I haven’t posted much lately, on account of being quite busy with multiple projects right now.
But I was reading a manuscript for an upcoming book and found this phrase: the relevant/resistant tension. It was in the context of talking about how emerging churches need to practice that tension along with the ancient/future tension they’re pretty good at.
What it implies is that while the church must find relevant expression within a culture, it also needs to assert a resistance to that culture (at least some elements of it). Cultures aren’t devoid of meaning or morality, so there are some elements of every culture that faithful proclamation of the gospel will resist and prophesy against, so to speak.
One of the issues for the missional/emerging church is this relevant/resistant issue: how do we faithfully proclaim the gospel in a way that speaks to the core dreams and needs of a culture, while at the same time subverting that culture’s worldview?
I wonder if this is very much what the Hebrew prophets were up to, especially when they were prophesying in the midst of exile. And maybe that’s a good picture of what our task is: creating subversive poetry that undermines the worldview of the "empire" and says that another world is possible… that another world is in fact already here (to cop the title of the upcoming book I’ve been reading).
Relevant point, must be an interesting book.
In regards to: “One of the issues for the missional/emerging church is this relevant/resistant issue: how do we faithfully proclaim the gospel in a way that speaks to the core dreams and needs of a culture, while at the same time subverting that culture’s worldview?”
It seems that the emerging church often starts from the culture’s worldview (Christianity is mean) and speaks to that culture by making a spectacle of their pre-emergent Christian brothers and sisters and the pre-emergent gospel/ortodoxy.
If the emergent message, or portions thereof, is meant to be heard as from a reformer like Martin Luther or a prophet as you point out, I hope we don’t to miss it. However, it is hard to receive sometimes.
Right. Paraphrasing Dallas Willard: Noticing that something is wrong is not a gospel. Criticizing people is not a gospel. And no “brand” of Christianity will ever produce disciples of Jesus unless a gospel is preached.
“And maybe that’s a good picture of what our task is: creating subversive poetry that undermines the worldview of the “empire” and says that another world is possible…”
Absolutely. Sorry to be running across this post so late (feedreader way behind for some reason…) because this is a great thought. I’ve had it many times before as well. I think what strikes me about it is the emphasis to the arts…in other words, what would happen if we had a Michelangelo today?
As a Christian artist, I find it very sad and disappointing that the church has neglected art as much as it has. It seems that for the first time in history the church isn’t leading the way in the arts. Any thoughts?
Quite a few thoughts, along those lines, Ryan (I won’t share all of them here.. 😉
But part of the problem is that Christians have predominantly capitulated to the culture. We have absorbed the dreams, goals, and aspirations of modernity and put a Christian “sheen” on them, so any art that subverts Enlightenment assumptions is seen to be heretical, or at least dangerous.
But ultimately one of the main things art does is subvert worldviews. The Church has a hard time valuing and interpreting art (thus it tends not to produce very good artists), because it has a hard time discerning the culture. Too many of us unthinkingly swallow the goals and aspirations of modern Western culture, assuming that it is the same thing as Christianity.
So keep creating, Ryan. I do have some hope that Christianity will once again take up its prophetic mantel and be a subversive voice over against modernity.