Dear Christianity, Change or Die

A Call for a New Reformation, Part 1

Here’s an AI-generated podcast about this article for fun.

---

NOTE: Because this November-December series (“A Call for a New Reformation”) is incredibly important to me, I’ve decided to open it up for free through the end of December 2024. If you find this series to be inspirational, empowering, or otherwise valuable and look forward to more, please consider supporting the “Religious, Reasonable, & Radical Newsletter & Community” (learn more) by becoming a paid member for a small monthly fee.

Peter Marshall served as Chaplain of the US Senate from 1947–1949. A mainline Presbyterian, I see his tenure as symbolic of the height of mainline Christianity’s influence in America.

In fact, it was around that time that postmodernism really started to come onto the scene. And we're not just talking about intellectual postmodernism, but also cultural postmodernism. As more and more people had access to information in their homes through television, they had access to other ways of seeing things and encountered new ideas. In other words, they had access to multiple perspectives. 

With the advent of the internet, the postmodern worldview accelerated its influence. Now, it is a dominant lens through which Americans see the world. 

This is not to say that there aren't people still clinging to the modern worldview. I’d estimate that short of half of Americans continue to fit into that “modernist” category. Still, by now even they have been influenced by at least bits and pieces of postmodernism.

At this point, the postmodern worldview has touched and changed everything in one way or another. And there's no going back. 

Seeking Deeper Meaning in Life?

If you want to work through a process of intentional spiritual growth so you can become who you were truly meant to be, check out my 49-Day Spiritual Growth Journal.

From a modern to a postmodern worldview

So, what exactly has changed? 

I'm going to try to offer the briefest explanation of the shift that I have ever done. Hopefully, I don't leave too much out and it still makes sense…

Here are some key concepts that modernity emphasized: 

• A metanarrative of progress in which history is taking us to a glorious end and things are getting better and better all of the time. 

• Acceptance of an Absolute Truth that is out there and worth pursuing 

• A push to centralize and consolidate different groups to create a unity grounded in commonality 

• A belief that reason alone has the key to unlock the secrets of the universe 

As beautiful as these concepts are, they did not stand the test of time. When we look back World War II and the Holocaust, can we really say that the reasonability of science and technological advancements have brought us into a better world? When we look at issues of civil rights in America, can we not see the dangers inherent in centralizing authority and how that can lead to the normalization of the dominant social group’s desires? With greater awareness of world religions, can we really say that one religion has the only true perspective? 

As a result of wrestling with these questions, both academic and cultural postmoderns shifted to emphasize new concepts, concepts that directly challenged and undermined the previous ones: 

• A rejection of the metanarrative of progress in favor of evolution and adaptation in which moving forward does not equal getting better 

• Rejection of an Absolute Truth in favor of perspectival narrative truth 

• An emphasis on diversity and shifting authority to the voices on the margins of society 

• Acceptance that there are ways of knowing things other than through reason

In many respects, the postmodern worldview turns the modern worldview inside out.

Peter Marshall is dead

Postmodern culture is a change-or-be-changed world. The word is out: Reinvent yourself for the 21st century or die. Some would rather die than change. 

Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami, 75 (2001)

I was in seminary from 1999 until 2003. That's nearly a quarter of a century ago. So what I'm about to say has to do with my seminary experience back then. I really don't know what seminaries are like now. But, to be honest, I have a sneaking suspicion that very little has changed. 

In seminary, our first and second years primarily covered core requirements.

• Old Testament classes

• Hebrew classes

• New Testament classes

• Greek classes

• Christian history courses

• traditional history courses

• church doctrine classes

• a few others 

After making it through the basics, we got to add a bit more variety and take the classes we wanted. I can certainly appreciate how all of these classes could help a pastor function within the context of a tradition. 

Unfortunately, this approach to education seems disconnected from the realities of today. It seems to me that the education one receives in seminary is meant to empower pastors to lead congregations in the 1940s, during the peak of mainline power in America. 

Here's the thing: Peter Marshall is dead, and so is the world he lived in. As seminaries continue to train this generation of ministers to do ministry for a world that is gone, what they’re really doing is training ministers to close churches. 

I believe ministry in today's world has to be designed to meet the needs of today's world, not the needs of yesteryear. First and foremost, that means accepting the fact that things have changed, and then seeking to understand what needs to change in order to engage in authentic ministry today.

Introducing the family romance

Back in graduate school I presented a history paper in a competition and won a book by Lynn Hunt entitled The Family Romance and the French Revolution. I didn't realize at the time how influential this book would be on me, especially as I later explored the postmodern shift. 

The family romance is a Freudian concept. I apply it to the postmodern shift similar to how Hunt applies it to the French Revolution. Basically, the family romance (or a person’s vision for how families should function) is the basis of authority in society. As long as things are going well, people buy into the dominant family romance and expect authority to function according to it. When things become bad for the populace, those harmed tend to revisit the legitimacy of the established family romance and come up with a new one to take its place. 

Shifting the family romance

I believe that the modern family romance (which is the basis for authority in modern society) goes something like this: Support the drive for unity grounded and commonality. 

Modernity likes centralization. It likes having everybody on the same page. It likes having the same rules for everybody. It emphasizes equality and sameness. 

But what happens to the people on the margins? They don't reap the benefits of this society in the same way those at the center do. In fact, the power structures themselves serve to protect the interests of those at the center by keeping the marginalized from attaining those benefits. Thus, we hear the marginalized cry out against unjust systems. 

But, by what authority do the marginalized to decry the system and stand up to power structures? Remember, the power structure (or institutions) have been designed to reflect the modern family romance that gave birth to them. Within this system the marginalilzed have no authority to speak up against the institutions to promote change because the institutions are the authority to bring about change.The marginzlized find themselves in a Catch-22.

In order to challenge the dominant family romance, a new family romance must emerge, one powerful enough to capture the hearts and minds of the people and reveal the illegitimacy of the old one. 

Postmodern thought and lived cultural experience have given us just that. I describe the postmodern family romance this way: A quest for a diversity that flows from a mutual respect for freedom.

In this family romance, authority shifts to the margins. Now, no one has the right to impose their own narrative upon the marginalized. The stories of the marginalized now have their own inherent power and authority precisely because they are the stories of the marginalized. 

Incarnational institutions

In order for authority to be realized, society must be organized in a way that participants can buy into. In other words, organization must reflect the narrative expectations of authority that are held by the participants. That's the only way that organizations can ever work. If people don’t accept the organization as having any authority, the organization crumbles. 

In an ideal world, our institutions embody the spirit of the age. In other words, they reflect the narrative expectations of authority (or, to put it another way, they reflect the dominant cultural family romance). When modernity was at its best, it did just this, and we are better off it. It brought us the United Nations. It started to bring our country together around human rights. It brought us university education and standardized professional qualifications. 

Now that we are in a postmodern culture, something similar needs to happen. From what I can tell, internet communities both inform and reflect this new form of organization. People gravitate to those that match their interests, earn their voices, and recognize that membership is completely voluntary. There's always a community out there for you that you can call home, you just have to find it. And, thanks to the freedom of the internet, every online community is an authority unto itself.

The crumbling church

In the age of Peter Marshall, membership in a mainline denomination meant something. It was a source of identity that tied you to a much wider, common sense of belonging. Thanks to common worship practices, if you were a Presbyterian and went away for a weekend, you could drop into another Presbyterian congregation and experience a strong connection because you knew what to do and when to do it.

Fast forward to today, and membership in mainline denominations is declining rapidly. In fact, in the last 40 years, the Presbyterian Church USA has declined from 3.1 million members to 1.1 million members. It's estimated that it may have to dissolve in the next 20 years.

That's a pretty doom-and-gloom prediction, and it's not necessarily wrong. But here's the thing... 

I don't think that this fate is written in stone. I think it's a choice. 

This is incredibly hard for church leaders to hear. It's easy to say that the culture has shifted and there's nothing we can do about it, especially if you are ministers responsible for a congregation. After all, it's not like pastors who've gone to seminary (at least ones like mine) were trained to lead congregations in a postmodern context.

And, on top of that, there's the issue of what needs to happen.

Simple change won't work. 

Drastic change won't work.

Christianity needs nothing less than a New Reformation if it is to faithfully incarnate the Spirit of Christ in this new age.

Breaking out what a New Reformation needs to look like is what I’m tackling over the next couple of months, starting next week. I hope you join me for the journey. 

Peace, Bo
www.evolvingchristianfaith.net

PS: If you found this article valuable, please hit the "like" button. The more likes I have, the more likely the post is to be found on Substack by others.

Credits

• Thanks to Nightcafe for the cover art