Wrestling On The Crossroad October 2020 by Institute of Lutheran Theology

WRESTLING

ON THE CROSSROAD Edited by Jonathan Sorum

October 2020

www.ilt.edu 1

Wrestling on the Crossroad is the academic journal for ILTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Doctor of Ministry program. This publication features D.Min. student research papers specifically selected for this journal. Copyright ÂŠ 2020 All rights reserved. Published in the United States by Institute of Lutheran Theology, Brookings, SD

Contents Diagnosing Apatheism: The Missiological Challenge of our Timeâ&#x20AC;? RolandWeisbrot....................................................................................4

“DIAGNOSING APATHEISM: THE MISSIOLOGICAL CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME” By Roland Weisbrot

Picture this: there you are, teaching the Catechism to a group of teenagers. You have spent hours preparing a lesson plan that you thought would be both interesting and informative, but for the most part the pupils are disinterested and disengaged. Most of them have that glazed look which tells you they have checked-out mentally quite some time ago. This look is not unique to the teenage age-bracket, however, as you have seen the same look on their parents’ faces during Sunday service – when they decide to come, that is. You desperately try to engage the students by asking prompting questions and encouraging them to share their own thoughts, but they do not take the bait. Aside from the occasional one-word answer and the student that thinks he or she is funny when they answer with a joke, there is silence. Inside your mind you want to shake the students as if to wake them up and yell at them about how important what they are learning is, but you know that will not help anything. The fact of the matter is these students will probably never be interested, at least in any intentional way, and as soon as Confirmation is over, you will likely never see them again. In the silence and the hours of reflection after the lesson, you are plagued with the question of why the students are so possessed by apathy. This leads you to wonder if the problem is with you, if the problem is with them, or if the problem is what you are teaching: Am I not engaging enough? Is there something wrong with this generation? Has the Gospel lost its efficaciousness in our time? You know these are dangerous questions, questions you may not even truly want the answers to because the ramifications are too great. If the problem lies with you, it is up to you to either invent new ways of doing things or find another career. If the problem lies with this particular generation, then there is nothing that you, an individual, can do to solve an issue of this size. And, perhaps most disturbingly, if you decide the problem lies with the Gospel then what is the point of proclaiming anymore? It would be better for you to stop wasting your time and energy and just let Christianity die; for if the Gospel is no longer efficacious, then we are a religion without a meaningful sacred text, a community without a narrative, a people without its center. In other words, we are a movement consigned to death and the dustbin of history. When it comes to these big questions (Am I not engaging enough? Is there something wrong with this generation? Has the Gospel lost its efficaciousness in our time?), questions born out of ministry that many pastors today face, I argue we must respond by saying both yes and no to each of them. Therefore, this paper will use the concept of apatheism, proposed by theologian Kyle Beshears, as a matrix in which to answer these questions, to the ultimate end of clarifying the role of theology in post-modernity and its application to ministry. Before we begin our inquiry however, it is essential to define three key terms which will dominate our discussion: apatheism, secularization, and post-modernity. “Apatheism,” as defined by Beshears, “is indifference and apathy toward the existence of God. In our secular age, a person adopts apatheism when they feel a sense of existential security absent God, effectively

dissolving their reason, motivation, and will to care about questions related to his existence.”¹ This is not to be confused with atheism, which is the belief that there is no god or gods, or agnosticism, the belief espoused by those who think there may be a god or gods, but they do not know enough (or are not confident enough in what they do know) about the subject to conclusively profess either atheism or theism/deism/pantheism, etc. According to sociologist and missiologist Stefan Paas, there are “at least five definitions of ‘secularization’ [which] are in currency”, they are: differentiation, rationalization, privatization, pluralization, and individual loss of faith.² As Paas notes: when using the word ‘secularization,’ it is important to know which definition we imply. The term is particularly complicated in such a phrase as ‘the secularization of the church’. This could mean that a religious organization has become a secular one, i.e. that it has separated itself completely from religious legitimation (definition 1 above [differentiation]). It could mean that this church has adopted rational procedures, organizational forms and strategies from other, non-religious organizations, while maintaining its self-definition of a church (definition 2 [rationalization]). It could also mean that this church has transformed its message in such a way that it has lost its ‘prophetic,’ public appeal, by completely focusing on ‘inner,’ subjective and private emotions and beliefs (definition 3 [privatization]). It may mean that this church has turned ‘liberal’ by emphasizing that Christianity is just an option among many, and that it is perfectly fine to assume another life-view if that makes one happier. Or, on the contrary, it could imply that this church has turned ‘fundamentalist’ by shutting out the world with all its options, and underlining very rigid ideas and practices to which Christians have to conform (definition 4 [pluralization]). And finally, it could mean that the members of the church are staying away from meetings and are losing their faith (definition 5 [individual loss of faith]). ³ Secularization, as Paas has shown, is an extremely complex phenomenon with many causes and effects. Consequently, the term secularization cannot be thrown about, as it so often has been, but used only with proper delineation between its various meanings. Therefore, throughout this paper, I will strive to be as precise as possible about what I mean when I use this term. Post-modernity is a bit of trickier term to define; however, I believe religious and philosophical scholar Guy Ménard is correct when he describes it as “a significant breaking away from modernity.”⁴ Effectively, post-modernity is an intentional rejection of the metaphysical underpinnings of modernity resulting from deep disillusionment in their ability to provide or make manifest what they promise: a society built on individualism and the supremacy of Reason, propped up by unprecedented wealth and technological innovation to both entertain and alleviate suffering, and the fostering of the necessary conditions in which people would experience further “progression” unto the end of history. Put simply, post-modernity rejects the

¹ Kyle Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” Themelios: An International Journal for Students of Theological and Religious Studies 44, no. 3 (2019): 517. ² Stefan Paas, “Post-Christian, Post-Christendom, and Post-Modern Europe: Towards the Interaction of Missiology and the Social Sciences,” Mission Studies 28, no. 1 (2011): 7–9. ³ Paas, 9–10. ⁴ Guy Ménard, “Religion, Implicit or Post-Modern?,” Implicit Religion 4, no. 2 (2001): 89. Italics his.

rationalist metanarratives of modernity resulting in “the post-modern condition[, which] ‘pertains to one’s awareness of the deconstructibility of all systems of meaning and truth.’”⁵ Now that we have clarified our terms, I will examine each big question through the matrix of apatheism. Am I not engaging enough? We begin by answering this question with a resounding yes: yes, you are not engaging enough. But this is not entirely your fault; consider all the things that have changed over the past two decades: the dawn of personal computers, the internet, social media, and cellphones, not to mention socio-legal changes and brick-and-mortar businesses moving online. Top this all off with rising levels of secularization – in this case, the reduction in church attendance and adherence to faith – where surveys among Protestant Millennials have “revealed [that] 59% to 70% have stopped attending church in the United States,” and you truly have a brave new world!⁶ However, amidst all this change, many pastors and congregations are unfortunately still trying to use materials and methodologies written and formulated by people who reminisce over watching the Moon landing live: people who grew up in an almost entirely different society which resulted in vastly different outlooks on life (read modern) that struggle to effectively communicate with those shaped by the Digital Age (read post-modern). The simple fact is that society and culture have changed—drastically. As a result, the questions and interests of this new generation are not what they were ten years ago, let alone longer. Moreover, because many pastors and congregations continue to cling to a modernist understanding and expression of their faith, they tend to respond to the inquiries of post-modernity negatively. As Christian psychologist Keith Puffer notes, according to surveyed Protestant Millennials, “the freedom to voice questions about the Christian faith was limited in their local churches. Disclosures of doubts were met with trite responses by older Christians (e.g., Baby Boomers) who also seemed doubtless and judgmental.”⁷ Beyond this, Puffer observes that in congregations “religious doubt remains an uncomfortable phenomenon, often misunderstood. When religious people disclosed views on doubt, they described it as: traumatic, shameful, unsafe, scary, sinful, and the opposite of faith.”⁸ This effectively undermines opportunities for conversation among those who still express any interest whatsoever in God, the questions surrounding His existence, and what it means for their lives.⁹ So, the problem of engagement is two-fold: pastors and congregations either do not know how to engage, or they purposefully choose not to – both to the detriment of the faith. Now, however, we must answer this question with a no: no, your ability to engage – or lack thereof – is not entirely the issue. Here we must consider deeply the implications of the apatheism thesis. For most people, particularly those that find themselves in the middle-class or higher echelons of Western society, life is good. There is an abundance of material possessions, good jobs and career aspects, money to burn, experiences to be had, and the time to pursue causes, interests, and hobbies that bring both purpose and meaning to their lives. What need then is there for God? Such people have everything they need and want, and they buy the promise that

5 Paas, “Post-Christian, Post-Christendom, and Post-Modern Europe,” 15. 6 Keith A. Puffer, “Protestant Millennials, Religious Doubt, & the Local Church,” Religions 9, no. 1 (December 29, 2017): 1. 7 Puffer, 1. 8 Puffer, 2. 9 Puffer, 2–4. Here Puffer highlights the usefulness of doubt in Christian formation and how it is not being properly engaged and utilized.

these times of great prosperity and privilege will never end; after all, many of their parents expressed no interest or need for God, and they lived and continue to live happy and fulfilling lives, so why should younger generations concern themselves with something as abstract as God? Who cares! Beyond this, as Beshears candidly points out about this post-modern, Digital Age generation: “one moment they are contemplating life’s biggest questions. The next moment they are streaming funny cat videos and reading about the top ten fabric softeners ranked according to Star Wars fans. How can they care about God if they are distracted and demotivated continuously?”10 This brings us to our next big question. Is there something wrong with this generation? We begin again by answering this question with a firm yes: yes there is something “wrong” with this generation (generation meaning millennials and younger). Since post-modernism is largely defined by its rejection of modernist rationalist metanarratives, it should not come as a shock that one of the numerous effects of it and the accompanying secularism has been that Christianity is now seen as just one of many options.11 As one scholar describes it: “Our culture… has turned into a huge supermarket of worldviews in which contemporary consumers are less and less looking for THE truth, unique and exclusive, and much more for one or several ways to express the meaning of their lives: ways among others, often seen as compatible with yet others, and which can also be combined with others.”12 The effect of this is explained well by Beshears’ apatheism thesis: “If religious belief is merely one option among many alternatives, then it is reasonable to imagine that some of us dismiss [God questions] as irrelevant because we are overwhelmed by our options or we find some of the options too difficult to embrace, especially Christianity.” 13 In other words, for this generation, it is far easier to choose an alternative view to Christianity or just not ask the big questions at all – the existential security is there by default, why risk losing it? By and large, this generation simply is not willing to give up what they can get now for “the promise of any supernatural paradise or glorified future,” hence the popular life-motto “you only live once – YOLO.”14 This is what is “wrong” with this generation. It is at this point, however, that we must now answer the above question by saying no: no there is not a problem with this generation – it is just different as every generation is. Here I diverge slightly from Beshears’ thesis and argue that in addition to the potent effect of apatheism, many constituents of this generation abandon the church precisely because their questions are not answered or because they are repulsed by what they view to be hypocritical or intolerant beliefs and practices. Because I discussed at length the problem of questions not being answered earlier, I will not revisit it here. Regarding the second concern, that of hypocrisy and intolerance, we cannot be too quick to chalk it up to post-modern relativism since there are some very legitimate critiques that can be made. Every Christian can likely think of examples of hypocrisy or intolerance in the church, and such behaviours understandably leave a sour taste in

10 Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” 523. 11 Paas, “Post-Christian, Post-Christendom, and Post-Modern Europe,” 9–10, 15 12 Ménard, “Religion, Implicit or Post-Modern?,” 92. CAPITALS his. 13 Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” 522 14 Ménard, “Religion, Implicit or Post-Modern?,” 94. The life-motto “YOLO” features prominently in popular culture as evidenced by the rapper Drake’s hit song, “The Motto”, and in parody such as found in The Lonely Island’s – a comedic trio – song “YOLO”

the mouth of those who observe them. 15 Consequently, scholars Katherine Moody and Randall Reed note that “both unchurched and dechurched millennials charge that churches are judgmental, hypocritical, and homophobic; shallow, consumerist, and individualistic; exclusivist and intolerant; and both separated from culture and science and too invested in politics.”16 In sum, this generation complains that the church does not really look like the church, and in many instances, they would be quite right in their conclusion. Additionally, since we cannot conclude that those who leave the church in this generation do so because of apatheism only, we should also not assume that they instantaneously become apatheistic upon their exit from organized religion. As psychologist and theologian Jaco Hamman observes, many young adults who leave the church “continue to seek spiritual experiences elsewhere.”17 Interestingly enough, “the spiritually sterile culture of modernity has sent religious seekers to non-western sources of wisdom,” hence the discernable rise in adherence to various forms of Buddhism, the popularity of spiritually-charged yoga, and the diversely personalized field of New Age religion. 18 Thus, post-modern religion is well defined by Ross Thompson as “shallow but tolerant and universal. It has sought to let our experience be just what it is, not tracing anything to deeper causes and underlying realities, but savouring jouissance in the sheer inexplicable variety of appearances.”19 In short, do not sweat the big stuff, just enjoy yourself. In this respect, we can see apatheism at work.

15 Katharine Sarah Moody and Randall W. Reed, “Emerging Christianity and Religious Identity,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 56, no. 1 (2017): 35. As Moody and Reed note, particularly of those in the socalled “Emerging Church”, people who feel disenfranchised but are not yet ready to give up Christianity entirely, “millennials might feel a particularly strong affinity for Emerging Christian stories of disillusionment, disaffiliation, deconstruction, and deconversion. Bielo turns to Barbour’s Versions of Deconversion to underscore how Emerging Church deconversion should be understood as an ‘intensification’ of religious identity based on an intellectual and moral critique of an existing religious faith, driven by the ‘struggle to become more than a superficial Christian.’ [Emerging Church movement] stories of deconversion are not about conversion away from Christianity. Instead, they are about disillusionment with certain ways of being Christian. Deconversion does not always entail the rejection of specific denominational identities or congregational affiliations, since many people are rooted in both Emerging and mainline or progressive Christianities. But key values structuring a deconstruction or intensification of Christian identity were either lacking in existing religious environments and found instead within Emerging Church discourse, or located in both and mutually affirmed, thus reinforcing each other.” 16 Moody and Reed, 35. 17 Jaco Hamman, “The Millennial Generation and the Church: Doing It Differently,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 25, no. 3 (2015): 163. 18 Ménard, “Religion, Implicit or Post-Modern?,” 92–93; Ted Peters, “Post-Modern Religion,” Currents in Theology and Mission 10, no. 5 (1983): 265. Ménard makes an interesting observation regarding this phenomenon: “Many of the authors who have tried to develop the post-modern hypothesis into a real tool of analysis have also underlined the importance of its eclectic dimension, as if our contemporaries clearly wanted to choose their own beliefs and values rather than to have these beliefs and values imposed on them by dogmatic and authoritarian institutions, while also being able to pick and choose what they see fit among existing systems of beliefs and values, leaving out what does not. This, again, can be seen as a paroxystic result of a major impact of consumeristic modernity on Western conscience. And the fact is that a lot of new mythical crystallizations (this would also apply to rituals) present themselves as more or less elaborate syncretist collages, borrowing elements from all sorts of sources, including traditional myths, but without bothering much with their internal coherence, if one may say so. In other words, it is as if these elements were freed from the dogmatic institutions to which they originally belonged, which can less and less control them and prevent them from entering into all sorts of new and often stunning combinations.” Italics his 19 Ross Thompson, “Scientific and Religious Understanding: Towards a Post-Modern Spirituality,” The Way 32, no. 4 (1992): 263.

Such religiosity cannot be born out of apatheism but a brand-new set of questions and answers, a shift which was predicted by late nineteenth and early twentieth-century sociologists Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch. 20 What this means is that in many cases, post-modernity and secularity have not displaced religion but have redefined it. Thus, as philosopher Harry Hunt concludes about post-modern mystical expressions of religion: the this-worldly mysticisms are centered on a capacity for numinous experience understood as ‘immanent.’ Its ‘transcendent’ expression is not to be found only or even principally in a higher or supra-sensible realm but in the contradictory multiplicities of everyday ‘becoming’—the ‘thousand and one things’ which form the outward emanations and fullest possible expression of a felt source or origin.21 What this means in practice is that the post-modern generation claim the mystical experiences of religion without being confined to a particular expression of them, least of all Christianity (or monotheism more generally) with all of its rules, complicated theology, and messy history. In other words, all the benefits with no membership in a community that limits your self-expression or tries to change your identity necessary. In conclusion, there is nothing “wrong” with this generation per se; it is just operating under different presuppositions and definitions born out of post-modernity, so we as pastors and church bodies need to find new ways to engage them. Has the Gospel lost its efficaciousness in our time? Turning to our last and most scandalous question, we begin by answering yes: yes, the Gospel has lost its efficaciousness in our time – at least to some degree. Consider the following: (i) if indeed the Word, written and proclaimed, is efficacious in and of itself, and (ii) if indeed “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17 ESV), and (iii) if indeed the Word “will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” as the LORD says in Isaiah 55:11 (NIV), and (iv) if indeed God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4 NIV), then why are so many people “unable to receive and have faith”? 22 This rhetoric and the phenomenon it seeks to capture should come as no surprise to anyone, as it is observable that certain cultures and sub-cultures over various time periods can be more or less interested in the Gospel message

20 Harry Hunt, “Implications and Consequences of Post-Modern Philosophy for Contemporary Perspectives on Transpersonal and Spiritual Experience: I. The Later Foucault and Pierre Hadot on a Post-Socratic This-Worldly Mysticism,” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 32, no. 1 (2013): 9. “Both Weber (1922/1963) and his associate Ernst Troeltsch (1931/1992) can he seen as anticipating for the later 20th century an inner- or this-worldly mystical direction of spiritual renewal among the educated middle classes, one more than borne out by the psychedelic and New Age mystical movements of the 1960s, as the predominant response to a contemporary secularization, disenchantment, and loss of Judeo-Christian religious belief. It follows from Weber and Troeltsch that any genuine re-newal, apart from the reactive fundamentalisms of more traditional groups, would need to he mystical, in order to compensate for the exhaustion of an earlier and predominant prophetical-ethical religious tradition, Meanwhile, the form of such a re-newal would need to he predominantly ‘this-worldly’ to be consistent with and appeal to our historically unprecedented materialism and individualism—itself for Weber the secularized embodiment of the this-worldly Christian values of ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’” 21 Harry Hunt, “Implications and Consequences of Post-Modern Philosophy for Contemporary Transpersonal Studies: II. Georges Bataille’s Post-Nietzschean Secular Mysticism, Phenomenology of Ecstatic States, and Original Transpersonal Sociology,” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 32, no. 2 (2013): 80– 81. 22 Myron Bradley Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context, 1st ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 88.

depending on a long list of circumstances; after all, even in Jesus’ day the Gospel was almost always first received by the marginalized and opposed by those in power. Jesus Himself attests to this fact in Matthew 21:31b-32. Since much of our culture, particularly that of younger generations, is steeped in apatheism and leaving the church in droves, it can be easy to claim that the Gospel has become less efficacious in our time. 23 As Beshears explains, “apatheism manifests itself in theapathy, for if a person does not believe [God questions] are important (apatheism), then it naturally follows that they will express apathy toward God (theapathy).”24 It is important to clarify that when I say the Gospel has become less efficacious, I am not arguing that it in and of itself has in any way diminished, an argument I will expand on later; rather, I am arguing that if this generation does not have “ears to hear” the proclamation and “eyes to see” the Scriptures because of their apatheistic indifference, the Gospel necessarily becomes functionally less efficacious because it is not being engaged with, intentionally or otherwise. Theologian Mark Seifrid captures this sentiment well because he recognizes that the questions and frames of reference have shifted in post-modernity. 25 It is not necessarily that all people think there is no objective Truth (though this is certainly an issue for some); they just do not care enough to find out what it is, because they do not believe it to have significant bearing on their lives, and so they settle with whatever they have formulated for themselves – something which is almost always a product of the culture they find themselves in. So yes, in this sense, the Gospel has lost its efficaciousness in our time. On the flipside however, we must also answer this question with a firm no: no, the Gospel has not lost its efficaciousness in our time. The idea that the Gospel worked for two millennia before faltering and becoming inefficacious in this generation is absurd; after all, ‘“the word of the Lord endures forever’” (1 Pet. 1:25a NIV). If the Gospel was efficacious enough to save you and me, people dead in their sin, then truly it can save anyone – even now. As noted earlier, God declares that His Word “will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11 NIV). Make no mistake, the Word is still powerful, and exceedingly so. The problem of its efficacy lies not with it, but with a culture consumed by apatheism: a point which brings us to the question of the role of theology in post-modernity. The Role of Theology in Post-Modernity From our exploration of these big questions, it is clear that the church needs new models of engagement. It requires approaches that factor in apatheism, finding new and innovative ways of delivering “the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jd. 1:3b NIV). In doing so, it is crucial to recognize that the message of the Gospel (cf. Jn. 3:16) never changes, but the medium does. For example, we no longer evangelize as the Apostles did by going from town to town and asking to stay in someone’s home while we preach each day in the local synagogue until our message is either accepted or rejected. Our forebears in the faith have changed the approach many times to suit the circumstances they find themselves in, and now it is our turn to do the same – semper reformanda! We must “interpret the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3 NIV, cf. Luke 12:56) so that we may reach the lost effectively and, like the Apostle Paul,

23 Puffer, “Protestant Millennials, Religious Doubt, & the Local Church,” 1. 24 Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” 519. 25 Mark A. Seifrid, “Beyond Law and Gospel? Reflections on Speaking the Word in a (Post)Modern World,” Concordia Journal 43, no. 1 (2017): 30.

“become all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some” through the proclamation of the Word (1 Cor. 9:22b NIV). To guide us, we ask the same question the theologian Kyle Beshears did: “What if we are living in an Athens without a statue to the unknown god.”26 Since we have already deduced that we are, what does this mean for theology? Fortunately, theology is well-suited to the challenges we face today. As one scholar puts it: Christian theology, as built on the teachings of Jesus, holds together in tension a strand that pays attention to the individual – the one that can synchronize with post-modernism – and one that emphasizes communal responsibility – the one that may be at variance with. It is not an ‘either/or’ but rather a ‘both/and’. It is this tension between these two legitimate understandings of life that provide theology with a relevance that post-modernism has not been able to replace.27 What this means is that theology is uniquely positioned to flourish amid tension, showing, as it always has, another way of doing things. Christian theology has always held tensions such as those between individualism and communalism, allowing Christians throughout the ages to affirm the concerns of two seemingly irreconcilably opposed parties while letting neither “win” and instead seeking resolution in a deeper unity – that of Christ (Gal. 3:28). This will be extremely helpful in engaging an apatheistic generation, because although they do not care for questions of God, there are many things they do care about, and deeply. By showing that theology can give them the language and frame of reference necessary to address the concerns they care about, it may open the doors for conversation about God. Interestingly, the theologian who might be most useful in our current context is none other than Martin Luther, as theologian Kathryn Kleinhans makes a compelling argument for this fact based on Luther’s straddling of pre-modernity and modernity.28 The parallels highlighted by Kleinhans are revealing; since Luther argued against the scholastics about what was essential to humanity (namely, that humans had no positive capacities but were entirely sinful and helpless before a holy and righteous God) many of his critiques can be refitted for use against the dominant rationalist ideologies of late-modernity, and can therefore converse with the thought of post-modernity.29 Put simply, Luther wants to take God out of the abstract and place Him into

26 Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” 526. 27 John Holder, “The Role of Theology in a Post-Modern World,” The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 37, no. 1 (2011): 80. On page 87, Holder says the following: “Theology approaches the present condition of the world while paying attention to the human element. It is this context that theology’s effort to hold the positives and the negatives of humanity in tension becomes relevant. The consciousness of the tension prevents us from taking our feet off the ground and closing our eyes to reality, as it never allows us to abandon hope; hope built on the conviction that what is today, as bad as it seems, need not be the same tomorrow.” 28 Kathryn A Kleinhans, “Why Now? The Relevance of Luther in a Post-Modern Age,” Currents in Theology and Mission 24, no. 6 (1997): 488–89. “It is my contention that Luther is, in fact, a uniquely significant resource for postmodern theology. In theology and method, Luther stands critically over against the mindset both of the middle ages which preceded him and of modernity which followed. This critical stance, premodern in its chronology yet antimodern in its outlook, suggests that Luther’s thought may well be more compatible with our postmodern context than with the intervening centuries.” 29 Kleinhans, 491–92. “For Luther, however, unlike the scholastics, the most essential characteristics of the human subject do not lie in any positive capacities whatsoever. Luther identifies the human subject not in terms of its ability and/or willingness to cooperate with God’s grace but in terms of its sinful rebellion against God, in terms of its bound will. For Luther, the strength of the subject is specifically the strength of its sin! Luther understands sin

lived experience as was ultimately expressed in the Incarnation of Christ. 30 In doing this, Luther does not propose an irrational faith; he simply recognizes the danger unregenerate reason can wreak on Christian theology and praxis, as was evidenced by the excesses of scholasticism in his time. Luther understood that an improper understanding of reason could attempt to usurp God, which is a quasi-prophetic claim as that is arguably what happened during and after the Enlightenment.31 The importance of these concepts and corresponding approaches for the theological tasks of today cannot be overstated. This is because “theology is founded on the historical act of revelation, manifestation or – as the Biblical passage that St John uses puts it – on the act of the exegesis of God Himself,” and so humanity “knows God only to the degree and in the manner that God reveals Himself.” 32 As has been established, post-modernists are not interested in rationalistic abstractions; fortunately, the God of Christianity, the God highlighted by Luther’s theology, is no abstraction but a real God who is incarnate. He is a God who lives, feels, speaks, and suffers – as real as real can be – and it is this God with which today’s generation must be taught to engage. Applications for Ministry Considering everything that has been surveyed thus far, I will now argue that there are three main takeaways for application to ministry, all of which address apatheism but in very different ways. The first takeaway borrows from Beshears own conclusion: “If apatheism is a result of existential security absent God, then it ought to be demonstrated to the apatheist that such security is illusory. There is no existential security absent the faith, hope, and love of the gospel—the ‘creative presence’ of the Creator’s love.”33 According to Beshears, doubt is our friend when it comes to getting people out of their apatheistic slumber. If we can find ways to undermine the sense of existential security which gives birth to apatheism, then we can open the doors to questions about life, meaning, purpose, and ultimately, God. This, however, cannot come about by approaching people and simply laying out rationalist arguments. After all, interest precedes engagement, which is why Beshears concludes that “objective thinking alone is powerless against apathy.”34 Rather, doubt needs to be at work long before any argumentation is made, and such doubt can only come after a loss of existential security, either from external forces or from a person’s own reflections. This is why apatheistic people suddenly find interest in questions about God after experiencing something that shatters their illusion of security, such as a near-death experience, the loss of a loved one, or living through a traumatic event. There is a certain danger in this approach that must be noted: since doubt often leads to despair and despair.

primarily not in terms of acts which individuals do or fail to do but in terms of the orientation of the person coram Deo; the sinner’s identity is defined by rebellion against God and the idolatrous worship of self. The sinner is homo incurvatus se, a person turned in on self.” 30 Kleinhans, 494. 31 Kleinhans, 494–95. “Luther condemns unregenerate reason not because it thinks incorrectly about God but because its totalizing disposition leads it to usurp God’s place. Sin distorts human reason not only by blocking its ability to know God but even more so by perverting its orientation so that it sees itself, rather than God, as central. The deadly critique which Luther directs at the sinful human subject is not a punishment for human ignorance but a judgment on human pride.” 32 Vassilis Adrahtas, “Theology as Dialectics and the Limits of Patristic Thought in the Post-Modern World: A Reading into St John of Damascus,” Phronema 18 (2003): 110. 33 Beshears, “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God,” 527. 34 Beshears, 528.

to reckless and dangerous behaviour towards self and others, we must be careful how we go about our task. If we are to undermine people’s existential security, then we must be ready to do the harder work of building it back up again through discipleship. After all, the old idiom rings true: it is far easier to tear down than to build up. The second takeaway is based on the principle of genuine Christian community building. Research has proven that millennials are deeply interested in being involved in so-called “intentional communities” which focus on “personal transformation, social transformation, purpose, creativity, and accountability.” 35 What this means is there is an opportunity to engage an otherwise apatheistic generation by building communities that meet their needs. This should be a natural impulse for Christians, as former missionary Hans Visser reflects: The believer participates in the life of Jesus. Our relationship to God is participation in the existence of Jesus, which is directed towards others. Faith is public in character. The church is only the church when it is there for others. The service of God takes place in the human sphere. The church’s shape and content must become totally worldly. No more of those metaphysical references to places where God cannot be found. The church participates in the marketplace of our social, cultural and economic lives. This is where the church pitches its tents; it enters by way of the networks that people build and maintain in order to survive. There the church fulfils its own role.36 In other words, the church must be incarnate in the world, and it must be visible as it goes about its mission. 37 An abstract church is about as much use as an abstract God to this generation, so we must strive to manifest our strong convictions in our actions. In such an approach lies the possibility for engaging people in new ways; by creating vibrant and healthy communities centered around the Gospel of Jesus, we not only fulfill our calling as Christians but offer an inviting and safe setting for people to learn about God and His love, mercy, and purposes for our lives. Such communities inherently challenge apatheism and encourage people to grow and look beyond themselves and toward Christ for meaning. The final takeaway is an approach based on narrative which is intrinsically connected to the homiletic task of preachers. As theologian Eduard Riegert explains: “we are concerned to speak to real persons about a real God in real life in a real way.”38 Riegert argues that each component of the communication process is a narrativity: the teller who unrolls the plot, the hearers who are gathered into the plot, the story which begins here and promises an intelligible end, the occasion which occasions the entire event, the place which constitutes just these imaginative possibilities. In the end

35 Hamman, “The Millennial Generation and the Church,” 162. 36 Hans Visser, “Reflections on Mission in the Post-Modern Context,” International Review of Mission 87, no. 345 (1998): 259–60. 37 Visser, 261. “The Kingdom of God must be interpreted and propagated in a way that is true to the world (worldly). The basic focus is how we want the world to be, a world in which justice, humaneness, trustworthiness and responsibility are important components. In our secularized society, the Kingdom of God made visible in Christ must be expressed in a contemporary way and interpreted within a totally worldly context. This means creating counter, or contrasting, societies.” 38 Eduard R Riegert, “What Is Authoritative for the ‘Post-Modern’ Listener?,” Currents in Theology and Mission 25, no. 1 (1998): 7, 14.

we have all participated in the metaphoric process which has taken us from ‘orientation’ to ‘disorientation’ to ‘reorientation’; our ‘reality’ has been redescribed, and we have been re-imagined.39 Narrative has an innate ability to communicate in deeper ways than simply analytical speech because it has a greater capacity to captivate minds and hearts by inviting people into an imaginative journey. In such a journey people can place themselves in the shoes of the characters, and through the process of skillful narration, come out the other end with a deeper knowledge of self, the other, the Good, and even the Divine. As theologian Thomas Long argues, “we are curious about other people’s stories not only because they are often interesting but also because they have the power to suggest possibilities for our own lives.” 40 It is no surprise, therefore, that Jesus made frequent use of storytelling. He was always utilizing parables when speaking to the masses. This is because Jesus knew that “a good story creates its impact in one of two ways: (1) by making the reader [or listener] one of the characters or (2) by making a claim concerning the nature of life, a claim about which the reader [or listener] must make a decision.”41 Clearly, narrative is a powerful tool, one that needs to be utilized in our churches if we hope to engage people of every background and age group. Narrative can overcome even the most severe boundaries, including apatheism; after all, is this not the generation that devoured volume after volume of stories like J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games, both of which have been written in the last thirty years? Evidently there is still a voracious appetite for stories, and fortunately, we as Christians have the greatest story of all to tell, the story of the Gospel of Jesus which “is of such cosmic proportions that it is large enough to encompass not only every dimension of existence but also ‘every tribe and language and people and nation’ (Rev 5:9; 6:9).” 42 We have no choice but to proclaim this story in faith, because it is what Jesus said we must do: “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Matt. 24:14 NIV). 43 However, not every story is so enjoyed, so “we must learn with Paul how to translate, how to speak the gospel in a way that communicates to our contemporaries in their own language…. [For] we all are called, both individually and corporately, to be ‘translators’ of God’s word.” 44 This is a crucial task that we cannot afford to take for granted.

39 Riegert, 51. 40 Thomas G. Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988), 73. 41 Long, 74. On page 76, Long claims that “Biblical stories often generate their impact by creating an alternative world in the imagination and challenging the reader to make a decision about it.” 42 Riegert, “What Is Authoritative?,” 42. 43 Riegert, 14. “The Christian preacher has no choice, here, but to be obstinate, and to persist in telling the church’s story, the story of Jesus. It is a large enough story to promise ultimate closure; it is a story of salvation— thus intending goodness, wholeness, and healing; it is a true story—that is, it corresponds with reality yet transforms it. While obstinate about telling this particular story, the preacher will nevertheless recognize that, communicationally, what becomes authoritative cannot be controlled nor manipulated. And so here the preacher makes a great act of faith: Because this story is being told here on this occasion in this assembly, and this story is being told in the Name of the Triune God, the convicting and convincing authority is the Holy Spirit. That is, in the end everything is offered up to God.” 44 Seifrid, “Beyond Law and Gospel?,” 333–34.

Conclusion In conclusion, I have argued that one of the core problems of our age when it comes to sharing the Gospel is the phenomenon of apatheism. I have argued that apatheism is the product of a post-modern world with a high level of existential security and that it affects the way we do ministry, the way this generation behaves, and even the Word of God and its proclamation. In response to this, I have claimed that theology is well-suited to the challenges of today because of its ability to speak to every generation and culture in new ways without subverting its central message: the atoning death of Christ, the Son of God, on the Cross. Finally, I have put forward three approaches that churches can take in addressing apatheism: inculcating doubt in the postmo ern worldview, creating intentional communities that genuinely seek after God in their actions and not just their words, and the utilization of narrative to engage the otherwise disinterested. Although we would all like a “fool-proof” and “one-size-fits-all” solution to the problem of ministry in our time, especially when we see the hollowing out of our churches rather than the hallowing of the masses, there simply is not one. What I have discussed here is only one facet of a much larger problem; I do not claim my findings to be conclusive, but I do hope they lead to further insight and consideration on this important topic. Apatheism is a powerful force in our time and we ignore it to our own peril. Though the way forward is hardly clear, it is evident that current practices are not effective, and we need to find new ways to engage for the sake of Gospel. If we as Christians, and especially as ministers, do not take seriously our task to go and make disciples (cf. Matt. 28:1920), then what are we doing? The road ahead will be difficult, but “nothing will be impossible with God” (Lk. 1:37 ESV).

Bibliography Adrahtas, Vassilis. “Theology as Dialectics and the Limits of Patristic Thought in the PostModern World: A Reading into St John of Damascus.” Phronema 18 (2003): 109–27. Beshears, Kyle. “Athens without a Statue to the Unknown God.” Themelios: An International Journal for Students of Theological and Religious Studies 44, no. 3 (2019): 517–29. Hamman, Jaco. “The Millennial Generation and the Church: Doing It Differently.” Journal of Pastoral Theology 25, no. 3 (2015): 161–64. Holder, John. “The Role of Theology in a Post-Modern World.” The Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 37, no. 1 (2011): 69–94. Hunt, Harry. “Implications and Consequences of Post-Modern Philosophy for Contemporary Perspectives on Transpersonal and Spiritual Experience: I. The Later Foucault and Pierre Hadot on a Post-Socratic This-Worldly Mysticism.” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 32, no. 1 (2013): 1–15. ———. “Implications and Consequences of Post-Modern Philosophy for Contemporary Transpersonal Studies: II. Georges Bataille’s Post-Nietzschean Secular Mysticism, Phenomenology of Ecstatic States, and Original Transpersonal Sociology.” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 32, no. 2 (2013): 79–97. Kleinhans, Kathryn A. “Why Now? The Relevance of Luther in a Post-Modern Age.” Currents in Theology and Mission 24, no. 6 (1997): 488–95. Long, Thomas G. Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988. Ménard, Guy. “Religion, Implicit or Post-Modern?” Implicit Religion 4, no. 2 (2001): 87–95. Moody, Katharine Sarah, and Randall W. Reed. “Emerging Christianity and Religious Identity.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 56, no. 1 (2017): 33–40. Paas, Stefan. “Post-Christian, Post-Christendom, and Post-Modern Europe: Towards the Interaction of Missiology and the Social Sciences.” Mission Studies 28, no. 1 (2011): 3– 25. Penner, Myron Bradley. The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context. 1st ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. Peters, Ted. “Post-Modern Religion.” Currents in Theology and Mission 10, no. 5 (1983): 261– 72.

Puffer, Keith A. “Protestant Millennials, Religious Doubt, & the Local Church.” Religions 9, no. 1 (December 29, 2017): 1–20. Riegert, Eduard R. “What Is Authoritative for the ‘Post-Modern’ Listener?” Currents in Theology and Mission 25, no. 1 (1998): 5–14. Seifrid, Mark A. “Beyond Law and Gospel? Reflections on Speaking the Word in a (Post)Modern World.” Concordia Journal 43, no. 1 (2017): 29–42. Thompson, Ross. “Scientific and Religious Understanding: Towards a Post-Modern Spirituality.” The Way 32, no. 4 (1992): 258–67. Visser, Hans. “Reflections on Mission in the Post-Modern Context.” International Review of Mission 87, no. 345 (1998): 257–63.