This piece was originally posted in Heretic Press and works as a kind of supplement to the CMY(K) artist statement.
–
I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. With that comes the belief that death is not simply a sad fact, but a necessary part of a full life. In Christian circles, this language is often used almost unceremoniously; “I must die to myself” “Less of me, more of Him” or “Taking up my cross” are not an uncommon things to hear on a Christian’s lips. But what happens to the idea that “death is necessary” when it is applied to the very religious system from which we learned the language of “death and life” and how to use it?
I am hardly the first to point out that western evangelical Christiantiy as we have known it is dying a relatively slow and public death. Author Mike Breen equates the current state of western religious culture to a tornado-struck town; what was previously familiar and comfortable terrain is uncomfortably strange and different because many, if not all of the landmarks we used to orient ourselves have been leveled. Calling oneself a “Christian” or even saying that one has “faith” means something different now than it used to. For many among us, we actually don’t want these things to mean what they used to and we are eager for new meaning to fill the space still possessed by these words.
While that may seem a bit dramatic, I’ve found this idea to be pervasively true with my circle of friends. I want to affirm the critique among my peers that very little about being a Christian looks like it used to (or soon won’t). I also want to put some marks on the blank slate in front of us so that we don’t feel like we have to draw new maps alone. I want to say that, regardless of the disorientation brought on by the absence of familiar structures, there is still a True North. I want to encourage those of us still standing amidst the rubble of once sacred buildings, that sometimes structures collapse because they were built poorly or cheaply… and that, in the future, we can build with more care. I want to proclaim that death is necessary for life and that believing in the resurrection doesn’t mean believing our faith (much less the structures we build around it) never dies. It means that death is not the end, even if it is our faith that has died.
This is why I’m doing the CMY(K) project.
—
You can pick up the EP’s at iTunes.
It is also available at my web store.
For more on the whole CMY(K) project, read the artist statement.
Wouldn’t you say that this has always been true though? I mean, you could have written this sentence 100 years ago, and it would have fit. Surely present-day Christianity doesn’t resemble medieval Christianity (at least, not in the west – they’re still on witch hunts in Nigeria). And medieval Christianity doesn’t resemble the original fellowship by the earliest Christians.
I always liked this quote by Sam Pascoe: “Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise.”
Certainly Christianity must continue to evolve if it is to remain relevant. Otherwise, Jesus will go the way of Zeus, Odin, and Huitzilopotchli.
To some degree, yes. The cultural face and practice of the tradition does change a bit… though, I would propose that it mostly stays the same.
Sam Pascoe’s brilliant analysis has to do with the USE of Christianity rather than it’s practice (an odd but important distinction.)
Most of what is read and discussed among scholars and pastors now was written at least centuries ago, not to mention the Scriptures themselves which are considerably older.
Regardless, the cultural shift in each generation is deserving of particular attention by the stewards of that age. Divorce and death have all happened before, but when it’s yours to deal with, the past is only beneficial to a point. The rest is existential.
But that’s the problem with scripture though, isn’t it? It’s always going to be interpreted by people who are bringing their own perspective which is influenced by the time and place in which they lived.
For instance, I was reading about how Shakespeare’s plays, which are relatively new compared to Biblical scriptures, have been reinterpreted though the centuries. People can’t help but bring a piece of themselves to what they read. One of the reasons why Shakespeare remains popular is that his themes are so universal, and they would have worked several hundreds of years before his time. There has always been love, lust, passion, ambition, betrayal, etc. and no doubt there always will be.
I’ve noticed, and perhaps you have as well, that when you talk to many people who believe in God, that concept of God is becoming more and more nebulous. Many of them don’t like attaching it to a specific religion even – although they might relate closer to the Christian concept simply because that’s the predominant one in our culture. Perhaps it’s because the resurrecting God is losing meaning for people in the modern world.
Older gods have died off when they became irrelevant. The Greek stories of battles between the generations (Cronus versus Ouranos and Zeus versus Cronus) speak to a very real thing that happened. As people developed agriculture, the idea of an unreachable sky god became less tangible. As they moved into cities, the agricultural gods gave way to gods of wisdom, warfare, etc.
Perhaps this is what we’re seeing. Perhaps the idea of a god who “died for our sins” makes less and less sense to people.
I don’t know. Time will tell. There might very well be a resurgence of genuine Christian feeling, and this is just the calm before the storm.
Yes, Scripture is always going to be interpreted by people who are bringing their own perspective. I don’t see a problem with this and think it was written in the same way.
I don’t find what you find with regards to God (as an idea, that is) becoming “more and more nebulous.” I think the Idea of God is always and has always been somewhat nebulous. That’s part of what makes the Scriptures confounding for folks is that they aren’t nebulous. They do present conflicting images at times, but there are particulars to deal with and disagree with.
I would agree that the idea of a god who ‘died for our sins’ makes less and less sense to people.. at least insofar as that is the sum of the story. But the sweep of the Christian narrative is far grander than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. NT Wright does a pretty nice job of laying out a more accurate (and more comprehensive) reading of the Christian story: http://www.marshill.org/pdf/HOW_CAN_THE_BIBLE_BE_AUTHORITATIVE.pdf
That’s pretty nebulous.
You’re pretty nebulous.
[quote]I want to proclaim that death is necessary for life and that believing in the resurrection doesn’t mean believing our faith (much less the structures we build around it) never dies. It means that death is not the end, even if it is our faith that has died.[/quote]This has proven true in my own life (probably more so than you intended to communicate). I don’t know what I would do without an integrated appreciation for death and resurrection.