A number of orthodox Christian blogs, including this one, have explored the postmodern Church. We’ve mentioned names, techniques and genres of ‘doing church’ but few have explored what exactly is happening and how it happens.
In short, all these movements — e.g. church growth, emergent — have their roots in a combination of dialectic and praxis, which one Christian, Dean Gotcher, combined as ‘diaprax’. Diaprax is common not only in the Church but in the world at large. Its goal is to set all of us on the road to constant compromise and continuous change. It is designed to promote unity from diversity and to get rid of tradition and ‘divisiveness’.
First, a review of dialectic in a Christian context. Do keep in mind that every step along the way is designed to inch the believer further away from the inerrancy of the Bible and his confessions of faith.
How diaprax works
Dr Robert Klenck, an orthopaedic surgeon in Los Angeles, contributes to Mr Gotcher’s Institution for Authority Research and, like him, has studied diaprax closely in relation to the trends we see in our churches today. In ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’, he explains (emphases mine throughout):
Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the CGM, this is a mixture of believers and unbelievers – thesis and antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/”teacher”/group leader), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, or compromise).
When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise. This [new synthesis] becomes the starting point [thesis] for the next meeting. The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God. The fear of man then overrides the fear of God.
This process is similar to workshops you might have participated in at work. The principles are identical. A facilitator leads the group. He has a set agenda, given to him by a manager (or a pastor, in the case of a church). However, he asks people what they hope to ‘get’ out of the session, although his questions will help engineer the desired agenda outcome. Then, as is true with workplace workshops, a number of discussions take place and, inevitably, conflict arises.
People stating their positions or beliefs on an issue is what is known as thesis. Conflict, roughly speaking, is antithesis (against the thesis, or belief). The facilitator brings about synthesis by getting everyone to arrive at a common position. It might not be 100% to everyone’s liking, but it is one that people will largely agree upon. It will also be one that is man-centred, because, as we shall see tomorrow and have seen in my Gramsci posts, nothing is more threatening to the Marxist than faith in God, Christianity and the traditional family under the authority of God and His Son. Gramsci believed that Christianity fostered the continuance of:
the Western values of individual liberty, private property, and the traditional family, and must be abolished in order for the new communist society to emerge.
Let us say (in an Anglican context) the issue debated is one of bringing a female curate (assistant priest) on board. The church wardens meet to discuss it. Among their number is a traditionalist. The vicar (pastor) introduces the topic then leaves it in the hands of the facilitator, perhaps an expert in conflict resolution paid for by the diocese. A day’s workshop can engineer consensus among the church wardens, as they move from the traditionalist’s thesis — especially that which is expressed in Jesus’s First Cause language, ‘It is written’ — through to conflict (antithesis) and concluding with a postmodern resolution (synthesis) on the part of the traditionalist.
Says the traditionalist at the end of the afternoon, ‘Gosh, I might have been a bit short-sighted on this issue. I’m sorry. Yes, if it’s the right woman, I’m sure I could be persuaded.’ Therefore, the door opens just that little bit. Our traditionalist has started to ‘change with the times’ and puts Scripture slightly off to the side. The group is happy. Perhaps they have a glass of sherry afterward. The traditionalist has gained acceptance — for now. He is happy to have bonded with his fellow church wardens on this thorny issue. In finding ‘common ground’, he has pleased man, but perhaps not God.
Yet, although the traditionalist doesn’t realise it, that is only the start. Dialectic and praxis require continual change in order to meet the times, which are ever-evolving. A few years down the road, he may be further persuaded — again through diaprax — that a new Sunday evening service be started, replacing the traditional Evensong. The new service would be of an emergent style, to draw in the younger members of the ‘community’, i.e. neighbourhood. ‘Well, it’s not a big issue, is it? I understand the youth ministry leader is a very dynamic individual. We can increase the membership of our church and be seen as a vibrant congregation. It’s all to the good.’ And so, he takes another noticeable step away from orthodoxy and an initial giant step away from traditional liturgy.
Dr Klenck observes that the same method — diaprax — has been used with regard to abortion:
… first, the fact (“what is”) was questioned – what is life?, and does it really begin at conception? It was decided that as long as the child was not aware of pain, that it was not viable, or really alive. Now, through incremental change, our society has gotten to the point of tolerating “partial-birth” infanticide. This would have been unconscionable in the days that Roe v. Wade was decided.
Church buildings and Emergents — for a New Age
And things are always changing. Think of how church buildings are changing. Some, like the Crystal Cathedral, are generally recognisable as churches. Yet others look like big, prefab boxes. They have no crosses, inside or out. This is in order that the ‘seeker’ isn’t put off by what he sees. Many newer churches don’t want people to start thinking about Jesus’ painful death, blood or similar things. The seeker might then walk away, feeling unsettled.
Dr Gregory Jackson, author of Ichabod, posted on this topic recently. In ‘Leading Lutheran Moms Astray at The CORE’, he reprinted dialogue among a few women on Facebook who discussed whether they should attend the CORE in Appleton, Wisconsin. The CORE is an emergent church affiliated with WELS. Here is a brief excerpt — certainly worth a read in full:
Imah: We missed our regular church service this morning … I decided we’d try the Core in Appleton. It’s an outreach congregation and really cool. The music is very contemporary– in fact, all songs were songs I hear on 91.9 or the Q, 90.1. The boys age 9 and 5 were happy to eat popcorn and drink water while listening to the service. The place was comfortably full and everyone was smiling!! I highly recommend going to a service. It was fun!!
Coley22: Personally, I prefer a traditional service and I’ve also heard that The Core isn’t really teaching God’s Word so much. I think it’s a step backwards for the WELS. If a church wants to do something more contemporary, that’s fine, but what good is it if you’re not even teaching God’s Word?
…
JulieMomof5: Coley22, I hope you actually visit the CORE instead of just listening to rumors…
Just because the CORE focuses on theme-based sermons instead of on the lectionary doesn’t mean it’s not true to Scripture … The truths of God’s Word are emphasized, in terms that unchurched people can more easily understand (I like that Pastor Ski explains church terms when he uses them!). The fill-in-the-blank folder makes it easier to remember what was said. The visuals are used to reinforce the message. Remember, the CORE’s focus is REACHING OUT to the unchurched. Pastor Ski likes to remind us not to cause unnecessary offense to others before introducing them to Jesus! Too often, our “traditional” services risk doing just that.
Popcorn, pop music and avoiding ‘unnecessary offence’ — oh, my. It was a bit too much to take in. I had to have a cup of tea and a sit-down after reading that.
Caution — discernment required!
Some of you have been spared attending one of these services. Dr Klenck describes them:
The presentation is informal … There are distractions, such as numerous video screens, and the pastor often paces back and forth across the stage, which makes the “real” message that is being taught difficult to discern…
The message is ambiguous, sounding reasonable to people who think traditionally, are in transition, or have been trained to think transformationally. Often, half-truths are used (i.e. Christ’s preeminence as a religious leader, but omitting His deity), or “subliminal” messages utilized. We heard a tape of one pastor who was teaching against Mormonism, and he was stating how they latch on to a verse in the KJV that is an unfortunate translation. He then stated how “I can show you numerous errors in the King James.” The message was against Mormonism, but the subliminal message that people took home with them was that the KJV Bible version is unreliable. We have very little training in listening to what is not being said, and in the atmosphere of distraction described here, this type of discernment is very difficult, and must be pursued vigorously. Peter Drucker, who plays a large role in this movement is aware of this fact:
“The most important thing is communication is to hear what isn’t being said.” Peter Drucker
“The pulpit is the ultimate tool for church growth.” Rick Warren [7]
A tool is used to manipulate objects. In the same article, Pastor Warren declares that he first considers the needs, hurts, and interests, and then he goes to the Bible to see what it says about their needs. Once he examines what the Bible says about the subject, he asks himself: “What is the most practical way to say this? What is the most positive way to say this? What is the most encouraging way to say this? What is the simplest way to say this? What is the most personal way to say this? What is the most interesting way to say this?” In other words, he puts his “spin” on the Blessed Word of God in order to tickle the itching ears of his audience.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3 (KJV)
If Rick Warren’s technique sounds familiar, it’s what his mentor Robert Schuller used over 40 years ago in California.
Tomorrow: Diaprax, small groups and more
Churchmouse Campanologist 
4 comments
November 1, 2010 at 10:25 pm
lleweton
Perhaps it’s the instinctive rebel in me but I have in the past disconcerted a flipchart operative at a ‘brainstorm’ by asking at the start: ‘Is the idea of this meeting to get us to agree to — whatever?’ I have always thought the process of this kind of meeting to be patronising and manipulative.
As far as the Church of England is concerned I have noted over, probably 50 years, that whatever trend is the flavour of decade some clergy (not all) feel obliged to follow it. Loyal (or unthinking) churchwardens support the vicar. The PCC, many of whom are holy, but ‘politically’ unaware, support the churchwardens. Those who have doubts keep quiet, out of modesty or actual fear of offending. And anyone who speaks out against whatever is proposed is somehow isolated and regarded at best as eccentric or at worst a troublemaker – and someone to be avoided by the inner circle. Meanwhile, after the meeting, whatever meeting it was, many who had doubts come up to the troublemaker and tell him/her (too late) how much they agreed with what he said.
IN the 1960s I caused shock, dismay and embarrassment to a Deanery Synod (I was young then) when I suggested that individual members of all the parishes be offered a referendum on whether they wanted the liturgical changes of the day.
Beware, also, apparently accidental neglect. Many years ago, having moved to a new area, I noticed that our church clock kept stopping. It chimed every quarter of an hour. I sensed that it might not be popular with the then incumbent. I was told no-one would wind it. I offered to do so and did so for 13 years. It is still going as far as I know.
On another occasion an altar frontal was replaced with a rather dowdy cloth. The frontal, it seemed, needed repair or cleaning. I’ve forgotten.
On other occasions the sanctuary lamp kept going out.
Also I noticed – this trend may have faded – a tendency to change names by adding ‘if you like’ after referring to something. That may have applied to references altar frontal but my memory is dim.
Another development was that choir members suddenly became incapable of singing after the age of 70.
However, I stress that, looking back, I was probably unkind and unChristian in my attitude to that incumbent. I pray for him sometimes now and I think that he may probably have been part of the spirit of the age. My instinctive rebelliousness makes may be equally involuntary.
LikeLike
November 1, 2010 at 10:47 pm
churchmouse
Well, I’m with you, Llew. Yes, you might have been instinctively ‘rebellious’, but a lukewarm church — of which ‘accidental neglect’ can be a visible sign — is an offence against Christ, so it seems that by faithfully winding the clock, you did your bit for the Church — yours individually but also, in a sense, for the greater Church.
It doesn’t seem that many Anglican clergy have cared for quite a while. So, if you picked up on these things, you might have been correct. ‘One instinctively knows …’ 😉
Am happy to read that you spoke up to the Deanery and asked if the congregations wanted liturgical changes to proceed. That sort of activism is great, because it shows a) that you cared enough about the liturgy to speak up and b) you had the bottle to speak for many others who would not have had a voice otherwise. What happened in that situation?? Would love to have been a fly on the wall (or a mouse in the hole!).
Re choirs and organists — generally, from what I have seen, unless they’re exceptional, they’re pretty much politely asked to stand down. The vicar may even quietly drop a few hints. Yes, it’s a shame. Sadly, it’s all too common.
There’s a lot going on in our beautiful C of E which seems to have started many decades ago. I appreciate your sharing your own experiences. Many of us forget that our church’s breakdown has a long history.
LikeLike
November 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm
lleweton
Sorry to take so long to reply to your query about the Deanery Synod. As I recall, the only place on the agenda where my idea could be raised was in Any Other Business.
I have noticed, by the way, that it is a characteristic of many kinds of committee, that ‘tricky’ subjects are squeezed out of the main agenda.
By the time I was able to raise the question of liturgical changes the witching hour of 10pm had been reached. Not only, like a man in a Bateman cartoon, had I been guilty of a solecism – of mentioning something it was uncomfortable to think about – but of potentially delaying the end of the meeting.
And I was the new boy on the scene. What happened? Not much. As I recall, my request met no response and there was a general atmosphere of embarrassment. Not long after we moved to a new area, though that, I stress, was for completely different reasons.
LikeLike
November 4, 2010 at 4:13 pm
churchmouse
Yes, the (in)famous ‘AOB’. Reminds me of meetings I used to have at work. All the sensitive topics were treated in the same manner.
And there’s always the witching hour. ‘Anything else?’ ‘Yes, I have something I’d like to raise …’ People start looking at their watches. They shift in their seats. A sporadic clearing of throats and closing of notebooks begins. Someone mutters, ‘I really must go. My dear lady wife has been cooped up with the children all day long.’
Still, at least you tried, which is infinitely better than saying nothing at all.
LikeLike