The problem with finishing undergraduate in three years is that you don’t have very many electives. Sometimes I regret that. I wish I could have taken some sociology and literature courses at Northwestern but it just didn’t work out. Thus far in seminary, I have read two books written by sociologists and find their works fascinating. Humans are odd creatures. As Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, “Too weird to live, too rare to die.” The books were The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark and Divided by Faith by Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith. In the days to come, I hope to share excerpts or conclusions from the books with you because they are fascinating. The problem with sociology is that is can over generalize and build arguments solely on conjecture. However, when there is evidence available, the conclusions can be very insightful. Some theories in sociology are so straight-forward you really wouldn’t need a sociologist to conclude that answer for you. But there are other theories that make you pause and think.
Denver and Church
I’ve been living in Denver for just over three months now. I wanted to share a few observations about church and culture.
1) The composition of the half-dozen or so churches I have visited resemble either a) only 21-40 year-olds or b) everybody except 21-40 year-olds. The multi-generational church as we know it seems to be something of the past. At least for now.
2) If one were to go church shopping, Denver would be like the Macy’s or Saks Fifth Avenue of church shopping. There are SO many excellent churches out here. Too bad there’s only one Sunday every week. Otherwise, I could actually experience all these magnificent churches.
3) There are lots and lots of dislocated people living in Denver. What I mean by this is that there is a large contingency of people who moved away from family to start a new life here in Denver and thus, begin to create their own familial structures here. I am no exception to this.
4) During the summer, church attendance in Denver seems to drop in just about every church. It doesn’t take a brain scientist to figure out why. One just has to look at a postcard of the Rockies or just peer out their window (as I am doing right now to emphasize my point) to realize that it can be much more entertaining to go play in the mountains on a weekend than go to church. And with such a large variety of outdoor activities available, it is not a wonder that Denver people don’t go to church in the summer.
Karl Barth and the Confessing Church
I’ll just say it now. You will probably be reading about Karl Barth quite a bit in the weeks to come. Why you may ask? First, he is maybe the most brilliant theologian of the 20th century. Second, I am reading some of his works. And lastly, and maybe the primary reason, is because I am doing a presentation on him for a class. So there you have it.
Today, I just wanted to provide a short overview of what is meant by the confessing church that Barth proposes. But first some background. Barth lived in Nazi Germany and saw many colleagues and churches pledge allegiance to the way of Hitler. Barth was a part of a counter-movement, begging the church to remain the church that it was called to be. This terminology may be linked to one of his many definitions of faith: “Faith is the act in which man relates himself to God as is appropriate to God.” Barth goes on to state that this act is called confessing and confession. It is the place where we acknowledge our limits and shortcomings as finite humans, therefore allowing the glory and light of God to shine in and through us. Barth maintains that as a confessing church, we must maintain a distinct language separate from the world. The church must be the church, a distinct entity from the culture in which it resides. When the church fails to upkeep its unique identity of being the body of Christ and the “manifestation of the Servant of God,” the church is in danger of slipping into the fray of the society around it. Barth writes, “One thing is certain, that where the Christian Church does not venture to confess in its own language, it usually does not confess at all. Then it becomes the fellowship of the quiet, whereby it is much to be hoped that it does not become a community of dumb dogs.” Quite harsh, but Barth is trying to express the importance of the identity of the church and the foremost concern or maintaining this identity.
However, just because the church must hold dear to its language, that does not limit the influence of the church to the church itself. Barth emphasizes that the church exists in the sphere of the world and the church’s purpose is to express its language to the world. And this is where it gets tricky. We must communicate the identity of the church, namely the Word of God, Jesus Christ, to the world in a language that they understand. We cannot leave it in the language of the church. It must be translated to reach those outside the church. Thus, Barth is proposing, that although the church’s primary responsibility is to be the church, it cannot neglect the world around it. Thus, we see strands of Christ against culture in this view, but not to the point of withdrawing from culture. If anything, almost the opposite. The church’s responsibility is to communicate its language to the world. And because the church always exists within a particular culture and the Christians that make up the church still hold some worldly outlooks or perspectives, then a bridge must be constructed all the while not forgetting to be the church, the body of Christ.
