Author: Jonathan Dodson

Are We Approaching Conversion Incorrectly?

Posted on June 10, 2008

According to Andrew Walls, the word “conversion” has been used in two main ways throughout Christian history.[1] One way denotes “an external act of religious change” that is a movement to Christian faith, individually or collectively. The other way refers to “critical internal religious change” within the Christian community. I am concerned with the latter. Walls notes that Western missionaries exported their understanding of conversion and made it the norm among non-Western peoples. For many, this included moving from “nominal” to “real” Christianity, “issuing in a holy life typically marked by a period of deep consciousness of personal sin followed by a sense of joyous liberation dawning with the realization of personal forgiveness through Christ.” Missionaries expected a similar pattern from those they evangelized.

What missionaries encountered “on the field” then is beginning to occur on our turf, now. Many church planters have a pre-Christian past that is quite Christian, and quite pietistic, informed by mid to late 20th century evangelicalism. Similar to the missionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries, our conversions relied heavily upon a prevailing Christianized culture, upon a certain basic knowledge of the faith.

However, in regions such as the Pacific Northwest and New England and in spiritually similar cities of the U.S we are now encountering a very dissimilar cultural climate. No longer can we assume a basic level of evangelical capital upon which the Spirit of God may act. Instead, we are engaging un-churched and resistant peoples who have either forgotten more than they know or have, in fact, never known Christianity. As a result, the conditions of conversion have changed, and like former missionaries we must reconfigure our understanding and expectation of how people convert, how disciples are made. Our goal is not to make converts and disciples of our 20th century Christianity, but rather, to allow for new conversions—new creations—born by the Spirit in a 21st century, post-Christian context. We must heed the failures of the past and call people, not to our experience of conversion, but to the experience of the Spirit’s converting, whatever that process may entail.

[1] Quotations taken from Andrew Walls, “Converts or Proselytes? The Crisis over Conversion in the Early Church,” IBMR, Vol. 28, No.1.

U2 New Album & Re-release

Posted on June 10, 2008

In case you haven’t heard, U2 is re-releasing their first three albums (Boy, October, War) next month. In addition to remastering the sound, new B-sides, vinyl versions, and double disk sets will be available. Read the tracklists here. Sounds like they will do some creative releasing with the new album, perhaps along the lines of Radiohead and NIN’s new albums, creative commons maybe?

The New Office?

Posted on June 9, 2008

Many of us dread the office, even worse, the cubicle. Ironically, the cubicle was originally designed to foster human creativity, increase a new sense of success and vocational vitality. According to Nikil Saval, when Robert Propst created the cubicle in the 60s, he declared: “We are a nation of office dwellers. The face of capitalism had changed; the office had become a ‘thinking place’; ‘the real office consumer was the mind.'” Repetitive work was replaced by knowledge work and the cubicle was born to accommodate such work! By 2000, forty million American white-collar employees were using Propst’s “Action Office”–the cubicle.

Times have changed. Sure, there are still plenty of cubicles but in many cities they are steadily being replaced by coffee shops. Unlike the stifling effects of the cubicle, coffee shops and cafes can stimulate creativity . Caffeine, music, good food, other creative people, open-air workspace, people and culture swirling all around you. The new office is the mobile office, a land of open-air, ever alternating cubicles where creativity teems with the steam of each cappuccino. Richard Florida has argued for a next wave of work, seeing creativity, not knowledge, as new economic driver. He defines creativity as “the creation of useful new forms out of that knowledge,” and writes “in my formulation, ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ are the tools and materials of creativity.

Are we in a creative age? Are cafes the new cubicles? If so, have we reached vocational utopia which all, non-creative work must only aspire to? Or is there a dark side to the new office, a danger in a creative-driven economy? One thing is for sure, firms and office managers are sending freelancers and employees to the cafes with a laugh. Who pays for the expenses? Coffee, internet, space, parking, food, air conditioning, drinks, power? A creative way to make a buck!

See Nikil Saval, “Birth of the Office,” n+1; Richard Florida, Rise of the Creative Class.

Revisiting Christ & Culture Revisited (Chp 2 con't)

Posted on June 8, 2008

I have reviewed chapters one and two of Carsons’ Christ and Culture Revisited. Here I will continue to review chapter two and move into chapter three.

Niebuhr Typology vs. Biblical Theology Typology

Chapter two is intended to state the impact Biblical Theology should have on our understanding of Christ and culture, specifically our embrace of Niebuhr’s five-fold typology. In my earlier review I pointed out that Carson seems to misrepresent Niebuhr (certainly not intentionally), making Niebuhr’s categories more water-tight that Niebuhr himself advocates. Carson perceives this as a flaw, that the Niebuhr categories are too restrictive, that they require a more BT reading. Thus, he coins Creation/Fall, Israel/Law, Christ/New Covenant and Heaven/Hell the “non-negotiables of Biblical theology,” whereby we should pass judgment on Niebuhr’s categories (Christ against, of, above, paradox, & transformer of Culture).

Before commenting on Carson, I would like to point out that he seems to set up somewhat of a straw man. Though I can not speak for Niebuhr, I am certain that many who use the Christ and Culture typology do not use just one category in their approach to culture. Instead, most people use two or more of his categories when engaging culture. For instance, there are things in culture that must be clearly rejected, that Christ is against, and there are things that are of value and can be made more value through their transformation, which Christ is for. This is not a new way of thinking about Niebuhr yet Carson comments: “if for any reason we continue to think of different models of the relationship between Christian cultures, we must insist that they are not alternative models that we may choose to accept or reject” (62). So we use all of the categories to chart a path for godly interaction with culture. What Carson is trying to add is a plea for these categories to be chucked for biblical-theological categories. The trouble is that he is rather unclear in his explanation of how we are to proceed in this manner. Yet, I could not agree more that we must submit Niebuhr categories to biblical examination. Let’s check those categories out.

Creation/Fall

In an age that is soft on truth and sin, Carson’s section on the relevance of the Fall for engagement with culture is refreshing. He notes that the heart of evil is idolatry and that all men have fallen under this curse:

The consequences of the fall are universal and devastating because they are first and foremost revolt against the Almighty. We must be reconciled to God, for he is the One who now stands against us not now only our Creator, but our Judge. The drama of the entire storyline of the Bible turns on our persistent alienation from God. (49)

What is the cultural implication?

Christians cannot long think about Christ and culture without reflection the fact that this is God’s world, but that this side of the fall this world is simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we are mage in God’s image and shows itself mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God.

Agreed. Sounds like a simultaneous Christ vs. culture and Christ affirmer/transformer of culture. However, Carson continues his BT non-negotiables with very little cultural reflection. They are primary theological summaries of the categories. What we need is practical application to demonstrate sufficient reason to adopt his categories over and against Niehbur.

Christ/New Covenant

After affirming penal, substitiutionary atonement Carson writes: “it is simply non-negotiable for any form of Christianity whatsoever that seeks its shape in the cruciform gospel. Those that contest these fundamentals may receive high marks from the culture, but where there are competing authority claims on this sort of issue, Christians simply cannot afford to take their cues from the culture (55). I would think this is obvious to anyone who reads this book, but it is a rare cultural reflection in the mass of biblical-theological summary.

Heaven/Hell

Carson notes that the already-not-yet-consummated kingdom does not mean we usher in the consummation; that is reserved for Christ and should hold in check any sort of Christian utopian or triumphalism. Yet, again there are few cultural comments to press Carson’s words into the issue of Christ and culture.

Yet, Carson is staunch about his non-negotiables, stating that it will not do to adopt some configuration of a few of the categories and then call it a Christian option. Creation/Fall, Israel/Law, Christ/New Covenant, & Heaven/Hell must all be embraced, and I agree, though I would parse them out a bit differently and make many more connections between the non-negotiables and culture (and I have in some talks I have done on the Gospel and Culture).

Provisional Critique

By way of provisional critique, Chapter Two is in short supply of examples where the BT categories trump the Niebuhr’s, and more importantly, scarce are the sentences that connect the dots between the BT non-negotiable categories and their helpfulness in engaging culture. I am not yet convinced of the need to jump ship from Niebuhr.