The Emerging Christian Landscape

Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence suggests we are in the midst of a global transition in the culture of Christianity, a transition that may last a century or more.  What will emerge as the predominant form has yet to be seen.  Tickle would agree with my simple faith statement that no matter what shape Christianity takes, God will have a people, even if only a remnant.

There will remain vestiges of what has been.  Roman Catholicism, with its fierce resistance to change, will continue to appeal to some.  Eastern Orthodoxy and its mystical liturgy has shown a stubborn ability to survive.  Protestant denominationalism will continue to be manifested in a multiplicity of ways, but perhaps reduced of much institutional baggage.  These major historical religious movements will each make accommodations in order to survive, but something new will emerge to enliven the church, and what that emergence will look like is still a question.

Perhaps there will not be one dominant form and, like Protestantism, there will be a variety of Christian communities.  The possibilities are many.  We can already observe many examples of movements that have arisen in this generation which are dramatically different from what we might call traditional Christian institutions.  

I have previously mentioned the emergence of a “new monasticism,” in which small groups of like-minded individuals and families covenant to live in proximity to each other, often in under-served neighborhoods, whether rural or urban, in order to be a Christian witness of discipleship and service within those communities.  Shane Claiborne, leader of The Simple Way community in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is a nationally known leader in this movement.  I suspect that persons who are attracted to this way of Christian living will be a minority, but that new monasticism will play an important role as a remnant in providing an alternative vision of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, even as old order monasticism did the same a millennium ago.  

One cannot fail to recognize the emergence of mega-churches in the last several decades, churches which are independent of denominations, becoming kingdoms unto themselves.  Drawing thousands of followers, often centered on the charismatic personality of one leader, these churches often have a “mother” church that gives birth to several satellites, served either by assistant pastor-preachers who share the leader’s theological DNA, or the satellite locations beam in the leader’s teachings by way of live-broadcast video signal.  I have found it hard to categorize the theological inclination of these churches.  While they all seem to arise from Protestant roots, their ethos seems more centered in a cult of personality than in theological convictions.  Elevation Church, led by Steven Furtick, whose home-base is Charlotte, North Carolina is but one example.

And one cannot discount the impact of global Christian movements.  

* The emergence of Christian base communities in Latin America which began in the later part of the 20th Century among Catholic-leaning poor people.

* The Taize community in France which has given rise to a renewed spirituality among tens of thousands of young adults who regularly make pilgrimage to Taize. 

* The rapid growth of the church among African nations may result in the most dominant form of Christianity over the next five hundred years.  We have yet to determine what that impact might be.

Bob Dylan once sang, "The times, they are a changin'." As we live in this time of transition we may feel some anxiety about what is yet to come, as well as grief over what is being lost.  However, we should take heart that there is considerable spiritual ferment in the works.  Something new is taking shape.  Christianity is reforming once again.  In the midst of a troubled world, God will have a people who will continue to witness to Jesus Christ and the kingdom he proclaimed until that day when God’s ultimate purpose is fulfilled.  And, when the saints go marching in, I want to be in that number.

   

Why Do We Care about Charlie Sheen?

A friend came back from New Zealand recently, sobered by the proximity of the earthquake that shook Christchurch only a few days after visiting there. Even more disconcerting was the fact that upon returning to the U.S., the news of the earthquake and its aftermath had been relegated to the fringes of journalistic reporting, overshadowed by the ravings of actor Charlie Sheen.

We now surmise, based on a parade of experts, that Charlie Sheen is not simply another self-absorbed Hollywood star, but must be suffering from some kind of mental illness characterized by manic episodes. The greater question for me is, “Why do we care about Charlie Sheen?

Maybe we have become inured to the news of earthquakes and human suffering. As we see devastation in Haiti or New Zealand, and we hear about hundreds of deaths, we eventually become numb to the particularities of such events. Maybe we lose interest because it doesn’t feel personal.

But Charlie Sheen – there is a face we recognize. This feels personal. Outlandish. Maybe crazy. But personal. And Charlie is famous and rich. Do we secretly enjoy when the stars fall from the sky? “How the mighty have fallen . . . (2 Samuel 1:27).” Perhaps we are making comparisons – “I’m not rich or famous, but at least I’m not crazy!” And in some sad way, Charlie Sheen’s problems make us feel better about ourselves.

I don’t know. I suppose I should care about Charlie Sheen but I don’t. Oh, in some sort of vague way, I want him to be well and I offer this as a prayer, but I am much more concerned with the mental health of people I know to spend too much time thinking about Mr. Sheen, whom I don’t know. Charlie is a part of the cult of personality with which our culture is obsessed, but I would argue that the cult of personality is not the same thing as being personal. We may know his face, but that is a far cry from knowing him personally.

One of my favorite lines from a song is from the eccentric quasi-zydeco band, Donna the Buffalo, “What does all this Hollywood really have to do with us?” For me it is another way of saying, “C’mon people, get a life!”

Where am I going with all this? Well, I’m not sure we can do a whole lot for Charlie Sheen or for the people of New Zealand, but for all the time we spend watching the news about people we’ll never know, we could surely address the needs of people closer by that we do know. I have a friend who, with his wife, decided to get rid of their TV about two years ago. He says they’ve never been happier in their marriage as a result. They have found time to do things together and to care for one another more deeply. Now, that sounds promising.

Paying attention to people we actually know can spill over from our marriage to our family – perhaps spending more time actually playing with our children rather than plugging them into another DVD filled with talking vegetables and dinosaurs. Perhaps with the extra time, we might visit a lonely elderly member of our neighborhood, or tutor a child in the local school. We might even have enough energy (TV makes us lethargic) to hammer nails in a Habitat House or prepare meals at a soup kitchen. After a while we might even forget who Charlie Sheen is, and well, maybe if he didn’t get so much media attention, he might actually have a chance to get better – reclaim a normal life – maybe.

I’ve often pondered the fact that Jesus never wandered beyond the borders of Judah and Galilee (except for a brief sojourn in Egypt as a baby). He didn’t go to Rome. He was rooted in his locale – Nazareth, Galilee, Jerusalem. Did he get news from the greater world? Did he wonder about the lives of the rich and famous in the Mediterranean world? Who knows? We do know he was infinitely interested in each individual he met. He was personal, and seldom distracted by the cult of personality in his own day.

His few references to a famous people seemed to diminish their significance (“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but to God the things that are God’s,” or, regarding King Herod, called him a “fox”). But the people he encountered during his ministry were anything but diminished – the prostitute, the beggar, the blind, the lame, the demon-possessed, the tax collectors, even the Pharisees, I believe, he approached with deep concern for their well-being – body and soul.

If I ruled the world I would unplug most of our electronics and encourage people to spend more time with each other. We could still read the news about the wider world in the Sunday paper, but the most important news would be picked up at the general store, local coffee shop, styling salon, or in Sunday School class. That would be the news about the people we know close by, the people God has given us to love, person-to-person. And I believe someone close by to Charlie Sheen might give him the attention he needs, minus all the cameras in his face. I think that’s the way Jesus would do it.