in a fractal form. The second principle is known as self-similarity. These patterns must be replicated within the fractal. Basically the fractal repeats itself internally. The last general principle is scale-independence. The patterns must be the same regardless of the scale at which one is looking at fractal. Zoom in and the patterns are evident. Zoom out and the patterns are still there. (See below for a picture of the fractal known as the Mandelbrot Set)
So after watching the program and being blown away by the complexity and coolness of fractals (did I mention I was a geek?) I got to thinking. What if the basic rules that govern Fractal Geometry are a good metaphor for the Gospel itself? I know that seems like a stretch but go with me on this.
There has been a lot of debate recently on the true purpose of the Gospel. Fundamentalists argue that the Gopsel is primarily for the salvation of individual souls. Progressives argue that the Gospel is meant to change the social constructs in this world for the benefit of all mankind. Many post-moderns (like myself) fall somewhere in the middle acknowledging the truth of both sides and trying to find some middle ground. But what if the real truth is not one of compromise (which often seems to be what I advocate) but one complex detail? What if both the fundamentalist and progressive sides have failed to see the patterns evident in the others and my attempt to compromise is simplifying it and missing the minutia in favor of theological peace?
What if the Gospel is a fractal?
First of all like fractals I think we can say that the Gospel has a distinct pattern. It is a pattern of restoration and reconciliation. Wherever the Gospel goes, restoration and reconciliation follow regardless of cultural or historical context (I speak of the true Gospel, not necessarily Christianity as the two are not always the same). Could we then say that the Gospel is self similar? The pattern of reconciliation and restoration has appeared in different locations, at different times, for different purposes yet the pattern remains the same: what was broken is restored, what was separated is reconciled. And if the Gospel is self similar, could it then also be scale independent? The Gospel works on a large scale to reconcile entire races and nations to one another and yet at the same time it reconciles the individual with God and deals with personal sin and suffering. No matter what scale you look at, the Gospel works in the same pattern.
So instead of fighting over whether the gospel is meant for the world or the individual, fractals give us a metaphor that we can use to say that the gospel is for both and everywhere in between. It works for the reconciliation of races in the United States. It restores a drug addict to a life of blessing and beauty. It brings estranged family members back into a relationship of love and understanding. It transforms a fallen world of decay and destruction to one of order and beauty. It works at every level for any person in any culture in any time. It is both infinite and limited.
Now I have to stress that my use of Fractals here is a metaphorical one. I am not referring to Fractal Geometry in a mathematical sense which I am sure would make many mathematicians cringe. But I do believe that this structure gives us an excellent model with which to describe the reach and implications of the Gospel.
It's at least worth considering. | | |
| Ok so I know it's been a while since I've written on this blog but I have some things to write and I don't have anywhere else to write them, so here goes:
The Fractal Gospel
The other night I stayed up later than I had intended because I started watching Nova on PBS (yes I'm a geek) and really got into it. The program was on Fractals. For those of you who don't know what fractals are, here's a brief history. Since the time of the Greeks, geometry was essentially limited to constructs that included straight lines, curves and angels. This type of math is known as Euclidian geometry. It worked very well for the theoretical and human constructed world (perhaps a tribute to the forms of Plato) but could not describe the reality of the natural world. But then in mid 20th century a guy named Benoit Mandelbrot proposed a new geometrical construct know as Fractals. This geometry was based on the rough broken shapes seen in nature like those of mountains, coastlines and weather systems. In essence, Mandelbrot had discovered a way to quantify these shapes and patterns. Since then, fractal theory has been used in everything from movie animation to medicine to astronomy to telecommunications. And the list of disciplines influenced by this somewhat archaic mathematical method grows every year.
The detailed equations and fractal sets are beyond my limited mathematical understanding, but there are a few basic principles that required to have a pure fractal. The first is the idea of pattern. Fractals are made of complex patterns. In essence there is no randomness in a fractal form. The second principle is known as self-similarity. These patterns must be replicated within the fractal. Basically the fractal repeats itself internally. The last general principle is scale-independence. The patterns must be the same regardless of the scale at which one is looking at fractal. Zoom in and the patterns are evident. Zoom out and the patterns are still there. (See below for a picture of the fractal known as the Mandelbrot Set)
So after watching the program and being blown away by the complexity and coolness of fractals (did I mention I was a geek?) I got to thinking. What if the basic rules that govern Fractal Geometry are a good metaphor for the Gospel itself? I know that seems like a stretch but go with me on this.
There has been a lot of debate recently on the true purpose of the Gospel. Fundamentalists argue that the Gopsel is primarily for the salvation of individual souls. Progressives argue that the Gospel is meant to change the social constructs in this world for the benefit of all mankind. Many post-moderns (like myself) fall somewhere in the middle acknowledging the truth of both sides and trying to find some middle ground. But what if the real truth is not one of compromise (which often seems to be what I advocate) but one complex detail? What if both the fundamentalist and progressive sides have failed to see the patterns evident in the others and my attempt to compromise is simplifying it and missing the minutia in favor of theological peace?
What if the Gospel is a fractal?
First of all like fractals I think we can say that the Gospel has a distinct pattern. It is a pattern of restoration and reconciliation. Wherever the Gospel goes, restoration and reconciliation follow regardless of cultural or historical context (I speak of the true Gospel, not necessarily Christianity as the two are not always the same). Could we then say that the Gospel is self similar? The pattern of reconciliation and restoration has appeared in different locations, at different times, for different purposes yet the pattern remains the same: what was broken is restored, what was separated is reconciled. And if the Gospel is self similar, could it then also be scale independent? The Gospel works on a large scale to reconcile entire races and nations to one another and yet at the same time it reconciles the individual with God and deals with personal sin and suffering. No matter what scale you look at, the Gospel works in the same pattern.
So instead of fighting over whether the gospel is meant for the world or the individual, fractals give us a metaphor that we can use to say that the gospel is for both and everywhere in between. It works for the reconciliation of races in the United States. It restores a drug addict to a life of blessing and beauty. It brings estranged family members back into a relationship of love and understanding. It transforms a fallen world of decay and destruction to one of order and beauty. It works at every level for any person in any culture in any time. It is both infinite and limited.
Now I have to stress that my use of Fractals here is a metaphorical one. I am not referring to Fractal Geometry in a mathematical sense which I am sure would make many mathematicians cringe. But I do believe that this structure gives us an excellent model with which to describe the reach and implications of the Gospel.
It's at least worth considering. | | |
| I was checking my e-mail today and found a response from David Sessions to my open letter to CCM Patrol (now Patrol Magazine, www.patrolmag.com) so I thought I'd post it: Steve,
Thanks for your letter. I apologize for not responding 6 months ago ... I guess we were getting so much email that I overlooked it. Then I happened to see your xanga post on Google today, so I figured I would respect the time it took to express your concerns.
First, I certainly understand (and agree) that God probably uses music that we hate. (Though "hate" is a strong word ... most of our appearance of "hate" was manufactured for the sake of humor). But there are plenty of people proclaiming the (real or imagined) virtues of Christian music, and not nearly enough people calling it what it is. For every one CCM Patrol, there were five other major websites establishing the notion that the CCM industry was "God's music." The landscape has changed pretty dramatically just since we started in 2006, which is one reason we stopped focusing exclusively on Christian music. But that said, your point is well taken, and we have wrestled quite a bit with the problem of "bashing" something that might have been used for good.
On the other hand, can't really identify with finding "secular" music "empty and meaningless." Or the question of whether God would rather us listen to Coldplay or Casting Crowns. I don't think that's something we can answer, or necessarily have any business asking. Having mature spiritual eyes hardly means sacrificing quality for "Christianism"; and I am most emotionally and intellectually moved to marvel at God and his creation by the most awe-inspiring, excellently-executed music or other creative work. Using explicit Christianism to compensate for quality is something like shock comedy ... if you're truly clever you don't need to be shocking or perverse to get laughs. Similarly, if you're truly an inspired artist, you don't need to overuse God's name or simplistic theological concepts to make a powerful statement.
Once again, thanks a lot for your intelligent feedback (it's nice to get emails from people who can spell! :). If you haven't followed us in the past 6 months, we're now at http://www.patrolmag.com.
Sincerely,
David Sessions
Patrol Magazine First of all thank you, David, for responding to my concerns and doing so in such a respectful and articulate way. Not to be cynical, but I wasn't really expecting a response. Thanks for proving me wrong. I still don't entirely agree with the idea of the majority of Chritian music being diluted by "Christianism". At the very least, I believe that the vast majority of CCM musicians are truly using their music to express their hearts to God, even if it does come off as repetitive and watered down. And I do believe that we must give some credit to them for having the right intentions. As the old saying goes, the forrest would be an awfully quiet place if only the best birds sang. I think that applies to artists too. That said, my guess is that we probably agree on much more than we disagree. In a lot of ways I find the articles in Patrol Magazine artistically refreshing. All of us should seek to give our best to God whether that be through our work, our relationships, or our creativity. Nothing less will suffice. So thanks again David Sessions for your response and what you do. I pray that God will bless you in all your endeavors and keep you in His presence. In Christ, Steve | | |
|
