Miller meets Healy: Consumer Culture meets the Church

In reading and discussing Nicolas Healy’s book, Church, World and the Christian Life, I have been quite drawn to his concept and discourse concerning “blueprint ecclesiologies.” Healy begins by identifying five methodological elements that have shaped the last century. Let us begin with a brief summary of these elements:
style="text-align: left;font-family:verdana;">First, is the attempt to capture the “essential characteristic of the church.” Secondly, is to define the church as a structure with “bipartite” interests. Both of these, as Healy suggests, are often combined into the third element, a prescribed ecclesiology which determines norms and standards. Fourth is the inclination to reflect on the church apart from its concrete identity. The fifth element, which stems from the previous four, is the attempt to present the church as an ideal ecclesiological system.

I readily agree with these elements that Healy proposes, as I have experienced some of them first hand. In my personal experience, I have found that churches often concern themselves with revealing to the world that it has captured the essence of Christ: saving the lost. One will often find that while attempts to ‘save the lost’ are being presented, the church is mostly inward focused. As my friend Josh described in our discussion, the Outreach Ministry (a generic name) is often seen as having the “job” of going out into the world. Another example that comes to mind, which Healy touches on, is that churches often prescribe idealizations which do not reflect the concrete identity of the church. This can lead the church away from examining and reflecting on it’s sinfulness; and instead it is living out a seemingly Christ-like ecclesiology.

The ideas that Healy proposes parallel the issues that have been discussed by Vincent Miller, in his book Consuming Religion. In his final chapter, Miller begins by countering the commodification of culture and religion by the simple tactic of awareness. The awareness of our consumer habits serves as a launching pad for change; and would draw greater connections between belief and practice. Healy notes that “To treat Christianity as if it has a definable essence, a single principle in terms of which one could systematically map the whole, is inevitably to distort it” (p.35). This illustrates a connection (as I see it) between both authors: fragmentation as a result of commodification (Miller) perpetuate the attempt, by the church and humans alike, to appropriate models for church without reflecting upon the concrete identity of the church (Healy). Awareness of the sinfulness and carelessness of the church would help to combat the commodification of religion, in and through the church as well.

In synthesizing and expanding, through group discussion, I have come to understand that Healy is quite certain that no one element, method, or model can accurately fit the church at large. His simplest response to this is that by accepting any one model the church denies the flaws inherent within that model and relegates other models to lesser ideals which have no value. This supports his dissatisfaction with “blueprint” models.
After all, we are the church, the Body of Christ; our responsibility is first to God, and second to ourselves.