Friday, August 03, 2007

 

American Theology

Over at Mere O, Matt reviews Authur McGill's Death and Life: An American Theology. I have not read the book but found a great deal of sympathy with it as Matt presents it.

Matt describes McGill's first thesis this way:
He argues that the American view of “life” means “having.” It is “always optimistic, always affirmative.” Death is, in this sense, a disruption, a mangling of the normal. Poverty, sickness, disease and unanswered needs are abnormal and accidental. Wealth is a fundamental state of mind, not simply a fact. As a result, we work hard to become what McGill calls “the bronze people,” people who maintain the appearance of life without having the substance of it. In doing so, we avoid the fundamental reality of sin and pain, a reality that is “intolerable.” “The world is awful,” writes McGill, “but Americans do not usually say so.”
Matt takes a bit of issue wit McGill's "world is awful" formulation. I understand why, but find the disagreement largely semantic and would tend to use McGill's formulation primarily.

I think Matt makes my point for me when he describes McGill's second thesis:
While equally provocative, McGill’s second section is somewhat more successful. Despite continuing his error of making sin “a matter…of our basic identity,” McGill demonstrates how Jesus’ identity comes from outside of himself and how as Christians, we must “die” and discover that our identity comes from outside of ourselves, from God. We must let go of the “tecnique of having,” of possessing ourselves and cultivate a posture of gratitude and acknowledgment that our being is in God, not in us.
The disagreements here hinge pretty much on what one feels the nature of God's redemptive work is - essentially, are we "fixed" or "remade"? In Matt's understanding we are "fixed," in McGill's "remade." The beginning and ending points are virtually the same here which is why I think this is primarily a semantic discussion, but it is important.

Why would I want to let go and draw my identity from outside if instead of needing to be "remade," I merely need to be "fixed"? Think about that....

But it is McGill's definition of American life as "having" that I find so intriguing. Acquisition is the fundamental American activity, but I had never equated it with a sense of life. But I think McGill may be right, and I think the implications for the church are astounding.

Our churchs seeks to acquire members, not make converts. Growth is defined as a "healthy" church, whilst lack of growth or shrinkage is consider "unhealthy." And yet, the church, like we as individuals, should take identity from the external. A healthy church should be measured by who it serves, not what it acquires.

How come I never see that in the church consultant literature?

Regardless of whether you agree with Matt or McGill on the lesser and higher realities, there is powerful understanding to be had here, for us and for the church.

Related Tags: , , , , , , ,

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Feed

Blogotional

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogarama - The Blog Directory