45 replies to this topic

[Thom Wade]

NBooth, on 17 June 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Persiflage, on 17 June 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

These are some very good points. But I guess I would question our need for approval or acceptance to begin with. I think the very idea that we need "acceptance" is fairly modern.

The idea might be, but the basic fact surely isn't, since humans have historically sought acceptance (we can see this in several ways: the very existence of society, for one thing--that is, the need to be in communication/participation with other human beings; the fact that some ancient religious groups took as their basis acceptance by a patron god (not excluding Israel); the fact that pride is a sin at least as old as any other--and pride has the positive aspect of overwrought self-evaluation and the negative aspect of needing that evaluation to be shared by others; etc). And it's hard to argue that, for instance, a feral child has had all his needs met, however well-fed or sheltered he might be. We don't just desire to be connected to people; we need it if we're to function at all.

Isn't Paul's recommendation for those who refuse to acknowledge their sin even after being confronted about it be sent out from the church? Doesn't he say it is for their own good? Sounds an awful lot like suggesting people need a connection with other people...and sometimes severing said connection can result in repentance.

[Andy Whitman]

Peter T Chattaway, on 18 June 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Andy Whitman wrote:
: And that's all I'm really advocating here. Let's lead with love. Let's start with that.

For what it's worth, I'm beginning to flashback to an old issue of The Door -- from the early '90s, I think -- in which someone said there was just enough truth to the liberal emphasis on love to make it "float", but without theology of *some* sort, we don't necessarily even know what love *is*. (This was in "The Liberal Issue", I think. Don't know the exact month or issue number.)

Okay, let's not lead with love. I guess. What was I thinking?

[Greg P]

Christian, on 18 June 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

I think your suggestion that we might not "hear" God the same way we once did, and might (appropriately) question earlier experiences, is a byproduct of spiritual maturity. But don't you worry about spiritual deadness? NOT that you have to experience God the same way you did as a Charismatic, but that He knows you and can be known by you. Maybe there's a spectrum of how we "know" God -- J.I. Packer has a classic book on the subject, right?

Yeah. In another thread I brought up M. Scott Peck's Four Phases of Spiritual Growth, which outlines some things for me that I find very much mirror my own life. I had many dramatic "spiritual experiences" (at least I think they were) in my teens and early 20's, working on the streets with drug addicts and homeless in the inner city. I needed that kind of interaction with God at that age-- frankly I was very socially retarded and it was all I had going for me. I was also incredibly legalistic and dogmatic.I honestly think I needed God to reveal Himself to me in demonstrative fashion, at that point in my life, because i was a babe. This phase gave way in my late 20's to a decade long period of questioning, agnosticism and very liberal thinking. I've mellowed considerably over the past few years. I'm slightly more middle of the road. And while I will always be distinctly "christian" in my spirituality, I am definitely much more open these days to different ideas and constructs about God. I see Beauty and Meaning in things I long ago mocked or ignored.

Back to the relationship thing:

I called a coworker an asshole last week to his face in a private, candid moment. I did this because he was actually being an anus. I don't question whether Jesus would've said that because clearly he would not-- just like he wouldn't have had sex last week... and I had that too -- but I also don't question whether venting at my associate for his taunting passive-aggressive behavior in any way shape or form blocked my "relationship" with God. God is with me. I am His child. His Grace is sufficient.

I later went and talked to the individual and joked with him so that he knew I held absolutely no grudge against him and acknowledged the need to work amicably (to some degree) with him on a daily basis. He got it. I also reminded him to cut the shit. Situation done. No baggage. I don't believe or feel compelled to have a talk with God about this. He knows my heart-- I was being honest and human. And I don't for a minute believe I am on spiritual probation. It is still well with my soul. This may seem callous to people or "hardened", but I can no longer live my life in a constant state of introspection and self-analysis about my "standing" with God in some relational sense. My impression of the New Testament was that our union with Christ was not so fragile. And isn't that-- at least partly-- one of the great joys of the Gospel?

Edited by Greg P, 18 June 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[NBooth]

Scott McKnight has mixed feelings about this book:

Quote

In particular, Bergler makes the interesting proposal that the 1960s was an apocalypse, the revelation of trends that preceded and came to light in the 1960s. And yet the evangelicals have been most successful of the church branches he studies.

Which leads me to this oddity: “juvenilization,” as I read this book, is the result of a form of communication. It the adaptation of the Christian message — and he could have examined the history of how “gospel” changed over this time and seen much of what he was saying — to be attractive (think music, think fun, think games, think entertaining) to the next generation. Part of this is evangelistic — reaching the unreached — and part of it is catechism — reaching the church kids. Adaptation to the audience is part of good Christian communication, so elements of the whole juvenilization theory are not only unavoidable but desirable. Read the New Testament in roughly chronological (not canonical order) sometime — and the take the Synoptics first and then read Paul and Peter and John etc. Notice what happens: the gospel substance shifts in its orientation and linguistic games (kingdom, soteriology, ecclesiology, eternal life, temple priesthood, etc). Audiences led to adaptation. Judaism notoriously was an accommodating faith.

He concludes:

Quote

For all of Bergler’s fine history and analysis and critique there’s not much proposal for solution: he suggests intergenerational ministry and emphasizing the necessity of maturity in the Christian faith. Many conservative Christians, I suspect, will like this book; it strikes me as a book that wants to get back to basics, which I applaud, but it may be read as a plea to go back to the way things were at the turn of the 20th Century. The book is short on solutions and proposals. It is, however, a fascinating study of how teenage culture has influenced American Christianity, and I see Bergler’s major thesis being the accommodation of evangelical church and its methods to youth culture.

(For obvious reasons, I really dig this part: "the juvenilization of the church is about immaturity, which is the same problem the writer of Hebrews faced, Martin Luther faced, Jonathan Edwards faced, and … well … almost all have faced this. Bonhoeffer complained about this as well." Exactly.)

Edited by NBooth, 27 June 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[Pierrot]

As bad as it is, we have to count that this type of narcissist thinking is normal at that age (mid twenties), its a developmentally appropriate trait. What we should be asking is how the 40 year olds got this way, and why it's happening to the society as a whole, not just Christianity.

Quote

It is completely useless to talk about the narcissism of kids without first yelling about why they have whatever level of narcissism they do have: adults. You made them this way. Honestly, I doubt if you (an individual parent) could have done anything differently, the entire structure was built for that purpose-- kids have disposable income so let's build a giant marketing network around that, along with TV and movies and people you want to be like, and probably adults will want to be part of the youth crowd because being an adult blows so you know what to do for them: create a show called Friends, then replace with Sex and The City, then Cashmere Mafia, which are all the same show but less funny but either way they will buy shoes.

[...]

But here's an alternative response: really? do they have to grow up? Haven't you constructed a society where you can credit your way to a simulacra of branded prosperity for the next few decades? Healthcare, social security, unemployment and extremely cheap food? I know, I heard it to, the Dutch have it better in Sweden.

[J.A.A. Purves]

Pierrot, on 30 October 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

As bad as it is, we have to count that this type of narcissist thinking is normal at that age (mid twenties), its a developmentally appropriate trait.

I'd have to disagree there. Historically, 20-somethings have exhibited far more maturity, education and leadership ability than they do today. Sociology professor, Robert A. Nisbett discussed this as a historical problem in light of a modern day youth dominated pop culture. For one example, he wrote: "The age of some of the most distinguished members in the long history of Parliament in England is a case in point, and we may suppose that the brilliant young Pitt would find it far more difficult today to lead the House of Representatives in supposedly youth-dominated America than he did Parliament in eighteenth-century England." We may have a youth dominated culture now, but the end result is a degradation of the abilities and maturity of young men and women - a maturity that used to exist but is now being put off until later and later. This isn't to say that there aren't exceptions, but I don't see how anyone could deny that it's a problem.

Quote

What we should be asking is how the 40 year olds got this way, and why it's happening to the society as a whole, not just Christianity.

Both are important questions that are, for the most part, simply ignored. The Christianity question is still important, however. The church is supposed to be an example that contrasts with the problems of any society. That the church has not resisted this, but instead catered and even appealed to it, is a profound theological problem of it's own that is going to have to be addressed within the church.

NBooth, on 27 June 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Scott McKnight has mixed feelings about this book ... For obvious reasons, I really dig this part: "the juvenilization of the church is about immaturity, which is the same problem the writer of Hebrews faced, Martin Luther faced, Jonathan Edwards faced, and … well … almost all have faced this. Bonhoeffer complained about this as well." Exactly.)

Well, no, it's not "exactly the same problem." Luther faced a society where education, including obviously theological education, was denied to the majority of people. The educated classes in Luther's day knew exactly what they were doing when they were exploiting the superstitions and weaknesses of everyone else. Edwards faced the first mounting secularism in the colonies and Bonhoeffer faced a broken society of people who were bitter and dissatisfied with their mistreatment after the Great War. All of them faced the problem of sin, but every age has it's unique problems.

Our age has a powerful pop culture that dominates the time and activity of people to an extent that is historically unheard of. 20-somethings of our time have a whole wealth of educational riches at their digital fingertips (that is also unheard of in any other period of history) and ... most of them simply refuse to avail themselves of it.