Consumerism & Contentment?

I was born on the communist island of Cuba in 1962, right in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis. It was a time when the island’s communist leadership had begun to take all private property from individuals and make them the property of the state. The new found profits were then distributed among the new elite within the communist party. All of this was done with the motto “everyone equal.” History has shown us that some were more equal than others. In any case, the drive for equality proved to be huge enough to hypnotize the population into acquiescence. The dream sold by the communists and bought by the people was one wherein everyone would be equally able to consume to the point of contentment. Obviously, that never happened. What has happened is that the Cuban economy is ruins and the people live low on the global poverty level. The dream of consuming to point of contentment became a nightmare.

As a reward for disagreeing with the new system, my parents and their children (myself included) were exiled from the Island nation. We settled in the U. S. where a totally different paradigm ruled. The American dream appeared to be one wherein a person could, if they desired work hard enough, consume one’s way into contentment. Consuming was for all intents and purposes the new path to salvation, it was that thing which would make all other things right. Now, this was obviously too crude to state outright, but it was nevertheless the reality for just about everyone I knew. And thus, consume we did. Unfortunately, it never produced the much sought after contentment, and left us with a great deal of debt. It did not take very long to figure out that something was very wrong!

The American dream has not always been to consume ourselves into contentment, nevertheless, it is not difficult to show that this has been our nation’s underlying goal since WWII; consuming has been our gospel. Nevertheless, it seems that the era of hoping for salvation through consumption may be drawing to a close. One need not have a degree in economics to note that the shifts in our prosperity are monumental, and everyone realizes something is severely wrong!

We may be entering into the most gospel hungry era in the history of our nation. Are the preachers of our nation ready for this? Are the churches ready to come out from under the yoke of consumerism, or is our gospel too contaminated with the gospel of the past 50 years? It is time that we take the words of our Lord seriously; there is no other gospel than that of Christ. There is no contentment except that which is found in the death of this world and the birth of the world to come.

Repent (metanoeo: redirect your understanding) for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (within reach).

Mat 4: 17

A New Era

“Oh, how the mighty have fallen.”

These words were uttered by King David upon hearing of the death of King Saul. He remembered the former reign of Saul and lamented the end of an era. Of course, we now know that greater and more glorious days were close at hand. However, David had no way of knowing that even more glorious days were awaiting him. It is always this way when there is a change of eras.

However, when we compare the change that occurred between Saul’s administration and David’s, it seems insignificant in comparison to the change of an entire epoch. The last great epoch change occurred with the beginning of the modern era. Most scholars assign the birth of the modern era to the creation of the Guttenberg press. If you will recall, it was in the 16^th century that both the renaissance and the reformation came into full flower. The world would never be the same after these events. The worldview, morality, and politics of the western world took a completely new direction in the modern era. Natural science became the launching pad for the modern worldview, morality became centered on the individual’s desires & freedoms, and politics took on a democratic style.

Modernity however, has for all intents and purposes crashed and burned. No one of consequence believes that we will “science” our way, or “individualize” our way out of our very real problems. Humanity is broken, our system of thought is broken, politics is broken, and most are aware enough to recognize it.

In other words, we are living in a time of epoch change. A friend and colleague recently commented that the events of 911 would go down in the annals of history as the nail on the coffin of modernity. It is here however that the Christian stands while others fall. We know that the best is yet to come; how, when, and where may all be a mystery, but the fact is that the gates of hell will never prevail the church. The most glorious days of the church are yet to come.

What then is the church to do with modernity? Are we to throw it into the junk heap of history? No; at least not all of it. There has been much good that has come from modernity, education on mass, scientific advance in areas of medicine, the suppression of despotism of all sorts. The gospel has moved forward in many ways, and these good things should be preserved.

The task at hand is not merely one of deconstruction, or undoing the errors of modernity, but it is also one of reconstruction; by that I mean retaining the best of both pre-modernity (mystery, philosophy, revelation, corporate culture) and modernity, all the while looking to see where the Lord is taking His people. In short, the church must strive towards a full blown worldview that incorporates the fullness of truth, the fullness of pre-modern Orthodoxy, medieval Catholicity, and modern Evangelicalism.

An Orthodox Anglican Conversation

It is not often that a discussion between two historic expressions of Christianity result in a pleasant conclusion. Here is one that does. In this conversation, several important topics such as conservatism/liberalism and ideology, Augustinianism and Pelagianism, higher criticism and the patrisitcs are discussed. This conversation highlights many important themes must be addressed and sorted out for the future American church.

Proud Aliens

There are many things that are quite puzzling about Christianity to those who dwell on the outside when they look in. This is especially the case when we refer to the classic and historic worship forms of Christianity.

Those of us who practice the ancient faith do strange things like: process while carrying the Bible, banners, and crosses; we light candles, & use large amounts of incense; our clergy & altar servers dress as if they were already in the heavens. And if all of this were not strange enough, we say words that were written thousands of years ago, & we sing songs that span the 2000 (to 3500) year history of the church. And we even celebrate days on a calendar that no one in our country seems to know anything about.

We obviously belong to another rhythm of time. Our worship exposes to the watching world that we are aliens. To the outside observer, this kind of experience can be very appealing or very mystifying. In either case, it is obvious to all our worship has within it many layers of meaning. Meaning which is not easily apprehended by the biblically illiterate. Historic worship requires a new mind, heart, and soul, one shaped by another world, a spiritual world where God gives himself to us. For the reason we above all people should be eager to share our spiritual culture with all who will listen.

Consequently, it is imperative that churches that practice the ancient way of worship invest deeply in the training of their people. The mission work for historic churches (& thus the churches of the future) must focus on exposing the uninitiated to that other world that we know by every means possible: we must teach the bible, the Fathers, the councils, the songs, the prayers, the iconography, & the great books. It is by passing down the one faith in its fullness (no subtractions) that the Spirit begins to have his way with us. Historic churches are not to be museums, but rahter living and active, always at work in the molding of persons into the image of the Son of God.

Is Christianity In A Tailspin?

It is inarguable that the contemporary western culture in which we live is in a spiritual tailspin. Some have labeled our era “the Post-Christian era,” others “the Post-Modern Era.” In any case, we are post, or past that which came just a few decades ago. I would assert that we are in a “The Post-Modernistic Christian Era.”

What I mean by a "Post Modernistic Christian era" is that we live in an age wherein the masses have analyzed & rejected the precepts & practices of the particular brand of Christianity that has given shape to the western mind. Unfortunately, that also means that most persons assume that they know Christianity in toto, & found it lacking.

Consequently, the western church is in deep turmoil. It is undeniable that western Christianity is experiencing a shrinking membership, & a diminishing redemptive effect on our culture; this reality stresses the fact that we cannot remain in this state.

All agree that "status quo" is not an option if we desire to survive in this new world. If we in the western church are to successfully plot a track towards the future, it is imperative that we understand how Christianity arrived at its present place. This also means that we must ask what exactly has been rejected by the masses, & why?

CONTEMPORARY REJECTIONS:

1- The vain God who desires nothing more than his honor.

2- The angry, yet loving God.

3- The simplistic explanations of creation, why evil exists, and right & wrong.

4- The sure versions of truth based on one individual’s view of reality.

The above rejections are completely justified, I say this because the earliest expressions of Christianity did not hold to any of those four precepts. Nevertheless, some version of these precepts listed above are alive & well in most expressions of western Christianity. It seems fitting therefore to state that one can be a Christian & yet not hold to the above objections. Moreover, it may even be said that in order for Christianity is to survive in the west, we must recover the purer Christianity that was free from these modernistic additions.

I suggest we begin by considering how & when we adopted the above points of view above as central tenets of our faith. In other words, we must figure out how these tenets got into the faith & then ask ourselves what existed prior to their entrance. What was the earlier & purer way? If there has ever been a better/purer way, then we should not only be familiar with that way, but also consider using that way as the pattern for the future.

The Prophecy of Egbert

When I was being examined for my confirmation in the Anglican Church, I made several promises to God and to all who were present. One the most important promises was in response to this question, “what is your duty to your neighbor?” In response, I recited the answer placed into my mouth by the church, it began with these words. “My duty towards my neighbor is to love him as myself.”

This is perhaps the most difficult task that I have ever taken on, & yet it has been the most transformative. If for no other reason, because it regularly causes me to refrain from shooting from the hip every time someone strikes me the wrong way. I surely desire for folks to be patient with me, to hear what I am saying, and to try to get at my heart, & not merely what I am saying. Thus this promise provokes me to at least try do the same with others whom I would by nature have for lunch.

Never has this been truer than when it comes to the events of the past week. I was initially motivated to write scores of criticisms & condemnations regarding Harold Egbert Camping’s prophecies. However, I somehow (by God’s grace) remembered that promise I made long ago to love the way I want to be loved. This promise I made long ago gave me the opportunity to ask myself whether Egbert was setting out to do evil to the world? I don’t believe he desired to do evil; in his mistaken heart, he seemed to want to do good. He believes a mistaken version of the gospel that many others also believe, & he was serious about spreading it; moreover, he was even successful spreading his faith. All the while so many others who have it right will not put it all on the line to do so. Consequently, I say kudos to Egbert for his courage & willingness to put it all on the line & spread what he believed to be true. It is at that point that my charity towards Egbert stops. Why? Because he did harm the world, he dragged the name of Christ through the dirt, & made Christianity even more of a laughing stock, & he led many who followed him into ruin. Lord have mercy on Egbert.

What is it that gives a man such audacity? What gives a man such permission to see himself as the authoritative interpreter of scripture & truth? Perhaps the force that that gives an individual this kind of permission that is the true enemy exposed by the failed prophesy of Egbert. The fact is that everyone who was sure that the end of the apocalypse would not occur on the 21^st of May at 6 pm is equally as guilty as Egbert. Why? Because, the church has already spoken regarding scripture on this subject.

The undivided church (not any one individual) has with one voice; the voice of the Spirit, said that regarding the last day no man knows the time or the day. This means that anyone who said to themselves, or publicly, that the world would not come to an end was equally as sure of their own prophetic capacities. The fact is Egbert was wrong, nevertheless, if the church was correct, then the end could very well have come at 6 pm on the 21^st.

In the failed “Prophecy of Egbert”, as well as in the responses against him, we find the problem that the contemporary world seems totally powerless to overcome, & that is the assurance that we individuals have equal authority with the voice of the undivided church to declare dogma. Not until we learn to humble ourselves and embrace the voice of the Spirit who has spoken by His church, by means of the ecumenical councils do we even stand a chance to apprehend the truth. There is sure truth, & it is found in the voice of the undivided church, everything else that you & I come up with on your own is pure speculation & its relevance on the truth is small. It does not matter whether these speculations come to us as the voice of one man who calls himself Pope, or as the voice of another who says that it is his illumination & the authority of his bible. Both are two sides of one coin, & both find their origin in the Great Schism where one man placed himself above the church. If our voices do not match the voice of the undivided church, then it is mere speculation.

Do You Know?