Menu Close

Sharing Good News – Disenchantment

This post continues a thread started in my previous post. If you have not read it you should do so to provide context for this post. Click HERE.

This post is directed at the question in my first post “…to what extent does the prevailing cultural ethos of tolerance, acceptance, individual rights, etc restrain our engagement with unbelievers? “ Those who are familiar with my writings will recognize the subject of disenchantment (hopefully not with regret). If you are not familiar with the subject as I have engaged it and are a bit masochistic, you can read my posts HERE.

To begin with my conclusion, Our disenchanted age is a highly significant factor related to, both, the unsuccessfulness of evangelistic efforts, and the methods adopted to deliver good news. It has been, and continues to be my contention: “Living in a disenchanted age is the most significant challenge we face in seeking a relationship with God”.

To begin the discussion, some basics about disenchantment, particularly life in our disenchanted age is helpful.

The default mode for the disenchanted age is reliance on human ability/reason and scientific laws as an ultimate source for answers to the problems of modernity. Utility, efficiency and production are our preimemmant tools to achieve full potential as human beings. Inherently, disenchantment rejects the transcendent. Mystery, fantasy, spirituality, faith, divinity, magic, art, namely, enchantment, is rendered irrelevant. our existence in a disenchanted age is reduced to one dimension, removing depth and meaning and distorting the purpose of our lives. As Beck describes, “When creation is stripped of its holy, sacred and enchanted character …it becomes–material. Raw, disenchanted material. Inert stuff. Piles of particles.”

In my first post, I questioned whether our problems related to Sharing Good News were attributable to either, of what I see, as opposing camps in the discussion.

Are progressive Christians the problem? “The progressive impulse toward tolerance and inclusion, along with a post-modern stance on truth, leaves progressive Christians in an awkward position in regards to evangelism, sharing the gospel with non-believers. Evangelism smacks of judgementalism, I’m right and you are wrong. Worse, evangelism can tend toward colonialism, the history of white missionaries being sent to save dark pagan savages.” (Beck)

Could uncompromising, evangelism zealots be the problem? “ Compelled by an urgency of doom and gloom… turn or burn.. fear, fueled by “you can”t go to heaven alone”; sharing the Gospel becomes an ultimatum to the human will. Choose Christ and live or deny Christ and go to hell.

My intuitive response to those questions is to develop thoughtful answers and suggest solutions to each problem. After some pondering, It occurs to me that the only thing that path would accomplish would be to clarify in each of the parties minds’ how right they are and how wrong the other is. Since we agree(?) we are all for Sharing Good News, it would seem to be unproductive to further solidify our disagreements. Therefore, why not recognize each position reflects honest, but real differences and are equally yoked in their ineffectiveness in Sharing Good News. I am suggesting we (both parties) share another common bond, namely disenchantment.

Starting with progressive Christians, which I most closely identify with. Progressive Christian are highly susceptible to the impact of disenchantment. The preeminent values of a disenchanted culture, …individualism, …tolerance, …authenticity, …justice… fairness, et al, comprise the lens through which we read scripture and interpret how to live out our lives as Christ followers. To the extent that evangelism is perceived to require us to violate those deeply held values, we will resist. That resistance will not be overcome by force.

Speaking to evangelism zealots, which is a part of my faith heritage. I believe disenchantment is an equal opportunity disease. Evangelism zealots are not exempt from our disenchanted culture. From their disenchanted perspective, their preeminent values are …truth, …rightness, …justice,..loyalty,…obedience, et al. Similarly, these comprise the lens through which they read the Bible and interpret how to live out their lives as Christ followers. Resistance toany violation of those values is uncompromising. Additionally, their enthusiasm for evangelism will grow or wane to the extent that their perception of evangelism resonates with those values.

For each of the parties, their deeply held values come as a result of this disenchanted age. Ironically, both attribute their values to scripture. We live In the reality of human progress and the optimism of an unbounded future, all attributable to human ingenuity and science. Each party, in their own way, embrace that reality and support its achievement. I suggest that serious engagement on that point, could lead deeper understanding and has potential for transformative change.

On the other hand, there is a transcendent reality. An awareness that we exist and recognize our need for meaning and purpose which is unfulfilled in a disenchanted reality. This is our common need which can only be fulfilled in the transcendent.

As usual, I don’t have answers, but I hope the issue has been reframed in a way that will generayte serious self-examination and meaningful conversations.

Disclaimer: I fully realize I have stepped into deep waters. I do wish to quibble over minute details. I have written with my usual personal limitations. I am painting with a broad brush and I hopeful others will help fill in the gaps.

I was wrong once before.

Pew Notes 9-29-2019

Each week I hope to share thoughts from sermons delivered at First Alliance Church where we attend. 

This week Pastor Paul delivered the third lesson in his series on Colossians entitled “The Supremacy of Christ”. The BIG IDEA he builds upon In this series is : “The gospel is the supremacy of Christ which absolutely changes everything.”

This week’s lesson was entitled Jesus + Nothing= Everything. You can listen to the lesson HERE. In my previous Pew Note post I had alluded to Christ+Nothing as a concept that had challenged me earlier in my journey. I was grateful Paul put some flesh (pun intended) on the subject today.

The defining issue at Colossae was the assertion that Jesus alone was not sufficient. Teachers were insisting that the Christian life required more than Jesus. Pastor Paul identified categories of additions to Jesus as: Reason (2:18), Ritual (2:16) and Rules (2:20-21)

Apostle Paul was absolute regarding the supremacy of Christ. (1:18). We live our lives in him. Who I am as a Christian is rooted in who Jesus is. To the extent my life does not reflect the image of Jesus, I am deceiving myself, and as Pastor Paul illustrated, living by moonlight. Moonlight is only adequate for short-term survival. To experience life in all it fullness, we need sunlight. Exposed to sunlight we will flourish and live fully. The Message’s paraphrase of 2 Cor.3:16-18 provides beautiful imagery of being exposed to sunlight.

“Whenever … they turn to face God …, God removes the veil and there they are—face-to-face! They suddenly recognize that God is a living, personal presence, not a piece of chiseled stone. And when God is personally present, a living Spirit, … We’re free of it! All of us! Nothing between us and God, our faces shining with the brightness of his face. And so we are transfigured much like the Messiah, our lives gradually becoming brighter and more beautiful as God enters our lives and we become like him.”
??2 Corinthians? ?3:16-18? ?MSG??

Compelling questions I am left with are: First, to what extent am I living in moonlight? Secondly, where do I find sunlight , …becoming brighter and more beautiful… as I become like Him…?

The balance of Pastor Paul’s sermon provides direction to a sun-drenched existence.

Predictably Irrational

Dan Ariel, a behavioral economist, is the author of Predictably Irrational.  The premise of the book and behavioral economics is that human beings do not always always think and act in rational ways but more often are very irrational in our decisions and actions and those irrational responses are, in fact, predictable. Because current economic policy assumes rational responses, Ariely argues those policies are flawed because our behavior is not rational but irrational and predictably so. The book is interesting and worthy of consideration. Here is an excerpt that I thought interesting not only from an economic prospective but also from a spiritual and religious view.

In the chapter entitled The Cost of Social Norms (Why We Are Happy to Do Things , but Not When We Are Paid to Do Them) , the author examines the reality that we live in two different worlds – one where social norms prevail and the other where market norms prevail.

Social norms are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy. Instant paybacks are not required: you may help move your neighbor’s couch, but this doesn’t mean he has to come right over and move yours. It’s like opening a door for someone: it provides pleasure for both of you, and reciprocity is not immediately required.

The second world, the one governed by market norms, is very different. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about it. The exchanges are sharp-edged: wages, prices, rents, interest, and cost-and-benefits. Such market relationships are not necessarily evil or mean – in fact they include self-reliance, inventiveness, and individualism – but they do imply comparable benefits and prompt payments. When you are in the domain of market norms, you get what you pay for – that’s just the way it is. It is clear that when we keep social norms and market norms on their separate paths, life hums along pretty well. … When social and market norms collide, trouble sets in.

Ariely developed experiments to explore the effects of social and market norms. There were several experiments cited. However, this statement summarizes, in general, the conclusions of the experiments:

So we live in two worlds: one characterized by social exchanges and the other characterized by market exchanges. And we apply different norms to these two kinds of relationships. Moreover, introducing market norms into social changes, as we have seen, violates the social norms and hurts the relationships. Once this type of mistake has been committed, recovering a social relationship is difficult.

This study illustrates well the point:

My good friends Uri Gneezy (a professor at the University of California at San Diego) and Aldo Rustichini (a professor at the University of Minnesota) provided a very clever test of the long-term effects of a switch from social to market norms.

A few years ago, they studied a day care center in Israel to determine whether imposing a fine on parents who arrived late to pick up their children was a useful deterrent. Uri and Aldo concluded that the fine didn’t work well and in fact it had long-term negative effects. Why? Before the fine was introduced, the teachers and parents had a social contract, with social norms about being late. Thus, if parents were late – as they occasionally were -they felt guilty about it-and their guilt compelled them to be more prompt in picking up their kids in the future. (In Israel, guilt seems to be an effective way to get compliance.) But once the fine was imposed, the day care center had inadvertently replaced the social norms with market norms. Now that the parents were paying for their tardiness, they interpreted the situation in terms of market norms. In other words, since they were being fined, they could decide for themselves whether to be late or not, and they frequently chose to be late. Needless to say, this was not what the day care center intended.

But the real story only started here. The most interesting part occurred a few weeks later, when the day care center removed the fine. Now he center was back to the social norm. Would the parents also return to the social norm? Would their guilt return as well? Not at all. Once the fine was removed, the behavior of the parent didn’t change. They continued to pick up their kids late. In act, when the fine was removed, there was a slight increase in the number of tardy pickups (after all, both the social norms and the fine had been removed).

This experiment illustrates an unfortunate fact: when a social norm collides with a market norm, the social norm goes away for a long time. In other words, social relationships are not easy to reestablish. Once the bloom is off the rose-once a social norm is trumped by a market norm – it will rarely return.

The church has chosen to adopt market norms (consumerism) to achieve what it believed it could not accomplish, or accomplish as well, with social norms. It has subjugated social norms (koinonia, community, love, body) to market norms. The result has been similar to the experience of the Isreali daycare. Once the market norms prevail, church members feel they are paying for their “misbehavior” or they feel a sense of entitlement and expect to receive “what they are paying for”. As I begin to understand how social and market norms interrelate, it becomes clearer why so many churches are struggling.

What bothers me the most is the conclusion that once a social norm is trumped by a market norm – it will rarely return. The implication is that consumer churches cannot just reinstate social norms and expect to return to being the church (become), the body of Christ. For leaders of churches who are searching to escape the grasp of consumerism, this seems to negate a strategy that would simply trash the market norms and expect that koinonia, community, love, body, et al will be restored. It is an interesting and challenging problem. I am going to give it more thought.

Sharing Good News

Prompted by a current class and some one on one discussion, I’m pondering evangelism, sharing the Gospel, seeking the lost, being missional, winning the lost, et al, In this post I want to share some observations and pose some questions, which will likely require additional posts. Here we go, in no particular order:

It is my perception there is very little disagreement among most Christians that sharing our faith is important, if not mandatory, as disciples of Christ. Assuming I am correct, why then, does the subject elicit personal resistance? (I am no exception).

Very few people I know are reluctant to share good news , experiences or products in their lives. We often do so spontaneously, even to strangers on occasion. That being the case, why then, if the Gospel is really good news in our lives, don’t we share that news? ( I can feel the guilt creeping in)

I am under the impression that, generally, evangelistic efforts are not highly successful. (Please don’t ask how much one soul is worth) I do believe, in the past decade or so, there has been a resurgence of emphasis on evangelism, particularly in church plants and para-church ministries.

I wonder how much our reluctance to evangelize is related to the current polarized and divisive culture where disagreement often devolves into angry conflict? THe old adage “you don’t talk about religion and politics” has become an inviolable rule.

Similarly, to what extent does the prevailing cultural ethos of tolerance, acceptance, individual rights, etc restrain our engagement with unbelievers?

Are progressive Christians the problem? “The progressive impulse toward tolerance and inclusion, along with a post-modern stance on truth, leaves progressive Christians in an awkward position in regards to evangelism, sharing the gospel with non-believers. Evangelism smacks of judgementalism, I’m right and you are wrong. Worse, evangelism can tend toward colonialism, the history of white missionaries being sent to save dark pagan savages.” (Beck)

Could uncompromising, evangelism zealots be the problem? “ Compelled by an urgency of doom and gloom… turn or burn.. fear, fueled by “you can”t go to heaven alone”; sharing the Gospel becomes an ultimatum to the human will. Choose Christ and live or deny Christ and go to hell.

How important is our motivation for sharing the Gospel? Does it really matter why if souls are being saved?

Do church growth strategies foster the idea that evangelism is the responsibility of staff, primarily the preaching pastor?

You have probably have had other thoughts and/or questions. My list is not intended to be exhaustive. I am certain that sharing the Gospel should be a priority for all believers. I am equally sure that current efforts are not yielding abundant fruit.

What I believe is critically important is that we understand the reality we face and re-examine our theological, ecclesiastical, spiritual and culture assumptions to begin transformational change. Hopefully, this conversation can move us in that direction.

Questions and comments are welcome.

Spirituality of the River (2008)

Dr. Erland Waltner at age eighty quoted in Dissent Discipleship:

During the last decade of my life … I have sensed I am in transition on my experience of God …For many years my time with God was something like a quick stop while driving on a long and sometimes rough road … a pit stop in the Indianapolis 500 when drivers stop to refuel, to check tires, to watch for possible trouble ahead before hurrying back to fast lane as quickly as possible. I called mine a “spirituality of the road.”

Now I am beginning to see my relationship with God as being like a river which helps me get from here to there, to carry me along from day to day, from task to task, from one experience to the next. I am experiencing God as One who is not only daily present with me, but One who is in motion, bearing me up, sustaining, renewing, enabling me.

Spirituality of the river asks for a higher kind of trusting of in God, a deeper kind of love, a profound hope to be carried on by this river.