"You know, we're like, our OWN genre, man..."
When I was in college, I went to a freshman-sophomore banquet featuring the entertainment of a local rock band. (Why anybody would want to dress formal and sit around a white tablecloth with gourmet food and listen to a rock band is beyond me. But still, our class officers have done much worse.)
What made this moment stand out for me is that, leading up to the banquet, the school newspaper was promoting the band by describing their music as rock, yet unique, defying classification. Sounded good to me. Then when the band got up to play, one of the class officers decided (for some reason) to ask the vocalist what kind of music they play. He said, "You know, we're like, our OWN genre." Whether or not they were any good, my interest was piqued.
So they tuned up, and hit their down beat. Within ten seconds my date and I looked at each other and said "alternative."
That's a lot of words to say this: It's hip for a rock band to defy classification. A lot of them fool themselves into thinking they're doing just that. The same goes for up-to-date, cutting-edge Church. Almost nobody is doing anything completely original, and the few that are, are probably running cults (there's a genre for you.)
As much as we at The Core might sometimes like to think we are original, we're not. The real question is, who are we like? With all sincerity, I will name that which we want most to be like: Jesus, and His first-century Church. In the process we will do things that resemble many other groups. But I for one hope it's more of a by-product than anything.
This is the first post in a series that will explore the "genres" of up-to-date, cutting-edge Church. I do not intend to advertise, or criticize. Hopefully, with your help, I can present an objective view of each, and we can benefit from a closer look. It may change as I go along, but at the moment, these are the ones I intend to hit:
[List edited 1/18/06]
Post-Modern Church
First Century Church
Ancient-Future Church
House Church
Cell Church
Organic Church
What other classifications would you like to explore? Speak up, now. I look forward to lots of input as this study unfolds.
Posted at 4:47 PM
View 7 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
7 Comments:
Before engaging this topic, i would like to make a couple of suggestions. First, it would be silly to publish commentary on these different terms without some sort of credible source by which we can refer for definitions and explanations. Often times that is not needed, when subjects discussed would be considered "common knowledge" at least within the group participating in the discussion. However, i might caution you in assuming that all of these terms hold a significant degree of common knowledge in the Christian realm, particularly the term "postmodern".
The first thing that comes to mind when you list these "genres" is that all the other genres you list could (and often do) fit under the postmodern banner. When addressing postmodernism, there are several things to keep in mind: First, we need a somewhat academic definition of postmodernism if we want to have a relevant conversation about it. Second, we need to recognize that postmodernism, by its very nature, defies neat, clean categorization. Third, we need to understand that the church has taken the word "postmodern" and added layers of meaning to it and thus created its own version of postmodernism. The former is well worth our time in discussing. Discussing the latter will only be beneficial insofar as we compare the two.
Finally, i would highly recommend broadening the topic range to include a comparative analysis of the various eras of the Church, e.g. Indigenous/early church, Traditional, Modern/pragmatic, and Postmodern. Once we look at the fundamental values and assumptions driving those different ecclesiastical frameworks, we will have a more productive discussion of the more progressive, emerging, cutting edge, organic, postmodern way of being Church.
While this may come across offensively to some, i think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of Christians have no clue what true postmodernism is, even the ones who think they know (i'm not necessarily referring to you, Mr. Coreman). Most postmodern Christians don't even realize they are postmodern, and those who think they're postmodern most likely are not.
Looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. :)
there really is nothing "new under the sun"
Ecclesiastes. Excellent reference, mama. We would all do best to take our focus off the "new" and place it on Christ, the Alpha and Omega. Are you suggesting that tinkering with terminology is a waste of time that could be otherwise better spent? (Don't be afraid to be honest.) If not completely, what ways do you see this topic to be worthy of discussion?
At the risk of laughing at the expense of two good friends, I have to say that seeing the verbosity of beloved and the brevity of mama piranha back-to-back is almost "ha ha" funny.
There truly is nothing new under the sun (even the New Covenant is a fulfillment of many types and shadows already existing,) but some things are indeed newer than others.
And I listed Postmodernism first for the very reason you seem to suspect, beloved. Although the other "genres" do not fit neatly under the Postmodern umbrella, there is a sense that they all pay homage to it. And I will confess that the Postmodernism post will be messy. But I'm counting on all who are reading to respond to help flesh it out. I say "flesh" because I believe that none of these terms will carry any meaning without the human elements of experience and conviction. A dictionary is a fine place to start, but it's only the first step of a monumental journey.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
coreman - I found the divergence humorous myself, of course, you know as well as anyone my capacity for verbosity
Here's a thought... books are often labeled inanimate or stale, usually in comparison to spoken word. However, aren't books written by humans and replete with vivid experience, conviction and nuance? Maybe i'm psychotic, but i have conversations with the books i read. I underline portions that stand out to me. I make notes in the margin. I question. I frown. I laugh. I ask it to repeat itself (i reread). I read it aloud to others within earshot if i want them to engage it with me for a moment or two.
Dynamics of conversation are certainly vastly different from dynamics of interaction with print and other forms of media. But what we have here is merely another form of print media. Very different from a conversation in fact (though it may not appear so).
Coreman, you stress an important point, though. Words have no meaning of their own merit. Meaning is found in people. That's not to say that words are useless. On the contrary, words are one of the primary media by which we help one another understand what's inside of us that we want to get inside of them. In the case of this blog, they are our only means.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home