Ok, so I left the word “versus” out of the title…  I thought it would be more eye-catching this way.

Last Sunday and this Sunday my sermon is on the two creation stories in Genesis 1-3.  Specifically, both are true (in that we live them every day), but one has to be primary for us.  Just as you cannot serve two gods, one of the stories will always take prevalence in how you live your life.  Will you focus on your sin and “the fall?”  Or will you instead focus on the fact that when God created you he didn’t say you were “good,” but rather that you were “VERY good?”  My point is basically that sin is very real, but it’s not powerful enough to remove God’s image from you.  Sin isn’t the point; don’t focus on it.  Instead, focus on who you really are underneath it and let the sin fall away on its own.

Ok, I digress…  The sermon seemed to resonate with a lot of people, many saying that had a lot to think about as they were leaving.  I don’t know how many of you read my blog, but I ran across a blog post this morning that isn’t precisely on the same topic, but seemed to add something really interesting to the conversation.  So, I offer it here as fuel for whatever fires I have started.  Enjoy!

Here is the post.

I had a good emergenty-type thought today that I thought I would share (and record so I don’t forget it.)

There is quite a bit of talk about the appropriateness of enculturalization of the gospel.  In other words, is it right to take the gospel and “clothe” it with the culture of a people or does that cheapen it?  The other option is to let the gospel stand “pure,” whatever that means.  Neibhur famously called these options “Christ in culture” and “Christ against culture,” adding a third category, “Christ transforming culture.”  I have read emergent type blogs debate this furiously, often going into meticulous detail on passages from Acts to support their claim.

Well today I had a “duh” moment and realized how obvious the bigger picture is on this one.  The gospel as presented in Christ and by Christ is itself intimately enculturated in first-century Jewish culture, even to the point of interacting with the ancient Jewish sacrificial system.  Jesus was a Jew, period.  True, he threw out the unhealthy portions of Jewish culture, but he remained a fully enculturated Jew.

But here’s the “duh” moment: Jesus wanted the gentiles included, too.  As Paul makes abundantly clear, the gentiles are to be included without the need to “convert” to Jewish culture first.  The result is that the work Paul and Co. did is to take the gospel and re-contextualize it for gentiles as well, trying to hold together a body of believers that was diverse yet united in Christ.

So there you have it, my contribution to the enculturalization argument.  Jesus himself embodied not only God incarnated, but also the gospel enculturated with intent for it to be spread to ALL cultures without forcing them to change the parts that were already good and true.

A bit of a digression here…  So what would Paul, who is in this understanding a master of re-enculturalization, say to the Moderns and Postmoderns in the Church today?  Perhaps he would say that just as there is no longer Jew nor gentile, slave nor free– so there is neither Modern nor Postmodern in Christ Jesus.  We should respect each other’s culture and build one another up, realizing that neither worldview “gets in the way” of the gospel or cheapens it more than any other.  NO culture can stop the unimagineable love of God from transforming the world.

As the Associate Pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in Hutchinson, KS, I write a weekly article for the newsletter article. I invite both members of the church and other visitors to my blog to share their thoughts!

———-

The past few weeks, Pat and I have been joining some incoming members of our church in conversation about who we are as United Methodists.  In the past decade or two there has been a resurgence of interest in John Wesley and in what makes the United Methodist tradition different from others.

So what makes a United Methodist?  That’s way too big of a topic to go into here…  We agree with most Christians on most of what we believe, things like Jesus and the resurrection or how God works in the world.  The differences are in what we choose to emphasize.  For instance, we emphasize the fact that God is working in people’s hearts and lives even before they are aware of it.  We also emphasize that it is God’s grace that saves us—but that grace continues to work in us afterwards, too, making us a better person.

We also emphasize that faith isn’t just something that happens in a church building—faith is something we live out in every day of our lives.  John Wesley wasn’t happy just preaching to the people who came to church every Sunday; he realized that the people that really needed to feel God’s love were the ones who weren’t there.  And so he took the gospel out to the coal miners and the field workers.  Talking about this made me wonder if maybe that isn’t a lesson we need to learn again today.

If you’re interested in learning more about Methodism; I’d be happy to talk your ear off sometime.  Or, there are some great resources on the internet.   It’s hard to print long web links in the newsletter, so if you find this article on my blog, http://ministrygeek.net, I will add some good links there.  May you experience ALL types of God’s grace this week!

———-

Here are the links:

For more on United Methodists beliefs…

For more on United Methodist history…

For more on how we are organized…

My wife Amy and I just had a fun little IM chat about matters emergent. I joked about it becoming a blog entry, then thought, “What could be better than just sharing the conversation?” So, with her permission, here it is. Names have been changed/removed to protect the innocent.

If you’re not used to IM conversations, know that sometimes thoughts appear slightly out of order (they make more sense in the moment). Bear with it, though; you’ll figure it out.

Amy: here’s food for thought: Emergent Church for country music fans.
me: Absolutely! What brings this on?
Amy: [name taken out] was in the mood for some music and put in Dolly Parton singing some gospel. For this group that is contextual music.
me: Yup. Get used to it.
Amy: I wonder if that’s an area we tend to ignore.
what if we’re already doing emergent with rural churches, but don’t call it that because it’s not “our” culture.
me: Yup. They always loved it in [my old, rural churches] when I’d pick something country-like for a hymn.
me: I think that’s a big element, at least in the worship style sense. Their culture in terms of TV/newspaper/etc. is still becoming increasingly postmodern, though, and we still need to adapt our theology.
Amy: good point, emergent isn’t just style, there’s theology too.
me: “Praise and Worship” would not be contextual in [my old churches].
Amy: But the theology of my congregation is still VERY modern.
me: For me and my high thinking mind, theology is the starting point. Worship style flows out of that.
Is there a disconnect between their theology and their culture outside the church? Maybe not for older folks…
Around here, especially in the contemporary church, I get the feeling that many “check their postmodernism at the door” so they can do church.
Amy: if you stick with [the area I’m in] then no, it’s not different, but if you consider the wider area, then perhaps yes.
me: That whole “check your culture at the door” thing is what I used to do. I think it explains a lot of the disconnect between secular and sacred– and it explains why many reject it simply because they “get nothing out of church”
Amy: yeah, but what about the people who go to church b/c it IS the culture they identify with as is? How do you meet both groups? Can you?
me: There are emergenty-type folks who would give you an adament NO and then stop listening. I give an adament I HOPE SO.
I think postmodernism needs to respect it’s “father and mother” more.
But how to do it? Beats me…
I’m still working on how to be postmodern in a modern pulpit my own self.
What do you think? Respect for father and mother, or emergence can’t happen unless you “move out of the house” for a while?
Amy: quite a challenge for both of us. too often my postmodern theology is interpreted through modernity and they hear something completely different.
me: Wow, that was a very modern/two-choice question I just asked…
Amy: hmmm… it’s a good metaphor, though.
I think most adult children in that situation would say “both”.
of course, do postmoderns have any affection for moderns?
me: It is hard either way, but somehow it turns out ok either way, too.
Do most teenagers have any visible affection for their parents?
(I like this metaphor… It may end up a blog )
Amy: good point. Maybe we’re in that rebellious teenager part and in another 200 years or so we’ll have emerged as mature adults at peace with our parents.
me: I hope so; we need to.
Amy: this is a fun conversation!
me: Very much… I needed it.
…plus it helps me procrastinate writing a sermon I haven’t done enough thinking on yet.
Amy: he he