After 2000 years, the term "Christianity," is not exactly winning confetti and public acclaim for its customers. More likely are demeaning stares or puzzled expressions. Why would anyone freely claim to be part of that? I've sometimes found myself, ironically, defending the word itself, rather than the bright realities that lie behind it.
Christianity. If historically there had been such a word as "Vikingism," we would have an interesting similarity in terms of public perception. Given a choice of live verbal specimens today, I think "imperialism" or "vandalism" or (in some circles) "nazism" would not be far off the mark. Adherents of "Christianity" are losing the PR battle.
That's why it's tempting to find a new name to identify our "movement." Something fresh, something friendly, something that defies pigeon-holing. Donald Miller thinks he has done precisely this; and who's to say he's wrong? Christianity, suggests Miller, is a word of the past. The new cognomen is "Christian spirituality." Fascinating, but what does it mean?
Ever since I finished Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz, I've been wondering what Christian spirituality implies. Miller introduces the phrase with his own experiential rationale:In a recent radio interview I was sternly asked by the host, who did not consider himself a Christian, to defend Christianity. I told him that I couldn't do it, and moreover, that I didn't want to defend the term... I told him I no longer knew what the term meant. Of the hundreds of thousands of people listening to his show that day, some of them had terrible experiences with Christianity... To them, the term Christianity meant something that no Christian would defend. By fortifying the term, I am only making them more and more angry. I won't do it... Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. - Blue Like Jazz
However, Miller doesn't really flesh out his new catchphrase...at least not overtly. This leaves plenty of room for speculation. Unquestionably, Miller has a point. He's articulating a feeling, a weight of preconception, that many Christians feel bearing down on them. I find myself for the most part in the same boat—somewhat disenchanted with the associations that cling to "Christianity" like bloody, tattered rags, indicative of historical wounds beneath. I know what I mean when I say "Christianity"—but chances are the person I'm speaking to has a sharply different concept in mind.
This fact is a given, at least in the U.S. So what I find myself mulling over is whether "Christian spirituality" is an adequate replacement label to describe a lifetime spent pursuing Jesus. I put the question to Lindsay the other night.
"Honey, what associations do you get from the phrase, 'Christian spirituality?'"
"I don't know what you mean."
"Well, when you hear the phrase, 'Christian spirituality,' what comes to mind?"
"I'm not sure. I haven't really heard that phrase before."
"Well...do you like it? Does it have good connotations? Bad ones?"
"Hmmm."
Lindsay's response pointed up one aspect of the expression, which is that it remains pretty much under the radar. If you haven't read Donald Miller or dabbled in "emergent church" circles, you may have no initial opinion at all. The phrase enjoys a notable lack of recognition.
Just the same, if I'm going to employ it, or even think about employing it, I feel compelled to try and get at its innate connotations, undeveloped though they may be. After a little thought, Lindsay suggested that the phrase implied a "mystical" or "very personal" approach to Jesus. I thought that was fair enough.
When I hear the phrase, I picture a faith that is, like virtually all "faiths" these days, highly personal. Very intimate, connected, relational. Very centered on oneself, to be frank. Me and Christ. Jesus and me. Something we cultivate together. For better or worse, that's the picture I get.
As well, the "mystical" label seems to fit. We postmoderns are sick of having everything plotted out, and we're eager to admit that mysteries exist. We're happy enough to live with apparent contradictions and inexplicable phenomena, so long as they contribute to a nicely textured picture of reality.
Related to this is an experiential aura that surrounds the term. This is attractive, since most of like the idea of an adventure we can jump into—something to catch our imagination, something that defies easy comprehension, something with a slightly cryptic allure. We also like that experimenting with such things makes us seem like a more interesting person.
As you might have guessed, what concerns me with "Christian spirituality" is that it seems to lend itself too easily to the faith-as-accessory culture we live in. Then again, it would be hard to create a title that could escape the magnetic tendency toward narcissism. I appreciate the newness of the phrase; I like its explanation-inviting, bias-barring, Huh what? quality.
And to be fair, in Blue Like Jazz, Miller offsets some of the negative leanings that I mention above. For example, he focuses an entire chapter on the need for community, over against an inward, just-Jesus-and-me bent. But I suspect that not many will read the book before they assess the buzzwords.
Taken sum tota, I think that Miller's take deals with a legit need for Christians. And, while we could brainstorm for alternative phrases, his offering seems as good as any. I suspect, however, that we'll discover that just one label-swap will not do. Adequately representing the beauty of Christ, once it's discovered, is a task that calls for ongoing creativity.
I tend to think that Christians rely too much on labels. Our "advertising," if you will, should be more experiential, and less brand-name reliant. It's the experience of knowing Christ that we're selling, not the advantages of a demographic.
Maybe we should be less eager to stuff ourselves into a readily identifiable slot, and more ready to dish out fresh explanations for what this thing is that we're doing. Might I use the Christian spirituality catchphrase? I might, if it helps communicate. But the name-placard approach to faith is over-rated.
9 comments:
You speak to something I have been causually reflecting on for months now.
Placing aside the modifier "Christianity" and the term spirituality seems vacuous (screed does not begin to describ how I talk about). So, then, using a cognate of Christian -an already misunderstood term- coupled with "spiritual" spells disaster.
I will have to pose this question to my boys (shameless plug) on Friday.
Regarding:"When I hear the phrase, I picture a faith that is, like virtually all "faiths" these days, highly personal. Very intimate, connected, relational. Very centered on oneself, to be frank. Me and Christ. Jesus and me. Something we cultivate together. For better or worse, that's the picture I get."
I would be curious to have you flesh that out more. I think there is a critique there somewhere. Could one say we should reflect community in the church more? Because I want to say that. There is too much personal and not enough community these days.
When I hear the phrase, I picture a faith that is, like virtually all "faiths" these days, highly personal. Very intimate, connected, relational. Very centered on oneself, to be frank. Me and Christ. Jesus and me...
overlyconscious: I would be curious to have you flesh that out more. I think there is a critique there somewhere...
Right on, OC. The critique is indeed implied. If we consign faith to a purely "personal" realm, we're suggesting it's subjective and therefore malleable...something we can hardly expect to speak to each other about reasonably. We'd just all be sharing our impressions.
To put it in the words of the venerable Jack Handey (while mixing metaphors at the same time!):
"Instead of having 'answers' on a math test, they should just call them 'impressions,' and if you got a different 'impression,' so what, can't we all be brothers?" - Handey
Faith has to be personal. But it cannot be only personal, because it's based on objective reality and received in community. I'm curious to hear what "your boys" have to say on this.
Ariel, I like your thoughts on this. My initial reaction when I read this in BLJ was that this was a very good term to use in lieu of Christianity - which as both you and Miller point out - means many different things to different people.
I find it an acceptable alternative if discussing to someone who is on the fence about faith in Christ, and is a good way to deflect the negatives surrounding "Christianity" - and ultimately, that's where faith begins, with that personal relationship.
It's incumbent on us who are further along in our faith journey to then bring that new believer into OUR community of Christian believers so that they know that they are part of something larger - that God works through the individual AND the community.
Go back to Acts 2:46 and 47 where you see Luke's description of the community of believers enjoying the fellowship with each other, and others joined because they liked what they saw of that community.
Christian spirituality is a great start - and we then can show the new believer through the community how that really is simple Christianity.
it's a delicate balance between the need for individualism and community. too much of one and something valuable is lost in the other.
as far as the naming convention, it's painful that Christianity has such a negative connotation. it's gotten all wrapped up in politics. i think that's the problem. Christ was not a politician. i've said that before and people argued with me, but i stick by it.
that being said, i don't know how to avoid it being wrapped up in politics. it just seems excessive right now, to me.
Superb post.
You wrote: ->
We postmoderns are sick of having everything plotted out, and we're eager to admit that mysteries exist. We're happy enough to live with apparent contradictions and inexplicable phenomena, so long as they contribute to a nicely textured picture of reality.<-
And it was good.
Hey Arie,
Good thoughts ... when I was doing a CD signing event at Christian Book & Gift (Nov. 5), I found myself sitting next to the new release section. I reached for Blue Like Jazz, my interest having been piqued by your review, and went straight for the "romance" chapter (I'd almost buy the book just for a few great quotes in that chapter : ). In between chatting with customers and selling CDs, I also polished off most of a second chapter (I can't remember which one, but I read about aloneness, community, and ... penguins).
I also find Miller's writing interesting since I am just coming off a Creative Non-Fiction/Memoir section of my English II class (a class which I am thoroughly enjoying!). I love finding/recognizing/understanding in real life what I've been learning about in class.
As far as the whole name and its associations thing, my pastor and church are dealing with this on a somewhat similar level. We have always been "Williamstown Assembly of God," but very few in our congregation actually live in Williamstown. Many are from Perry, Lecompton, Oskaloosa, Lawrence, Topeka, Ozawkie, Meriden, Valley Falls ... you get the picture. "WILLIAMSTOWN Assembly of God" is no longer who we really ARE or who we are trying to reach. If we get caught up in nostalgia and a title instead of true identity, we may be missing the point (and some who we'd like to reach but might otherwise be turned off by preconceived associations). I think it could be the same - not for all, but for some - with Christian Spirituality.
~ Laurel
I just had an irritating experience with the term "christian spirituality." I was using the term "christian" to sort craigslist ads and one popped up in the context of a list of interests; "biking, hiking, christian spirituality." I didn't assume the writer was a christian. I wrote the guy and I never got a clear answer about whether or not he considered himself born again. I then invited him to church and in the process of talking to him, it finally became obvious that he wasn't a christian. He loved medieval chant and mystic writings, but when queried about Christ, he only gave me a blank look. The term "spirituality" is so broad as to be nearly useless.
I'd like to see Christians reembrace the term just like African Americans embraced the term "Black" in the 60's. I love how Christ is right in the middle of the word, just like He ought to be.
Dan just wrote a cool blog enty about this very topic
Very thoughtful comments on this post, all. I very much appreciated Andy's rock-solid contextualization of the issue:
It's incumbent on us who are further along in our faith journey to then bring that new believer into OUR community of Christian believers so that they know... that God works through the individual AND the community.
This is essential, I think, or else we just slide into pragmatism. "Whatever terms works today, I'll use. And tomorrow I'll find another one..." We can't afford to forget that the core is always the same.
Tequilita, I find myself thinking that if Christ was a politician, we haven't seen one since. Jesus was not unconcerned with "Caesar," nor should we be - but he came ultimately to reform hearts, not governments.
Laurel and Camille seem to point up the downside of bailing on "Christianity;" for some audiences, "Christian spirituality" will be bewildering if not misleading. It would take guts to bravely adopt the Christian tag, as Camille suggests...maybe if it were done with enough audacity, people would take notice?
I guess my route at this point is kind of middle-of-the road. I'm willing to adopt new terminology, realizing it's just that - a device for truth conveyance. The terms will need to match the person I'm speaking to.
Hey Tim, thanks for the motivational boost.
Post a Comment