|
A CRITICAL REFLECTION UPON THE IMPLICATIONS FOR MISSION WITHIN A CONSUMERISTIC CULTURE
It is an annual complaint amongst those who claim to have a faith, as well as those who would say they don’t, that Christmas has become “too commercialised”. Meaning is no longer found in historical or Biblical narrative, but more likely found chasing consumerist ideals propagated to us through advertisements depicting a particular season. The comment, that “it isn’t Christmas until the Coca-cola advert comes on”, is certainly one that is regularly phrased throughout my own family. The phrase, that “holiday’s are coming”, within the coke advert, seems to almost make it permissible that we can start thinking, or even reflecting upon Christmas and its meaning. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDoDUC9M0Sg) By this, the meaning of Christmas itself may not be lost, but the acknowledgement of what Christmas is about, and the permission to celebrate that Christian festival, is now dictated within that consumerist culture. Easter may well emphasise this even further, as cream eggs are on sale straight after Christmas, thus installing the idea that Easter, which may not be for some months yet, is about an egg, an “Easter Egg”, rather than its true meaning.
God has been removed from the central position of people’s lives, and replaced by an individualistic idealism, that offered people the opportunity for fulfilment according to their personal subjective values. Pimlotts, in Youth work after Christendom suggests that there is a dualism that exists within the lives of young people. This dualism that they refer too means that young people can refer to themselves as Christian on a Sunday but when with their friends during the week, they can demonstrate a differing variety of values. Faith therefore, becomes a segmented part of life rather than something fundamental or under-pinning to life. It could be argued therefore, that within the context of celebration of the birth of Jesus, that Coke had become the permitting value, not necessarily the saviour, but maybe the power that allowed people to celebrate that joyous occasion. The gospel, previously accepted, as the truth about the life of Jesus, then became a personalised truth according to individuals wants, desires, and self-absorption. Kavanaugh, in Following Christ in a consumerist society, 1981, suggests that “a Gospel, then, is an, expression of who or what is our functional God.” P14.
This definition by Kavanaugh, then enables, us to realise the foundation of personal truth. Contextualising this to the earlier comments in regard to Christmas, it could only be Christmas when Coke said so, rather than us creating any sense of anticipation of the birth of Jesus. Truth has become individualised, and not only that, but accepted to be functional to the person concerned. The Christian Church may well wish the time of advent to be one of anticipation, expectation, of that time when the birth of Jesus is celebrated. But, the reality in our society today, is that probably people, and particularly children recognise Christmas advent, not as that time of anticipation, but a time of “advent calendars”, and chocolate calendars’ at that.
But, Kavanaugh’s description of gospel is a little more disturbing than that, as it indicates that the offer of an eternal relationship with God had been replaced with this idea that God was functional, something, or someone for our personal use. Something or someone, as it were, for us to consume. No longer was God seen as someone we could turn too, someone we needed to listen too, someone we could gain direction or advice from, but god had been transformed into someone we now used, something that was there to enable us to reach personally identified goals, and something for us to ingest to achieve desires and wants. The enjoyment of cream eggs or advent calendars becomes primary in our thinking, due to the position they now occupy, as those things leading up to a particular event, rather than the centralisation of the event itself, IE, the birth of Jesus, or his crucifixion.
And it is within this transformed perspective of God that the Church of Christ sits. Claiming to offer something different, an alternative to the god of the time. A greater hope, or future, than that offered by the culture that we exist in. But not only does the church exist in this culture, but it also strives to reach out into the culture and transform it into a culture that it believes would be acceptable to god. Dr Martin Robinson, in the foreword to Christ and Consumerism, 2000, puts it this way, “Jesus calls us to understand our culture, its passions and attractions, as well as to be deeply counter-cultural in our relationship with that same culture.” P4. Robinson is clear that by demonstrating an understanding or appreciation of a culture, the Christian Church in no way needs to adopt the values of that culture, and needs to remain true to the values that Christ set for his Church. Bartholomew, 2000, backs Robinson up by stating that, “Kingdom perspective rather than consumerist perspective is needed.” P10. Kavanaugh, 1981, would go further to suggest that “it is not a question of whether to believe, or value, but what to believe and value.” P14. So, the root question of belief is not in question, but what is in question are the values that the Christian church holds too as it moves forward. The values that underpin the Church will thus decide whether it is counter-cultural as Robinson desires, or whether it adopts the values that exist within the culture within which it rests.
Bosch, in Transforming Mission, 1992, would offer an opposing view within one aspect of mission that he refers to as “Mission inculutration”. This refers to an adaption to the culture that Christians would exist in. Suggesting therefore that to be counter-cultural would not enable anyone wishing to be a missionary in any particular culture that they existed in, but rather, to have an impact, anyone wishing to be a missionary to a culture would need to adapt their message to the values of that culture. So to be inculturalised, as Bosch would offer us, could mean the existence of Christian advent calendars as opposed to the chocolate ones commercially available and advertised.
Jesus himself challenges his followers in John 15.18-20, when telling his disciples that the world would recognise them, as they would be different to the world. He suggests strongly, particularly in John 15.20, that those who choose to follow him cannot “serve two masters”. Thus suggesting that there needs to be a distinctive nature to the followers of Christ to the rest of the world. The challenge therefore in what Jesus asks of his followers, to the “inculturation” that Bosch suggests, is whether Christian distinctiveness could be kept when adaptation was taking place. Could it, indeed, be possible to be counter-cultural, and yet adaptive enough to enable a dialogue to exist.
The question of belonging is an important one in regard to the inculturisation or counter-cultural debate. The adoption of Bosch’s inculturalisation missional existence, would suggest that a state of belonging would need to be embraced by the missioner to that culture. Conversely, if enough people were counter-cultural in their approach, the state of belonging would also exist due to the gathering nature of those living to a similar set of beliefs or values, or even relationship. Belonging in neither context needs to be associated with any form of negativity, but purely a realisation that whether culturally existing, or counter-culturally existing, if surrounded by similar people, you can still belong.
It is important therefore to critically reflect upon the impact that this culture has had upon us, as the Christian Church, and assess various attempts that the church has made to, not just reach out to this culture, but transform it as well. It is important to ask the question of how much of the culture that we exist in should the church adopt, to become “relevant” to that culture, and whether or not becoming too “relevant” can bring dangers to the church, and the alternative it seeks to offer.
Robinson, 2000, says that “the temptation to explore relevance, can lead all to easily to a presentation of the faith as merely a more attractive product to be desired, experienced and consumed.” P4. This observation that in seeking relevance we turn faith into a product firstly, is a worrying thought, as the question must be asked as to whether that life-changing relationship that God offers, can ever be transformed into a product? For as Robinson goes on to say, all that that product then becomes is something else to be desired, sought after, experienced and consumed, and an eternal relationship with God should never be turned into something that is just added to people’s shopping list of consumption. Christianity then becomes an added extra, a further element to our existence, as opposed to anything fundamental to our being. Green, in a later chapter in Christ and consumerism, 2000, goes as far as to say, that “it is a terrible blasphemy to make a commodity of God”. P25. And it is this danger of commodifying the being of God, the creator God, that is a present danger within any attempt in missional relevance.
Michael Frost, (www.mscottfrost.com”, argues that “mission can’t be accomplished through mere door knocking, track passing, or making sermons more relevant to the un-churched. Our missionary methods must extend into the ordinary activities of our routines, if we are to follow the new testament model”. (June 9, 2009.) Thus arguing that making our relationship with god relevant is not necessarily the missional way forward, but actually to live out a life in relationship with God would make much more of an impact.
Scotland, in his essay, in Christ and consumerism, 2000, quotes Wells, saying, “One can market the church but not Christ, the gospel, Christian character, or the meaning of life.” P138. But the question here is whether or not it is possible to divorce the Church and the elements of the faith itself. The Christian Church should be demonstrating and living out Christian character, meaning for life, and even Christ himself, so if this is the case, it must therefore be impossible to market the Church of God as something different to what it proclaims to offer. The Church itself obviously isn’t God, so the Church and God must be seen as different entities, but it is surely impossible to separate Church and God, for the church is regarded as the bride of Christ, and the church is a gathering of those searching for that deeper relationship with God.
Barth, quoted by Scotland, 2000, supports this assertion by saying that “the word of God is not for sale”. P138. Barth must surely be right here, for how can anyone place a value upon a relationship, not least a relationship with God. It is clear that there is nothing that we can do to acquire this relationship, for God himself has done all that is needed to be done. It is stated in various areas of the New Testament that it is through “grace”, that we are brought into relationship with God, not through any endeavour on our behalf. Ephesians 2.8, 2 Timothy 1.9, Acts 15.11.
Alternatively, Barna, quoted in Scotland’s essay, 2000, suggests that the Church “has a product to sell, a relationship with God and others.” P139. He goes further to suggest that “each Church is a franchise”, p139. the imagery of the variant expressions within the body of the church being a franchise is possible due to the fact that each independent element of the body is joined up by the central factor of Christ, but the imagery falls apart when realising that a franchise works independently from other franchises, which should not be exemplified within the Christian Church. Tiplady, 2003, points out that “diversity may allow the free expression of difference, but it can also lead to fragmentation, division and isolation.” Barna’s assertion that we can productivise the relationship with God or others is more difficult to see, for as I have already stated, it is difficult to place a valuation upon a relationship built upon grace from one side of the relationship.
Storkey, in Christ and consumerism, 2000, suggests that somewhere, “a Slick, vacuous advertising copywriter is trying to think up some slogan, advertisement that will sell….merely seeking the point of appeal”. P115. This view that all we have become are beings with that “point of appeal”, clearly illustrates the consumerist culture that we now currently live in. This vision of an advertising copywriter producing a slogan, that will entice us, draw us in, to the product that he is making appealing to us, helps us realise that how people are viewed in this consumerist culture, is no longer as people, as individuals, but as consuming entities. It has no longer become us, with our self –worth, who realise our own needs, but those who wish to make objects appealing to us now shape our needs for us. This could well be best illustrated by the slogan used recently, “the best job in the world”, referring to a six month position on an island dear the barrier reef. The implication behind the slogan, was, that what we may have currently is not enough, not good enough, not the best. The suggestion was that without this job in our lives, we could, and would not have the best, most fulfilled lives we could have.
Kavanaugh, 1981, asks the question “Do we perceive men and women as persons, or as commodities?” p34. Within the context of Storkeys’ observation, that all we have become are entities with appeal points that others tell us about, Kavanaugh’s question becomes even more important. For if we as humans, were created as suggested within Genesis chapter 1, to be in relationship with God, and created in his image, this would give some worth to our existence, not merely as beings with appeal points, but with actual value for who we were as individuals. Thus reducing us as humans to that point of appeal, that entity that needs to be told, informed of its needs, is to remove the meaning and purpose of our existence. Our meaning and purpose is not found in someone else’s value of what may or may not be the best job, nor should it be found in the anticipation of a particular advert, but our existence is purposed through our creation, which was meant to be in relationship with God. For as Storkey goes on to say, if our value is not found within God, our “value is then found in consumption as opposed to use or price.” P102. And God certainly created us with value, for as it states in Genesis, when God created human beings, and everything else, he looked at all of it and “saw that it was Good”. Genesis 1.31.
Bartholomew, 2000, is right therefore, when suggesting that “products provide the basis for the negotiation of meaning and personal identity.” P7. For our value will no longer be established purely by our existence, but by the products that we possess. Our meaning will thus be found in the value of our possessions and this will further have an influence upon the value we are given within our society. And therefore our identity is represented in no way, purely buy our own personal existence, but by the value we have been given by society, which stems from the possessions we have at our disposal. My 13 year old daughter therefore, believes that her value to her friends becomes greater once she has acquire, not just a gola bag, as her school bag, but a particular white Gola bag, with red writing on it. The realisation that her friends had all started buying these bags, left her with the feeling that she was the odd-one-out, and therefore had to have this particular bag to have worth, value, or even identity within her friendship group. When challenged about how she saw herself, and how she thought God saw her, she recognised that her worth was in who she was as a person, and also recognised that God loved her regardless of the procession of a Gola bag or not, but argued that she also had an identity within the group she existed in. Tiplady, in World of Difference, 2003, emphasises this point further by suggesting that “In a consumer society our self-definition comes mainly from the products we buy and the brands we identify with”. So for my daughter, her bag couldn’t just be any white bag, but had to have the identifying symbols of Gola as well. Tiplady, 2003, goes further with this issue of branding to suggest that “items consumed, especially branded items, take on a symbolic value, so that the consumer asks not, (does this brand represent good quality), but, what does this brand say about me”. Therefore the emphasis shifts from that of quality, to purely that of acceptance. So, if the emphasis is no longer an issue of quality, but purely that of belonging, Robinson’s concerns of making faith an attractive product merely for desire, experience and consumption could well have some foundation. For there then becomes a danger of creating a Christian culture that is attractive, relevant and cultural, but leaves questions of the quality of relationship that people attending have with God.
We can be forgiven to an extent though, for the embracement of this idea of making faith an attractive product, for as Kavanaugh, 1981, puts it, “The pre-eminent values of the commodity form of life are marketability and consumption. These two values are the ethical lenses through which we are conditioned to perceive our worth and importance.” P21. So we now realise our own individual value through the perspective of how marketable we are, and what we consume. Our marketable value is thus found within the products that we are prepared to consume. The acceptance, and acquisition of the bag that has Gola written across it, gives my daughter status therefore within her friendship group, for what she consumes, and thus enables her to buy into the friendship group she wishes to be apart of.
Further questions also exist, in that, when wanting to take the Christian message to people outside of the Church, the question is what message is it that is being taken to people. For something that is attractive and aesthetically appealing does not necessarily tell the full reality of what it means to follow Christ. Christ himself states it like this, “anyone who doesn’t take up their cross and follow me, cannot be my disciple”. Luke 14.27. Thus suggesting, that there is a danger in us atractivising a relationship with God, for ultimately there is a cost to pay if we are to take up our crosses as Christ asks us to do.
Kavanaugh, 1981, recognises this problem of what we take to any people group when he suggests that there could be a problem for faith “when we are dominated by an aspect of culture rather than by God”. P57. This statement in essence warns us that if our foundational principles are rooted within the culture, because of our attempts to be relevant, we are thus less dominated by the principles of the relationship we proclaim to live in, with God. Kavanaughs warning to us within this statement, is that throughout any missional activity, our roots must be firmly grounded within our relationship with God, as it is through obedience to God, and the purposes he has for us, that we start to be able to take something alternative, or of credibility to people who are yet to accept God in their life.
The realisation of our value to society being rooted to our products is in no way a new phenomenon. In the late 90’s, a school teacher informed me that he felt it was a real shame, that the school process was based upon exams, tests, results, academic achievement. Fir in his own words, this gave no meaning to those people in society who maybe weren’t that good academically, but still had something to offer the society, the community they lived in, by being road sweepers, dustbin men, milkmen, postmen, shelf stackers, or a multitude of other positions that could be held within society, and all of which had an integral part to societies smooth running. His observations that people’s value and worth was not purely found upon grades written on a peace of paper, but actually to their fulfilling a roll within society, realisation of purpose, whatever that may entail, challenges the culture that he taught in. For he, as a teacher, saw himself as someone who enabled others to realise who they were as individuals, and he gave them worth and value as such, not just grade achievers, but as people, human beings, and not human doings.
In a product acquiring culture, where value and worth are rooted not just in the products possessed, but in the realisation of our own existence as products to that culture, the alternative worth found in relationship with God, offered by Christ himself, and spoken about through the Bible, and through the mouth-piece of his Church is not just relegated to the market-place of possibilities and offers, but in reality is largely ignored, ridiculed and excluded from making a contribution to society. The central standpoint that the Church once enjoyed within most communities has long since disappeared. So many community activities would take place in the church, not just weddings, Christenings and funerals, but many other community functions would take place in the church. This was clarified for me, when a local Church member suggested that there building wasn’t being used by the community as much as it used to be. This comment referring to the usage of the church buildings had further implications than purely that of the centrality of the church within that community. For the lack of usage, thus meant that the income to the Church declined, and so those who ran that particular church were now proceeding to examine how they could make the Church, in their words, “marketable” again. Today, many decades on from this position within communities, the Christian church has been reduced to that position of possibility, as more new age spirituality becomes available.
It would be an untrue statement that we have become an un-spiritualised society, as there are growing numbers of channels on TV offering various medium activity and people offering their spiritual gifts. But the Christian Church has acquired the tag, “traditional” Church, which has an air of de-spiritualisation about it. This tag of “traditional”, if adopted by the majority of society, would go some way to explaining why, when it comes to anything spiritual in magazines, newspapers or even on TV, people seem to be more likely to turn to those who claim to read the stars, or hear from spirits, as opposed to listening to something that is “traditional”.
Bartholomew, 2000, quotes Slater, saying, “If there is no principle for who can consume what there is also no principle constraint on what can be consumed.” P7. Thus the implication here is that if the Church of Christ is seen purely as something traditional, as opposed to something spiritual, the Church will have lost some of its directive authority on issues spiritual. So once the Church becomes less spiritual it allows the door to be open to other forms of spirituality which will come and fill that vacuum left by the Church. If the church cannot, or does not offer a spiritual reality to the culture that still desires that spirituality, then the church starts to lose its place within the spiritual market-place, thus losing its authority within the culture it resides in.
This spiritual market-place, with its many and varied constituents, then starts to bring the foundational values to any given culture. Bartholomew, 2000, suggests that “the Core values derive from consumption, rather than the other way around.” P7. So people within a culture no longer gain their values from a singular gospel of spirituality, but have their values stretched to accommodate as broad a spectrum of spirituality as possible.
Kavanaugh, 1981, asks a challenging question when asking, “how does culture threaten, confine, compromise and betray our faith?” p59. It is a challenging question in that, some of the answers may lie in our own approach as opposed to the influence of the culture we exist in. For example, how much does culture threaten us? The threat could be perceived to be greater if we relinquish some of the responsibilities that are given to us as followers of Christ. Within this assignment I have already alluded to the spiritual dimension that exists, and how if the Christian Church doesn’t demonstrate the responsibility left to it by Christ, John 14.12, Matthew 28.19-20, then the spiritual vacuum that it leaves will be filled by other spiritual elements. So the threat from the culture only becomes prevalent if the Christian church leaves that vacuum to be filled.
Similarly, it could also be said in regards to the confinement of the Christian faith, that this only becomes a real issue, if the threat of the culture becomes overwhelmingly dominant. Storkey, 2000, does allude to this confinement by the culture when stating that “consumers become captives”. P112. If, in the question of becoming relevant within our missional approach, we buy too much into the culture of consumerism, then Storkey’s suggestion of captivity becomes a real one, for the culture then becomes the dominant influencer as opposed to God. I am sure that there is a debate to have in regard to Kavanaugh’s question of confinement, as to how much, if any, of the perceived confinement is self-imposed due to our relinquishing of authority given to us by God, Matthew 28.19, or the overwhelming influence of a culture that we exist in.
The question of compromising our faith, it could be argued, also comes down to the strength by which we hold on to our values. Does the culture that we exist in force us into a position of needing to compromise? If compromising starts to become an issue, then an examination needs to take place of what values Christians believe are negotiable. At this point, the whole question of truth comes into play, for our values and principles that we seek to proclaim to the rest of the world are either true or they aren’t? Jesus’ statement, that he was “the way, the truth and the light”, John 14.6, was either true or a lie. The culture of consumerism may exist in the presence of competitiveness through advertisements and sales, but we need to examine as to whether any individual part of the body of Christ needs to embrace competitiveness when the Christian value of unity should be a fundamental to our presence in society. Psalm 133.1, John 17.23, 1 john 4.7-12.
1 Corinthians 12.12, and 1 Corinthians 12.27, speak of” the body”, and point to the fact that all Christians are part of that body, thus suggesting that unity, togetherness, honour, are all necessary within the body of Christ, and there is no room for competitiveness. Alan Hirsch quotes Barth on his twitter site saying “when we confess our virtues we are competitors, when we confess our sins we are brothers.” www.twitter.com/alanhirsch. (11.32 am, 22nd July 2009.) Proclaiming one part of the bodies worth and value over another intentionally or otherwise is not centred within the Christian faith, where the expression of love, support and encouragement all exist.
The fourth element to Kavanaughs provocative question was that of how much culture can betray our faith? It is this element of the challenges from Kavanaughs question that could be so divisive within the body of Christ as well as within any attempts to be missional to a culture. Betrayal of the culture of consumerism, with one of its roots firmly founded in the element of choice can certainly lead to disruption for Gods people, for acceptance of this betraying principle of consumerist choice could certainly lead to a divided body, as opposed to a body of unity.
Consumerist choice is everywhere within our society. You only need to walk down the serial section of the local shopping market to view the extensive array of serial that is on choice. Again, as suggested before, a demonstration of competitiveness within the consumerist culture, but this area of choice is also something that we as the Christian faith and those who relate to God have also bought into.
Green, in his essay in Christ and consumerism, 2000, makes reference to the pluralistic Church, and you only need to walk around any town to see the evidence of this idea. For the claim that we are all part of the same body, supposedly working together, there are a lot of parts of the body all offering the same kind of things. Virtually all would have a Sunday morning service, most would have some elements of youth work at some point in their life, there would be children’s work, amongst many other similarities. Further to this they would all claim to be reaching out into the area in which they reside.
Arguably the existence of notice boards outside individual churches could be seen as a demonstration of the Church buying into this consumerist choice culture. The proclamation of all that is taking place within their building, could easily be seen and accepted as that individual church propagating all that it has, and suggesting that people need to go there rather than anywhere else. But I would contend that there is a difference between the competitive nature of choice, and that of information distribution. If there is no information distribution then individuals outside the Church will be unaware of what is taking place inside. So acceptably there needs to be balance between the distribution of information and the perception of advertising. Information of activities taking place does not necessarily commodify the church, or God, but this would largely depend upon language that is used. So notice boards as an entity, as an information exercise does not necessarily pander to the consumeristic culture in the same way that the existence of competing elements within the Christian body would demonstrate.
It is hard, if not near-on impossible to see how they can claim to be offering any form of alternative to the culture that people exist in, when they demonstrate a pluralistic existence within culture themselves. Not only has the Church been betrayed by the culture of choice, but it has bought into it, and exemplifies it almost better than most other marketers that try to advertise a product.
Tiplady, 2003, argues that “The adoption of ideas and practices from the surrounding culture is not just a recurrent reality in Christian history, but also something intrinsic and valuable to the Christian faith itself.” But how can the culture of choice that exists, within consumerism be seen as either “intrinsic”, or “valuable” to the Christian faith? The very heart of the ideology of choice is opposed to that of unity or togetherness referred too earlier. Tiplady is certainly right that the adoption of values and practices from culture throughout the ages has been a recurrent reality, but the idea that it has been valuable must be questionable.
This pluralistic existence was brought to the fore for me recently when discussing my faith one evening whilst out for a drink with some friends, and one asked me “what are you?” to which I replied ”I am someone who has a relationship with Jesus!” this answer that I gave was not enough for the questioner, who then proceeded to point to the depth of his question, and also to the depth of the betrayal that we have bought into, when he asked “but are you Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, or what?”
I replied by telling him that I didn’t see myself as someone who signed up to a particular brand of faith, but purely as someone who had a relationship with Jesus. It became clear to me during the following discussion, which others joined in on, that we as the Christian church had bought into the culture of consumeristic choice, and demonstrated it so well, that even people outside the Church didn’t recognise us as all being part of the same body.
Identity therefore becomes a growing issue. Firstly in how we identify ourselves when discussing issues with others, but also what identity do we wish those who we are in discussion with to adopt if they then choose a relationship with God. Tiplady, 2003, suggests that “the idea that human identity is not given, but something that we make, is termed, constructivism”. And maybe there is some reconstruction that is needed within the identity that Christians wish to portray through their mission to the world. To identify ourselves to only a singular entity within the Christian faith, IE, the “Church”, that we attend on a Sunday morning, is to continue with this segmented approach that the Christian faith has demonstrated over many years, rather than identifying ourselves with Christ and Christ alone. Separatism cannot be regarded as an option within a body that is meant to act as one, unified and joined up. Embodied within the question posed to me “what are you?”, is the implication that all elements of the Church act separately to each other, rather than offering that unified approach. So the challenge then becomes a question of whether we are offering people an identity within Christ, or an identity within a particular segmented, denominational aspect of the Church.
The idea that Christians only belong to a single element of the body of Christ, as suggested by the questioner who confronted me, certainly gives weight to Scotlands’ assertion, 2000, that “Christianity has become primarily a lifestyle, an ethos, a culture, or club”. p145. Almost bringing some kind of exclusiveness to belonging within that group of people. And if this is true, that we now portray our faith as purely a lifestyle, or ethos/culture, or even a club, can we really be surprised as we seek to be missional in our culture that people don’t realise the true implications of that relationship with God we talk about. It is true certainly that there are lifestyle choices, and principles that are expected that we choose to live by, but surely the underpinning principle is that of the relationship rather than just an ideology that we wish to propagate.
Scotland 2000, emphasises this as he continues from his thoughts of what we have turned our faith into, as he says, “rather than a faith or relationship, with a Lord who demands total commitment on the part of his followers and who wants them to live in community relationships with others.” P145. So our challenge therefore is to refrain from living ideologically based lives and live out of relationship, thus demonstrating something of the attractiveness of having that relationship by how it is lived out rather than how it is advertised.
Tiplady, 2003, may seem to agree and even support Scotlands’ assertion of how we now portray our faith, when he states that, “Philosophers, theologians and preachers of all kinds need to be aware that peoples beliefs and values are sometimes more shaped by their behaviour and lifestyles, rather than vies-versa”. But, I would contend that this is dependant upon what the behaviour and lifestyle is focussed upon. For us, as Christians, living missionally in a consumeristic culture, we can certainly offer a differing set of beliefs and values to that of the culture we live in by our behaviour and lifestyle. A lifestyle that has the reality of that relationship with God centrally placed at the heart of it, and doesn’t just theorise about the principles of that relationship, but lives from the practical experiences of that relationship.
Frost, 09/06/2009, suggests that “We must intentionally evaluate and reform our everyday lives around the gospel”, making it clear that it is through a gospel centralised life that we are meant to live. But suggesting that there is an element of intentionality about how we live. Intentionality that stems from an understanding of the gospel, and a relationship with God, as opposed to any other values or beliefs. This is why Frost, would continue his statement from a basis of intentionality, to ensure that we exercised both an evaluation of our lifestyle, and thus a reformation of it if necessary. It would therefore be a contradiction to vocalise a set of beliefs and yet live according to a differing set of values. We would therefore struggle to fully embrace Bosch’s incultural missional approach, as to be fully inculturalised may involve some level of adoption of values according to the culture you existed in, and therefore to suggest a differing set of values would be seen as a contradiction.
Lifestyle choices can have an impact upon not just how inculturised we become, but also how much our personal context can be transformed. Scotland, quotes Webber, 2000, saying that “the greater distance people travel to a piece of worship the greater is the decline in the influence of that religious institution or organisation.” P143. So for us as missioners within a culture, the consumerist virtue of choice which many Christians buy into, then, if Weber is to be believed, has a negative impact upon the Christian influence we may have in our own context. Missional impact is laid sacrificially at the altar of our own consumerist desires even within a Christian context of travelling for worship. The implication of Weber’s statement is that we as Christians are not just prepared, but often happy to travel purely for our own consumption of a good time, as opposed to working out God’s purpose for us where he has placed us. The negative impact of our missional influence will be in part realised due to the time we spend travelling, seeking gratification for our own consumption, for the longer we travel to a place, and spend time returning, the less time there is for us to spend within our own context. There is of course an argument for travelling so that we can receive teaching that is relevant to us and our lives, but still the reality remains that removing ourselves from our everyday lives removes us from the context that God would want us to impact.
Existing within various contexts makes for a hard definition of home. Tiplady, 2003, states that “we can note that home, is an increasingly alien concept in the fluid, mobile, pluralising world of globalisation”. This is evident by the existence of people prepared to travel to large centralised Churches, as opposed to creating a community within their context that could shape of the world in which they live. An increasingly mobile world can lead to the possibility that peoples so-called “home church”, may not actually be anywhere near their home at all. This possible mindset of the need to travel for worship may have serious implications for our personal context, to the extent, as Scotland, 2003, quotes Weber, that the organisation or institution will become “dysfunctional in the long-term”. P143.
The disfunctionality that is spoken about by Weber, may well stem from people no longer existing within Christian communities, established within their everyday livelihood, but there could also be a further implication to this mindset of travelling to a larger form of church. This secondary disfunctionality is rooted within the detached nature of the large organisation from the contexts of its members. Jesus offers us the imagery of his disciples being like “salt”, Matt 5.13, and when examining the use of salt, it becomes apparent as to the implications of this association.
Salt is used as a flavouring element, so the implication for Christ’s disciples is that we are called to flavour the context in which we are called to exist. It is difficult to see how salt can flavour if it is not circulated around a particular area. Furthermore, salt loses its usage, and even its purpose when remaining in the salt-cellar where it is gathered. The flavouring purpose is extinguished as it resides with all the other salt parts. Therefore a large gathering of Christ’s disciples under the identity of Church, loses any missional identity it may wish to adopt. Similar to the argument that broadband connection slows down the further a household exists from a particular phone exchange, so the impact that a Church can have if its residence is a distance from where its members have travelled from will also diminish.
And maybe it is this concept of detachment that has the greatest implication for Christian missional work within the consumerist culture that we currently reside in. Detachment gives the impression of separation, not linked too, and maybe even alienation, for if we are detached from the context that God has placed us in, we are separated from it, have no links with it, and both contexts regard each other as alien.
This concept of detachment is different to the concept of counter-culturalism, for within the counter-cultural missional approach there is at its core an understanding of the culture that we wish to be counter too. Being counter-cultural implies an existence within the culture you wish to transform, but not embracing the values of that said culture. An embracement of those values existent within the culture leads to a betrayal and sacrifice of the alternative values that Christians seek to live out, as I have already indicated, so it is important therefore, to ensure that at the heart of our missional approach are the values that God wants us to live by.
Conversely to the counter-cultural discussion, an adoption of consumerist values leaves us detached from the values that God desires us to live by. So an inculturalised missional approach as referred to earlier by Bosch also detaches us from an existence that we are meant to have. The danger of inculturisation is that we detach ourselves from the relationship with God that we are invited to enjoy, and by embracing the concept of relevance, our relationship is not what it should be.
There is a conceptual difference between that of understanding and honour, and that of relevance and embracement. To demonstrate understanding and honour is to give worth and value to those around us as Jesus demonstrated, whereas relevance and embracement merge the boundaries of values. To transform a relationship into a product is the adoption of relevance and embracement, and thus the sacrifice of an alternative existence that Christ would call us too. Whereas the demonstration of that relationship with God through not just a lifestyle, but a testimony of that relationship would show value and worth to people around us as well as offer alternative values.
I allude to the concepts of understanding and honour simply as a start for a differing methodology to our missional approach, for detachment in all its elements surely cannot lead to a transformed culture, for at its roots detachment reveals nothing of the character of God, and thus leaves no opportunity for people to enter into a life changing relationship with God.
John 15.19 has Jesus telling us that we are obviously in the world, but further we are not of it. This simple statement should be the start to our missional approach, for its implication is that being in the world is something that is real, and so we are meant to live in relationship with those within the world, but additionally as we are not of the world, we cannot adopt worldly values. Extolling our own virtues demonstrates an arrogance, that does not exist within the character of God, and also leads to competitiveness within the body of Christ which also doesn’t exist within the character of God. Removing ourselves from localised contexts also detaches us from the world of everyday life that God has placed us in, so the emergence in certain areas of “mega Churches”, which draw people from their contexts to some kind of centralised gathering, removes us from the sphere of influence we exist in, in our everyday lives.
The implications therefore for our missional approach seem to lie firmly in the basis of our value structure. The value basis for both aspects of detachment concepts seem to lie very much at odds with the discipleship that Christ calls us too. Our possible approach of separatist large groupings of Christians has the struggle of de-contexualisiation for all constituent members, whereas the transformational approach of productivising God seems to do little more than adoption of consumerist values, thus leaving no alternative to the world at all. If we are to witness some positive implications for our missional approach, then our foundations must be rooted firmly in the values of Jesus, how he lived, his interaction with others, and his compliance with the will of the father. For any alternative value foundation can, and will only leave the implication of our mission leading people away from the one true God.
|
