Engaging Society
Posted by inWorship | Under Just Thinking Monday Sep 22, 2008“In the late 1800’s, early 1900’s, a wave of liberalism hit Christian institutions. So what happened—like Princeton, Harvard—those places were one time very biblically based. Liberalism slammed into the institutions in the United States, and what the Christian movement did was they withdrew. They withdrew from the city, they withdrew from certain avenues—the arts and things like that—they withdrew from institutions and they began to build their own institutions. Correct? Absolutely. Now for all of our ranting and raving against the Fundamentalists, if it was not for them, you would not be here. If it was not for that retreat, then we would be France, England, Canada. We’d be those other parts of the world where the Church is dead. So the older brother, as much as he exhausts us all—if it was not for him—you would not be sitting in this room. I can promise you that.
Now what’s happened is as that movement of withdrawal has begun to mature, it has tried to engage society again. It has tried to live missionally, it has tried to engage its neighbors; it’s tried to engage the cities. But here’s the problem. We’re no longer the new kid on the block à la the Puritans; we’re coming back with an unbelievable amount of baggage.”
- Matt Chandler - Luke (Part 14) Blessings and Woes (pdf) at minute 19.20 (mp3)
I have two thoughts here.
What would have happened had we not retreated? Is this assuming that God’s truth would have been compromised, or could we have been more of an impact on society had we never retreated?
And, how do we get rid of the baggage?
I’m gonna sit back and “listen” to this one.
I’m sure you’re thanking me. 
Brandy’s last blog post…Memory Lane: 1st Edition
Now for all of our ranting and raving against the Fundamentalists, if it was not for them, you would not be here. If it was not for that retreat, then we would be France, England, Canada.
I disagree with this premise. I think that Europe is a ‘post Christian’ society precisely because Christianity and the powers that be were so thoroughly entrenched for so long that the church lost it’s validity. Rather than prophetically standing up against what was wrong with the world the church was an integral part of the problem.
The United States has had a different relationship with religion. Essentially distrusting of authority we never allowed this wedding of church and state to take place. The most devout of Christians founders saw the danger of this - to both state and religion.
I think the church in the US much needed this dose of ‘liberalism’ in the early 1900’s - they were in danger of becoming champions of society and the status quo and losing it’s prophetic voice. Liberal elements of the church may have taken things a bit too far but as for how far is a matter of opinion. There does seem to be a need for ‘balance’ and if the fundamentalists are intent on becoming relevant ballast for the liberal wing of the church they will need to realize that what worked in 19th century (much of which was unknown in the 9th) will not likely work in the 21th century.
The ‘baggage’ is post-Enlightenment thinking; process driven theology. 2+2= salvation.
Christian’s last blog post…Dead Jewish Comedian Preaches on Atonement
I actually disagree with the premise of that quote as well. There is a big difference between institutions turning away from Christianity and Christianity withdrawing.
Christians throughout history have been using various ways (good and bad) to reach the world. There are ebbs and flows to this and while we might be in the midst of a popular movement of trying to be “missional” this doesn’t mean that Christians before now weren’t doing the same without the terminology.
Forgive me, i know this was NOT the intent of your post… but i cannot just let that massive insult ’slide by’.
Huh? What insult? What could he possibly mean?
‘then we would be France, England, Canada. We’d be those other parts of the world where the Church is dead.’
I was born in England, it was my home for my first decade of life. I can tell you that comments like that are what makes the rest of the world Hate Americans… it is not envy your for wealth and lifestyle, it is for the insufferable pride and arrogance that that statement embodies… and it came from a CHRISTIAN???
If that is an example of how America has ’saved’ the Church for the rest of the World then rumours of it’s life have been GREATLY exaggerated.
The Queen of England is possessor of the title PROTECTOR of the Faith, she is the titular head of the Church of England. The UK has 60 million inhabitants, the last survey of which declared 71% of which were Christian. Telling them their Church is dead is a monumental slap in their collective faces.
England, like all Western Democracies, has determined there be a seperation of Church powers from those of State. To say that its, and other countries’, Church is dead is a slander arising from an insular thinking.
Sorry for the ‘rant’
As to your thoughts… what good does it bring to consider the former? the facts are what they are and ‘what if’ is not going to be of much help there.
As to the latter - i believe a very good way would be a ‘mea culpa’ - a strong public statement recognising the many, many wrongs members of the Church have done in the past and some continue so to do today. Once that is out in the open and no longer swept under the carpet in shame (confess your sins to one another) you can proudly continue to demonstrate how you LIVE in Him - show your True Christian ideals and practicalities as you live life - His Life - to the fullest and not the one that some less than Christian ’so-called’ leaders are telling you is what a Christian is ’supposed’ to do.
Love One Another - love your enemies - and most importantly love Him - the Father of us all - with all your Heart, Mind, Body and Soul.
I know many families have squabbles between their members - Christians have a role model who was above that - and an instruction manual that supposedly shows us ALL how to live in peace.
Perhaps we might start acting like it someday ’soon’??
<B
love’s last blog post…(Amended) Bill of Rights.
Love makes a good point - there is implied (if not actual) arrogance in the gentleman’s premise as well as my response. I think that what is meant by being ‘post Christian’ (the church being dead in Europe is a poor choice of words) is that the majority of Europeans claim to be entirely secular with their world views, at least if the polls are telling the truth.
But as strong and vibrant church is not necessarily a good thing, as history has shown us.
Christian’s last blog post…Dead Jewish Comedian Preaches on Atonement
Love makes a good point - there is implied (if not actual) arrogance in the gentleman’s premise as well as my response. I think that what is meant by being ‘post Christian’ (the church being dead in Europe is a poor choice of words) is that the majority of Europeans claim to be entirely secular with their world views, at least if the polls are telling the truth.
But a strong and vibrant church is not necessarily a good thing, as history has shown us.
Christian’s last blog post…Dead Jewish Comedian Preaches on Atonement
how do we get rid of the baggage?
This may be a little pessimistic of me, but we are not the first generation of the Church to try to live out our faith with baggage. This doesn’t mean we can ignore that we have it, but it also doesn’t mean we’ve come upon a new problem. Seems like every generation of the Church ran a-ground on it’s humanness at some point. The miracle… the evidence of the presence of God throughout history is that there has always been some thread of people or thought that recognized what was happening and pulled toward the truth. That’s what we have to do…. in whatever our setting, whatever our church background and ‘current-ground’… dive into scripture and move toward what is true.
kim’s last blog post…Worship Reflections 09.21.08
I have to give Matt Chandler the benefit of the doubt here since I do not have time to listen to his entire message. I know preachers often say things using the most colorful language (much like poets) with the intent of shaking up a lethargic crowd. He probably goes on to explain and expound upon his powerful and controversial words.
That said, “the church retreated” and “the church is dead” are, by definition, oxymorons.
I suspect the Church stood for Christ and not for higher-education (ala Princeton, Harvard…).
What would have happened had we not retreated [from preserving higher-education]? Maybe we would have saved the institutions …while losing all the people.
Ric’s last blog post…weakend
Good comment, Love. Very good.
Sheesh! It’s taken forever for me to be able to get to this.
I haven’t had a lot of time, so I haven’t been able to listen to this speakers talk. So, I can’t really say where he is coming from completely. Not sure how he set this up.
France, Canada and England are known to be religious but hardly fundamental. So, I can understand where some of this comes from.
But where my thoughts lie are, why did we withdraw? Did we just choose our battles and those battles in politics and education were not important enough? Makes sense, but also asks a lot more questions.
In getting “back into society” are we looking to exist in it, differently? Or are we looking to reclaim it? If we are looking to reclaim it, baggage is the least of our issues. I do believe that we desperately need to learn to exist in it in every way. The “Church” has been in it’s own bubble for far too long. We need to get out and rub shoulders in anyway possible.
Several problems with the quote:
1. It assigns blame for the bubble of fundamentalism instead of accepting responsibility for it.
2. God is not limited to the human point of view of Christianity and it would be a mistake to assume that our point of view is His point of view when we should be making an enormous effort to make His point of view our point of view–and religious fundamentalism often does not know the difference. But God is, in fact, light years beyond petty human politics. Because of that, I am quite confident that I would be as secure in my salvation had fundamentalism taken a different course. However, “what-if” living…is not living.
3. I don’t live in the bubble. I am more comfortable spending the night at a bar with honest sinners instead of, say, going to Christian concert filled with false saints who, all too often, make a spectacle out of worship.
4. I have to let my dog out.
Sleeping Bear, couple q’s.
How can a quote accept responsibility? I’m confused.
Responding to you #2. the point the speaker is making is that “truth” won out. Nothing was filtered or watered down when “liberalism” stepped in. The use of “Fundamentalists” makes sense in this perspective. Not saying I agree, just clarifying.
Responding to your #3…Ouch. You know all these so called “false saints” and your certain that Christian concerts are filled with them? What’s your secret?
Responding to #4 How did the dog do
For the sake of clarity…
…I should have said “Matt Chandler and whomever he may be speaking for” not “quote.” Probably I should have added that when one assigns blame, not only is responsibility ignored, but identity is forsaken as well.
…Hasn’t fundamentalism “filtered down” the Teachings of Christ? For instance, why fight for prayer in school when Jesus said to pray in private–or, more specifically, don’t make a spectacle of it. For instance, a fundamentalist–the ones I’ve known, mind you–will say, “Make sure your heart is right with God because your actions cannot save you” but then tell you “Everyone must say ‘Merry Christmas’ instead of ‘Seasons Greetings’,” even though the intent of the heart when stating the latter is oftentimes just as good as when one is stating the former. (Don’t get me started on Starbucks coffee logos!)
…In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes it very clear that God wants authenticity over publicity. “False saints” was a harsh choice of words on my part, I confess. But the more I listen to what Jesus had to say, the more I realize that His greatest criticisms were directed at religious leaders–not sinners. The religious leaders during the time of Christ favored publicity over authenticity. And that infuriated Jesus. So I guard my heart and my soul from falling into that same trap, where I’m doing something wrong and I don’t even know I’m doing something wrong (like the Pharisees didn’t believe they were wrong). And, honestly, I really am more comfortable in a bar full of drunks than I am around Christians who raise their hands and close their eyes at a Christian concert. What can I say? That sort of thing has always made me uneasy–and suspicious.
…the dog made quite a mess of things out there.
Re-reading and rethinking…
His way was to go out into the world - healing and ministering according ot the Will of His Father, visiting also the orphaned (Father-less) and the widowed (those who had lost their Husband/Groom)
Retreating away from and withdrawing from the world is not Christian - we are to be in it, just not of it.
So yes ‘you’ would have made much more of an impact had you not retreated (although Christ Himself withdrew from danger until His Time was come!)
Assuming of course that ‘you’ did not, like so many periods throughout History, become greatly perverted away From His very simple Truth.
How to get rid of the baggage? Going back to the ‘basics’ perhaps? better learning the lessons He brought back to us all?
Sometimes you have to take a step or two ‘back’ before you can move further forward along the straight and narrow path.
<B
love´s last blog post…Seven Deadly Sins: Part 6 - Pride.
Hey BiW, sorry to get to the party so late, but my RSS feeds have been a bit neglected recently.
I disagree with Chandler’s premise, and I haven’t listened to the sermon and won’t due to time, and I don’t know the actual context of what he was speaking to.
However, historically, the quote is rather inaccurate and largely presumptive. It makes the assumption that all “liberal” theology was bad and all “fundamentalist” theology was good, which at the turn on the 20th Century just wasn’t the case. The Fundamentalists weren’t torch bearers any more than the Liberals were barn burners. As a matter of historical perspective, asking questions about the Bible, examining it through a literary/historical/social/academic (ie. non-literal) lens was deemed “liberal.” The fundamentalist retreat was in large part a response to the threat to the traditional literalist approach to Scripture. One result was an intense “prophetic” movement to reinterpret the OT/NT apocalyptic texts which led to Bible conferences, Bible schools, Left Behind-ology and the Scofield Bible. If you consider those things valuable, then of course, fundamentalists did us great service.
Without meaning to condescend, I’m afraid that my read of history is to say that smart, thinking Christians, both faithful and irreverent, were called “liberal,” while unquestioning and uncritical Christians, both faithful and irreverent, claimed the “fundamentalist” position. After all, it was Biblical Criticism — which we have to thank for our modern commentaries, language studies, contextual preaching and application, etc — that led conservative Christians to retreat into what they optimistically viewed as the “fundamentals.” Of course, that’s not the whole reason, but the danger of “thinking” about the Bible was real then, as real as not thinking about it is now.
Both groups have done much to help the church and push us forward, however, both fueled separation and legitimized disunity.
To Love’s credit, and the myopic American worldview would have no way to relate, the UK, France and Canada experienced similar religious phenomena, merely earlier. What makes us different in this country is how we interpret the religious libertarianism contained in the constitutional language of the founding fathers. In many ways, those countries should give us hope for the current spreading renewal and revival which we will need to see here in the future…if not now.
Baggage…it goes with the journey. Everybody’s got it and everyone thinks their’s is lighter than the next guys.
Sorry for the dissertation.
Chris´s last blog post…World Communion Setlist
Chris, I apologize. I missed when you posted this comment.
I think what you’ve said here is deeper than I can respond to. At least in what I know about Chandler’s statement. I really enjoy other talks from Chandler. I still need to listen through this whole discussion of his.
I also think that we could argue who was liberal or not. The reality is that most often the title does not fit the action. In either case we need to engage, let’s do it as well as we can.