How do we resist the placement of religion in the private sphere and subvert the impulsive focus on the needs of the individual? What shapes our conversations about what the church is and should be – the Gospel, or the all-encompassing market? What does it means to be the people of God in the world?
I believe that framing our conversations in such a way may help us resist the tendency to seek relevance and legitimacy in the market. This is quite a contrast to seeing local churches as functional housing for a set of “spiritual” experiences or community activities that are offered as such to the consumer market. Barry Harvey offers another direction:
Stories that articulate an alternative identity do not stand alone, but are set within a set of social practices that place this identity beyond the reach of either the persecutor or the seducer. Baptism, table fellowship, disciplines of forgiveness and reconciliation, prayer and fasting, and habits of hospitality that nurture friendships with the poor and outcast enable the followers of Jesus to withstand the pressure of both overt persecution and the subtle seduction of the postmodern risk culture (the market).
Harvey’s vision is for the church to constitute an alternative “public,” or “the people of God.” The forces of the market will not so easily eclipse such a people, as they are empowered and able to stand in contrast to it. Harvey here seems to reflect a vision for the church not apparent in contemporary United Methodism or Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, it appears we are still attractional in our thinking.
One aspect of modern United Methodism is to consider the church in functional terms. More specifically, a church is successful when it effectively facilitates the spiritual growth of individuals. Such “success” is noticeable through membership, attendance in worship, small groups and service projects, as well as financial giving. Indications in Wesley that suggest his support for a functional view of the church can be found in contemporary ecclesiological reflection for United Methodists.
For example, George Hunter, a popular author and professor of evangelism suggests that Wesley’s approach to pursuing evangelism was
“…remarkably close to that of today’s Church Growth movement. For instance, [Wesley] was an unapologetic pragmatist in the choice and development of strategies, models, and methods. The supreme standard for evaluating any evangelism approach was its outcomes, that is, whether or not the approach helped to achieve the perennial apostolic objectives of discipling of people and the growth of the true Church." (To Spread the Power)
This comparison is significant, given that the Church Growth movement places great emphasis on numbers and the “homogeneous unit” principle. Both of these bear great similarities to the project of the modern market. In the modern market, one's success is determined by market share. In addition, the “homogeneous unit” principle sounds very much like forms of niche marketing, not to mention that such a principle could lead to supporting racial/ethnic and economic divisions in the society within the church.
My point is not to argue what Wesley did or did not say or do. Rather, I am suggesting that United Methodists, in evaluating Wesleyan thought for the contemporary church, cannot help but be distorted in these efforts when their goal is to secure the legitimacy and the relevance of the church.
A few years ago, I became interested in the Emergent Church movement, which represents (among other things) an ongoing experiment with cross-traditional liturgical and formative Christian practices. The United Methodist Church has also shown interest in this young movement, since it may be instructive for their own efforts to reach out to these missing generations. In other words we United Methodists believe that if it works for the Emergent Church, we should try it too.
There is an ongoing conversation between the UMC and the Emergent Church movement. However, are these conversations subject to distortion by the influence of the consumer market? Read how one leader describes his emergent community: “Individually, each [member] adopts what practices they [sic] want and asks for help. Some do the Book of Common Prayer, some the divine hours, and some the Eastern Orthodox prayer book” (Gibbs/Bolger p.230). Such practices are offered as new programs that will hopefully awaken interest and stimulate growth in a dormant church.
Could this be a subtle form of what Michael Budde describes as the “appropriation of religiosity?” By appropriation of religiosity, Budde means offering religious symbols and practices (extracted from their respective traditions) in order to attract new members (or consumers?). While the search for a greater catholicity in the life and practice of the United Methodist Church is good, United Methodism is by no means insulated from the drive of the market that seeks to appropriate these traditions in the interest of seeing its churches be more successful, relevant and popular.
In an address to the Council of Bishops in 2007, Council President, Bishop Janice Riggle Huie suggested, “United Methodists need to get past their perception of themselves as an institution and once again become a movement that responds nimbly to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.” This means, the Bishops hope, that there will be a “renewed desire for United Methodist churches to become more effective and fruitful” and that there will develop throughout all levels of the church “a unity in the Spirit that can help transform both the church and the world.”
Remembering Barry Harvey and Michael Budde, my interest here is not to interpret what the Bishops meant or did not mean. Nor do I propose that their vision for the United Methodist Church is not a desirable one. We should be aware how such conversations may be subject to distortion and limitations – either by the bishops themselves or by church leaders who follow their lead—as we continue unaware of our potential service of the contemporary market. Such distortion and limitation is possible at all levels of the church.
Giving weight to Budde’s warning about the market’s formation of our assumptions, is it possible that the move to becoming “nimble as a “movement” rather than an “institution," is a move we have borrowed from the story of the twentieth century North American corporation as United Methodists congregations are facing shrinking bottom lines and increasingly disinterested consumers? Is it possible that the bishops’ desire for a nimble movement reflects what Budde describes in post-Fordist consumer culture as the development of flexible production?
Usually it's the Left (religious and political) condemning advertising and consumerism. The Right, in response, tends to characterize these as the free market in action. Similarly, we hear the Left ranting about corporate control of the media. This video, however, comes from the Right (in the pro-gold standard and anti-Federal Reserve sense); but the message is anti-corporate advertising and anti-corporate media. Corporate advertising, with the government's participation, has made debt slaves of all of us.
Is this what Ron Paul would be like as a populist rather than a libertarian? Will we see more crossing of ideological lines if the economy continues to unravel?
