• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Claremont School of Theology

You are here: Home / thinking / books / 5 Biggest Changes for Pastors in the Last 50 Years

5 Biggest Changes for Pastors in the Last 50 Years

November 26, 2012 by Bo Sanders 33 Comments

I’m preparing to facilitate a conversation with some colleagues in the new year about ministry and honoring tradition. I want to begin – and thus frame – the conversation with the changing culture that we are products of, interact with and attempt to minister to.

It is a different way to approach the topic of tradition, admittedly, but my thought is that we start where we are and then trace threads into the past to uncover their significance. I almost always find it unhelpful to start in the past – say at the Protest Reformation – and then slowly work our way up. It is simply too limiting (in scope) and cumbersome (in process) for the contemporary expectations of ministry.

I have been reading a little Gordon Kaufman. He has me thinking about the ‘nuclear age’ and how deeply that shift, from the end of WWII, has impacted us sociologically, psychologically, and spiritually. I take this as my launching off point.

 So here are my Big 5 – in no particular order. I wanted to throw them out here and see what others who are older, or wiser, or more insightful might add to the list or modify.

 Pervasive Pop Psychology  - My dad tells a story about interviewing retired pastors 30 years ago. He asked them when things seemed to change. All of them, without exception, pointed to the window from 1968-1970. They talked about Woodstock, Vietnam, and Nixon among other things.

Many of them also talked about people’s awareness and pop psychology. I will always remember the story of a son who came home from college to visit his folks on the farm. He tried to talk to his dad about his feelings, motivations, childhood memories, his subconscious, etc.  His dad responded, ‘Son, what the hell are going on about?’ He just had no frame of reference for it. Similar stories were repeated, in differing configurations, over and over by  the ministers.

Pop psychology has permeated every facet of society. From Oprah on daytime TV to Self-Help books – it impacts what people expect from a pastor and what they want from things like premarital counseling.
In my first 10 years of ministry, I often said that I would have more prepared for the actual way I spent my week if I had gotten a degree in psychology  rather than in Bible.

Biblical Scholarship - speaking of the Bible, I am shocked as to how much different those conversations go than they did 20 years ago when I was trained in Apologetics/Evangelism.  Between the Jesus Seminar, the Da Vinci Code and Bart Ehrman popularizing the stuff many pastors knew from seminary but were not allowed to say in the pulpit, it is a very different playing field.

It is an odd split: people often know little of the Bible – because they know so much stuff about the Bible. We can’t assume even a Sunday School understanding or a surface devotional reading. But at the same time, the culture wide awareness of critical Biblical scholarship is shocking. That was not true 50 years ago.

The Internet - The Internet changes everything. From the way people spend time to the way that they shop for a church. Facebook has changed how people connect to each other. Google has changed the way people access information. It is impossible to overstate how big of an impact the Internet has had on Western society. If you are still doing church the way you did 50 years ago – and think that it will have the same effect – you are fooling yourself. You may have the same seed, but the soil itself has changed. It will not grow the same crop or produce the same fruit.

Two little examples: When kids who grew up in your church come home from college and sit in on Sunday school (for example). They will assume that they get to share their opinion. They don’t sit quietly and honor the elders by talking last. They will raise their hands and talk first. Is it that they are over empowered? No. It is that they assume that they get to help shape the discussion and their opinion is valid. They don’t sit quietly and try to get up to speed or catch up on what they have missed.

  • This is the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.  A church website is 1.0 – the staff puts out the information that it wants people to see. You read it like a newspaper. It is not interactive. Facebook is 2.0 – it creates the environment but does not generate the content. Young people live in 2.0

Doug Paggitt talks of ‘the pastor as Google’. I love this. People don’t go to Google for Google. It is not a destination. It helps people get to their destination. If it does this well, people trust Google and go it often. Pastor used to be like encyclopedias. They were a resource, a destination for information. Now, the pastor’s office is not a destination, the art of pastoring is help people find theirs. If we do that well, they trust us and come back the next time they need direction.

Pastor as encyclopedia is a repository of information. Pastor as Google is a resource that knows how to find the information.

24 Hour News & Christian Media -  Cable news and Christian radio probably have a bigger impact on the people who fill the pews that any pastor can be expected to have in a 30 minute sermon once a week.  There is no other way to say it, the narrative that is being put out on media outlets like Fox News (Clash of Civilizations) or Christian Radio (the 6 Line Narrative) is so pervasive and so monolithic that it can feel as if your parishioners are being pastored far more by their TV and car radio that you will ever be able to.

This is also part of why our country and culture have become so:

  1. polarized
  2. adversarial

I am horrified by this trend more than all the others combined. I think that it hurts the heart of God and I know that it hurts our Christian witness.

Fractured Globalism  and PostModernity - People have great troubles conceptualizing and articulating how fractured, dislocated, overwhelmed and powerless they feel in the global marketplace. Things are not simple now. Things have never been more complex and overwhelming. Look at the food on your table? Do you know where it comes from? Think about your Thanksgiving dinner last week and imagine how many miles and from how many countries those ingredients were trucked to end up on your table. You might be shocked.

Think about your car. Was it all made and assembled at the same plant? Or even in the same country. The automotive industry was fairly straight forward 50 years ago. Now it is an example of inter-national, multi-corporation conglomerates. We have been de-centered, and people feel it. The way we conceptualize ourselves, our connection to family, the way we picture the world working, the universe and thus God. The best book I have read on the subject is “Identity, Culture, and the Postmodern World” by Madan Sarup.

The PostModern Turn - speaking of PostModern, this may be the biggest of the 5 changes. It is funny to me that some christians still want to debate if the category is real just because it can not be succinctly or universally defined (how very modern!)  Look, call it what you want: late-modernity, hyper-modernity, high-modernity, or some other thing – what can not be denied is that something big and deep has shifted. Blame it on the philosophers (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, etc) if you want. Make up a new name for it if you must. But please stop pretending that what we are looking at is nothing radical or unexpected. Even the ostrich thinks that it is time to pull your head out of the sand!

One interesting reaction, and this applies to denominations, is the counter-modern responses that want to go back to an imagined past and reclaim a romantic pre-shift relationship between the Christian religion and

  • society
  • the economy
  • science
  • other religions

You can see this in counter-modern responses like Radical Orthodoxy (retreating to the hills of Thomism), Post-Liberal thought, Hyper-Calvinism and the Tea-Party in politics. Even if you pastor with an established denomination (and many don’t) you have to contend with these fractious groups that will impact your congregation.

Those are my 5 Big changes for Pastors over the past 50 years. I would love your thoughts!  What would you take out and what would you add?

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: books, church history, engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: 70s, answers, author, Bible, book, books, change, church, clash of civilizations, Culture, generation, Global, globalization, God, Google, history, impact, internet, jesus, Media, ministry, Narrative, news, Nixon, office, Pastor, philosophy, postmodern, radio, retired, society, technology, theology, transform, TV, vietnam, woodstock
33 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I had to think on this post a while, @BoSanders , so pardon my late entrance.

 

With your first and fourth points I couldn't possibily disagree: Joel Osteen and his ilk are evidence enough that pop psychology isn't going away, and addiction to partisan content-generators, whether the local angry evangelical station or to the religion feeds at HuffPo, none of us can escape.

 

I do wonder about the strong effects of Biblical scholarship and the Internet.  Perhaps things are different out here in Georgia, but the old folks I teach in Sunday school often encounter ideas from mainstream scholarship for the first time when I bring them up in class, and the teens whom I teach on Wednesday nights certainly are no strangers to Facebook, but that doesn't really translate into ecclesial settings--they're more inclined, in most cases I've seen, to sit back and send text messages than they are to confront, engage, or otherwise acknowledge the existence of any other human bodies in most Bible-study environments I've seen 'em in (and yes, that includes places where I'm not teaching). 

 

Of course, my quickest and most visceral reaction was to the question of postmodernism.  Since I'm still stuck in Lyotard, I have a hard time seeing how Radical Orthodoxy and Postliberalism are anything but paradigm examples of "suspicion towards metanarratives."  For what bigger metanarrative than historical progress, and who more suspicious than the Augustinian?

 

Thus I'm always a bit confused (and sometimes more than a bit) when those who claim to be "postmodern" one moment will appeal to the authority of "science" or "biblical scholarship" as monoliths, and I'm positively flabbergasted when people claim unironically to be "progressive" and "postmodern" all at once.  Perhaps I read a different version of Nietzsche and Foucault than other folks have, or perhaps I'm just too simple-minded. :)

 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @ngilmour  you are reading way too narrowly. ;p  Couple of clarifications:

 

1) your story about youth (Wednesday night) is my point exactly. We are agreeing. They come with their families and are physically present, but the are texting and tweeting ... and are not really THERE.  their community is elsewhere. I wasn't saying Facebook as a positive change :)  I was just saying that it had changed things. 

 

2) Progressive is WITHIN the fracturing of narratives. Of course the reductive or totalizing theory of "progress" from centuries past is too simple. But within that, there have been SOME elements of progress.  I dabble in 'progressive' from within a fractured series of overlapping narratives. Everything is suspect and should be read with a hermeneutic of suspicion. ;)

 

3) My concern with both Rad. Orth. and Post-Lib approaches is because (as I say a lot) The future of the church is not found in Europe's past. We can't go back. Not only should we NOT go back - but we actually can't. 

 

Does that help? What do you think?  -Bo 

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders I suppose what I don't get is the objection to "going back."  To misappropriate Stan Fish, for my money, there's no such thing as "going back," and it's a good thing, too. 

 

As best as I can tell, Thomas Aquinas didn't have much of a retort to Nietzsche, and Augustine didn't write much about life in post-industrial global capitalism.  Seems to me that any thinking is always thinking-future by someone who has-been other than now.  (That's the best Heidegger riff I can muster between freshman papers right now.)  In other words, I see progressive and non-progressive visions of history and the intellectual life as different responses to historical phenomena, but I see both of them as appropriating this from traditions, modifying that, and standing against the other.  I think that a spectrum of responses to tradition are possible, but none of them goes "back."  Time flies like an arrow, no?

 

Progressive within the fracturing of narratives?  Nah.  Don't buy it. :)  More seriously, though, what apparatus helps you determine which "elements" are "elements of progress" without a metanarrative of progress?  I'm inclined to read things as better or worse, but I'm not inclined to map either set onto a "forward" trajectory, lest I commit myself to approving of things without proper ethical deliberation.  To say that Y happened after X is, in my mind, a matter of historical causation and contingency, not a moral claim.

 

My point about Facebook is that you posited an increased assertiveness in the OP, and I thought you had linked it to social media and such.  I must have misread that, though.

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders Take another look, Bo.  I said above that evaluations in terms of good and bad, better and worse, are precisely what I'm after.  What rouses my suspicion ('cause I was pomo before I realized it) are ideologies that would locate all of the better ahead of this moment and all of the worse behind this moment.  Better and worse I can discuss with anyone who wishes.  "Progress," on the other hand, assumes some sort of historical teleology, and I want to hear more before I sign on.

 

In other words, as I said to Morgan, if there are any RO or postliberal folks who reject ALL developments after 1400, I'm not aware of 'em.  If there are any RO or postliberal folks who embrace EVERYTHING before 1400, I'm not aware of 'em.  Traditions are ongoing debates, man.  And that's why I tend to prefer traditionalism to progressivism--there's more room for complexity there.

 

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts

 @BoSanders  @morgan_trotter So "unhelpful at every juncture" differs somehow from "inferior"?  Do tell.

 

Also, nobody is bristling, @BoSanders .  Relax a bit, man! ;)

 

A couple thoughts on this, and then I've got to be a good English teacher and grade some final papers. 

1) I would contend that the whole idea of strong historical periodization is, to a large extent, a 19th-century German idea, yet you seem to be fine with that.  I would argue, again, that we're playing the same game here.

2) Perhaps you've read some Milbank or Hauerwas that I haven't, but I can't think of any of their books that I've read in which they merely quote Barth, Aristotle, or Aquinas without remainder.  Every one of their books that I've read does new speculative work that operates in harmony with some parts of those traditions, rejects others, and appropriates still others in ways that would have been alien to the originals.  And that's alright.  (I've got Macintyre's conception of an intellectual tradition in mind here.)  Again, I'm inclined to think that they're calling on the resources available there but doing new work, not unlike what folks do with Hegel and Whitehead and such.  You seem to think that the two games are incommensurable, but I think they're just lining up with different formations. 

 

Alright.  English 101 papers await.  I'll try to comment on your second bit later today, when the freshmen wear me out.

morgan_trotter
morgan_trotter 5pts

 @BoSanders  Hi Bo, I'm a newcomer to your blog, and don't know what your expectations are about replies, but I do appreciate the opportunity to engage in productive discussion.

 

So I do have a question about one thing you said: "Quoting Barth, or Aristotle, or Aquinas is inherently limited and probably unhelpful at almost every juncture."  So are you saying there's no value in considering what these luminaries from the past have to say?  Are we unable to benefit from those who came before, though they may have come from a different era?

 

I'm also not convinced the change is as fundamental as you stated - otherwise it becomes a new meta-narrative that defines everything else, which is contradictory, isn't it...?

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 Why so reductive? @ngilmour  Are you saying that I can not hold that my wife is better off than women were 300 years ago without that being a META-narrative?  It can't just be a narrative, it has be meta? 

 

I am under the impression that in a fractured conception, the one always borrows from different stories, constructs, language games, and traditions ... often without knowingly, intentionally or without being thorough about it. 

 

This is the bricolage. The mosaic. The buffet - smorgasbord of late-high-post modernity. 

 

Now, it is possible that you know something that I don't know (likely) but it is also possible that you get "flabbergasted"  because you are being to reductive / narrow.   

 

either way - I sure enjoy you are a dialogue partner!   -Bo  ;) 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @ngilmour  @morgan_trotter  but just to be clear - that is NOT what I am saying.  I am not saying 'better' (Nate) or superior' (morgan).  

 

I am only saying two things:  1) they are different.   2) We are aware of them - they were not aware of us.  That matters. 

 

Many times people who bristle at my assertions end up arguing against something that I never said. I never said 'better' or 'superior'.   What I am saying in that our time is not their time and the answers to the questions we are being asked are not found in their mouths. Quoting Barth, or Aristotle, or Aquinas is inherently limited and probably unhelpful at almost every juncture. 

 

There has been a systemic shift in science, linguistics, technology, global conception of culture and identity, psychology, medical advancements, warfare, media, and religious pluralism.  I would even say in humanity (anthropology) has been effected in a collateral impact. We are not exactly the same as they were in the 1st century or even the 19th. 

 

hope that helps clarify my position and my concern :)  -Bo  I just wanted to make sure that if you were disagreeing with me, that you were disagreeing with where I actually am coming from! I was concerned about the introduction of the Barth quote 

ngilmour
ngilmour 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @morgan_trotter Here's the thing, though: it's possible, maybe even likely, that our moment does get something right where previous ages have gotten it wrong.  What gives me gas is when folks assume that one position is better BECAUSE it's from farther right on the timeline or that the points to the right on the timeline are "so over" the points to the left.

morgan_trotter
morgan_trotter 5pts

 @ngilmour  Your comments call to mind how Karl Barth cautioned us against assuming that our particular point in history is superior to something in the past, lest we succumb to a certain type of temporal hubris (my rather poor expression of Barth, I'm sure).

morgan_trotter
morgan_trotter 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I was a pastor in a "mainline" congregation through the '90s, and I'm amazed how much the situation has changed in just the past decade or so since then.  You said: "...the culture wide awareness of critical Biblical scholarship is shocking. That was not true 50 years ago."  Heck, it wasn't true 12 years ago, when I left formal ministry.  Things have really changed rapidly.

 

As society has become more fragmented, so has the church, especially since Protestantism was fragmented to begin with.  It seems everything's going more toward the extremes.  Yet at the same time there's also a great deal of similarity everywhere you look.  Regardless of theology, most megachurches and multi-site churches look and sound about the same.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @morgan_trotter Thank you SO much for this note. I loved what you said about Biblical Scholarship just 12 years ago ... and I painfully agree with you about mega and multi-site churches.  I might write on this later this week :) -Bo 

lonetomato808
lonetomato808 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Fascinating post. I think one of the changes that pastors have to grapple with today is the loss of the authoritative voice of the church in society at large.

 

I'm only 40 and so I may well be imagining this, but it seems like there was a time when the church had a say in society. People wanted to know what the church thought on certain matters and what pastors said held weight.

 

Today, speaking from a Christian point of view is almost a liability. If I enter a conversation and try to bring in an idea from a Christian theological perspective, I can well expect to be dismissed as one of those crazy, fundamentalist, gay-hating Christians and then all of a sudden, I'm either dismissed or I'm on the defensive.

 

On a more personal note, I always have to brace myself for a range of reactions when someone asks me what I do and I tell them that I'm a divinity student at a seminary. The most common reaction is, "what's a divinity degree?" and from then on, I get a kind of "good luck with that" vibe (with a heavy, unspoken undercurrent of "why the hell would you choose that degree?")

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @lonetomato808 you are 100% right about the loss of authority in the pastorate ... and about the mastering of divinity :)   

 

Great thoughts! thanks for the note  -Bo 

ThePeacePastor
ThePeacePastor 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

I have found this to be great food for thought (and dialogue) this week. When thinking about this question from the perspective of my actual day to day ministry I would answer it differently than you have.

 

I was taught to view a pastors holistic life in three categories: Person, Office, and Task. Or what you might call calling/character, Spiritual/symbolic Role, and Practical duties. 

 

From where I sit, the main change for pastors has been a drastic re-shift in emphasis away from the Office to the Task/s of ministry.

 

Pastoral expectations from the outside today are: being a producer, an employee, creating stuff and getting stuff done, being a manager, a captain of the good ship lollypop (faith is just a bonus, ha!). The google mentality plays in to this. That's the shift I see having taken place. And so my "to-do" list every week can include up to a hundred things on it: from email to hospital visitation to sweeping the sidewalks...

 

What might we contrast all that with? Presence. Personal, "pastoral", spiritual, relational, presence. In other words, BEing.

 

However, the cultural inertia of the pastoral position is NOT in this direction. To BE with people is viewed as secondary, optional, an elective if you will, what you do when you find extra time in your week. A Big shift has occurred that goes like this: From Spiritual Pastoral Presence to Employee-Administrator-Producer. And I would place a strong value statement on this of critique: that is not a good thing.That's not at all to say that people don't appreciate or want the Relational. They do! Desperately. It's rather to say if I spent my 40-60 hours this week doing nothing but Relational Presence people would question my pastoral credentials and value. But if I spent my 40-60 hours doing nothing but the Employee-Admin-Producer, I might just be eligible for a raise. 

 

Yesterday I visited a member in the hospital, who introduced me to his nurse. Who, literally, cried at the thought of a pastor visiting someone in the hospital, saying, "My pastor never visits anyone. He's too busy with too many things."

 

And that's to say nothing about how our Office has been completely drained of any meaning.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @ThePeacePastor Wow. great insights.  SO glad you took the time to write in.  -Bo 

MattBarlow
MattBarlow 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

One significant item I would add is religious pluralism. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest issues that pastors will have to face in our changing world.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @MattBarlow Yeah... I know what you are saying ... but I am not sure how much it impacts the actual week of a pastor yet.  You're right though - it is looming on the horizon.   -Bo 

MattBarlow
MattBarlow 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Your list is great. Here's my question: Given the nature of the transitions and paradigm shifts that are occurring right now - ie, everything is changing - is how we "do" church going to change, too? Doesn't it need to? Is the one-hour service, clergy, paid staff, pews, bulletins, choir, worship team, stages, sound systems, videoscreens, sermons, etc...are these formats even relevant anymore?These are not rhetorical questions posed in a smug manner. These really are serious questions I have been wrestling with personally for some time now.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @MattBarlow I like the sincerity of your question and the scope as well.  If I can, I will put up a response later this week :)   -Bo 

theBoSanders
theBoSanders 5pts

@pagitt and by the way, my joke is about Pentecostals and Baptists. It will kill in Minnesota I bet ;)

theBoSanders
theBoSanders 5pts

@pagitt oh, I'm on it my man ;) I practiced some of them this afternoon !

theBoSanders
theBoSanders 5pts

@Cory_Townsend sounds very Jesusy :p

theBoSanders
theBoSanders 5pts

@Cory_Townsend excellent point :) but what to do worth the lost art of homiletics ? #preaching

wg23
wg23 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Bo, 

Thanks for this post. I have been a pastor in the UM Church for 7 years now, and sometimes I have a hard time identifying some of the tensions between what I think pastors need to be doing and what some of the more senior pastors in the denomination believe. I think this list names many of the changes that I have naturally intuited. I feel that many of these changes are a natural part of who I am as a pastor (probably because I am 34 years old), but they might also be the reason I sometimes struggle in my current church. Many of the existing members either expect me to be the type of pastor that existed 50 years ago, or they only want certain aspects of these changes. In order to be relevant to the folks who are not yet a part of the church, I feel like I need to authentically live out this more postmodern approach to being a pastor. I do, however, strongly believe that I am called to be a pastor to both the existing members and those the church is trying to reach. Things seemed much easier when I was working with a church plant. At least then I didn't need to be schizophrenic.

 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @wg23 We certainly do live in an age of transition. The cultural moment is going to be epic.  Whether you subscribe to Pyllis Tickle's 'Great Emergence' or Harvey Cox's 'Future of Faith', etc.  These are not stable days.

 

I am only a little older than you and I have been in church plants in the past and am not at a UM church ... so I very much resonate with your experience. 

 

Let me know if you have any further thoughts or insights about this in the days ahead!  -Bp 

jamesdutton25
jamesdutton25 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Good thoughts, Boseph.

 

Although I agree with you, I find it a bit idiosyncratic that both pop-psychology and the "rise" (or perhaps "recognition") of postmodernity are included on the list. I say that because pop-psychology is all about hyper-categorizing and putting people into boxes based on "formative" events in our life. The frustrating thing about pop-psychology is its oversimplification of who we are (for example, Freud asserting that everything is about sex). Meanwhile, postmodernity makes who we are as people and how we perceive the world a lot more complicated and...incomprehensible, I suppose. It's fascinating to me that these two things can occur on this same list..

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @jamesdutton25 Yeah, I see how, when you frame it like that, it can appear disjointed. I think that it just goes further to illustrate the de-centering and fragmentation. When we are dislodged in our identity and communities there is a searching and scrambling for some element of meaning-making. 

I would just want to point out that not all pop-psychology is Freudian. Both Jung and Foucault are prominent as well (not that most people could tell you which idea come from which). 

 

Thanks for the thoughts.  -Bo 

jamesdutton25
jamesdutton25 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @BoSanders  @jamesdutton25 I couldn't tell you :-(

 

Can I just say I was excited to post on your blog.

sean muldowney
sean muldowney 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Great post Bo. My current seminary experience has informed me greatly re: the first two on the list, and for that I'm very grateful.

 

But even though I started identifying as a Christian post 9/11, I was still mentored by many who had this romantic, modernistic, Christendom mentality, so it has been life experiences, my own struggles, and the critiques of others that have schooled me on your final three points. And even though I didn't know what postmodernism was until I heard about it in a seminary classroom, I now wish there was an even greater intersection of these final points at my evangelical school. My paradigm did shift here, but real life has shifted it even more. Now in my final year I'm the annoying student who gives the push-back to apologetic proofs, inherency diatribes, etc. that we hear in class (mostly from other students).

 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Sean Patrick I am so glad that you have become a Deacon :)  I just love your perspective and honesty about our contemporary struggles!   I went to a great seminary (George Fox in Portland) and I thank God for it!  I'm not sure I would have made it any other place :)  

I needed to be gently eased into the kiddie end of the pool (I was a newbie to scholarship) and then - and this is equally important - not confined at the deep end ... but released out to the deep blue sea! 

 

Also - thank you for bringing up 9-11. I alluded to it with the 'Clash of Civilizations' but in the future I will name it overtly.  If I expressly name the Da Vinci Code ... I should probably not allude to 9-11 

 

-Bo 

StacyKlatt
StacyKlatt 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Bo - What a great and thoughtful list. I have certainly experienced all of these things to some extent. One thing that I might add to the conversation in the category postmoderns/internet 2.0 is the change of acceptance in "right thinking." I am talking specifically of the shift from the idea that if we preach it - it will be accepted as truth, to the reality that everything that we preach will be questioned (and rightly so!) and held onto loosely. You gave the example of college students coming home and having the expectation that they will help shape the conversation in the Bible class. What I have experienced is that those same college students will come home and not only expect this, but will ask valid questions that the "modern" generations were literally forbidden to ask. This sets off a defensive reaction that widens the gulf between generations. The college student is left with no where to go with this, because not to ask is unthinkable. The elders are left wondering where they went wrong that these youngsters show no respect. Fostering an environment for either generation forces the alienation of the other.

 

Stacy Klatt

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @StacyKlatt Great stuff Stacy! I have seen this as well.  In the post I alluded to with post-modern turn and Web 2.0 but you are right to merge them into a singular focus.  

Thanks for commenting!  It is really helpful to have partners to think through how I am going to present this.   -Bo  

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in