Calling All Emergents
Those of us who like to point out the error in the Emergent "Conversation" are often accused of lumping everyone into the same box, using the extremist to define the "Conversation", or using blanket statements to label a very diverse group. So in the spirit of getting things right I am asking all of you who claim to be "Emergent", want to be "emergent", or at least think they understand "Emergent" to help me get a grip on what this term actually means.
I have taken a list of things from an "Emergent" website. Let me know if you agree or disagree that these characteristics could be placed on the majority of those who call themselves "Emergent"
1. The emerging church phenomenon is exploring fresh ways to revamp and recontextualize the gospel message to postmodern people. Not only do I applaud this new emphasis, but I shamelessly admit that I have a great deal to glean in this area. Thus, I would like to learn more from those who have plowed further in this field.
2. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a long-awaited emphasis on community and relational faith.
3. The emerging church phenomenon has placed an emphasis on rethinking the modern church . . . its methods, its programs, its traditions, and its structure.
4. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a new emphasis on the Jesus of the Gospels opposed to the exclusive emphasis on the Jesus of Paul’s writings.
5. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a rightful emphasis on the importance of Body functioning.
6. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a new emphasis on the importance of narrative.
7. The emerging church phenomenon has dumped the modern penchant to always be certain in answering every spiritual question under the sun. Instead, it has rested content to embrace mystery and paradox in our God.
8. The emerging church phenomenon has re-ignited a healthy interest in the Christian mystics who emphasized spiritual encounter over against mere academic knowledge of God and the Bible.
Posts
29 Spoke Up:
Let me get this right. After creating an entire category of your pronouncements on this movement, you NOW admit that you need to "get a handle" on what it is?
Unreal.
[i]4. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a new emphasis on the Jesus of the Gospels opposed to the exclusive emphasis on the Jesus of Paul’s writings.[/i]
I'm neither pastor nor a scholar, but a janitor. Yet, even I know that the Jesus recorded in the Gospels is the same Jesus that smacked Paul around and changed his heart.
What's the difference?
Come on Michael, you should know better than that. You act as if I am wishy washy. I am way to stubborn for that. I am just using this as an opportunity to learn more. I got the link from you. I thought you'd be happy we actually reading some "real-emergent" sites or RE for short. Which according to you we refuse to do.
This is a diverse group. They deserve to be judged and rebuked fairly and accurately. Which I believe I have done to this point, but you can't ever learn too much can you? You are one of the main ones who make the accusation that we keep lumping the good in with the bad. Make up your mind. Do you want us to be accurate or not?
You know readers you just can't win with some people.
Scott, I thought I'd remind you and our readers that spencer has been emailing us links to emergent sites in his continued attempt to defend that fad-driven, full-of-doctrinal-errors movement. He continues to claim that I haven't studied the movement and that we, especially yours truly, is not as smart as he is. The funniest thing was just the other day he sent me another link claiming that I should read the guys on that link... it was Mark Driscoll's web site! *insert laughter here*
Did we not do several posts on Driscoll? Are you not interviewing Driscoll for another Fide-O post? Maybe spencer missed all that? Or maybe he just never stopped falsely accusing people of things? Or maybe he is just so busy tending the Hog Bar that he doesn't have time to do his homework?
So the answer is "no" -- no, you can't have a normal conversation with a guy like spencer. He is just hanging around trying to get attention. If you let him he will comment many more times on this thread and never say anything constructive. So just get ready :)
In all seriousness, I think the emergents that are concerned for narrative, community, and re-thinking the modern church would excell on the missions field (the doctrinally correct ones that is). Why reinvent America's church when you can impliment your ideas on a truly communal culture!
Guys...
it doesn't matter if you're reading "RE" sites. No matter which ones you read, if you dare call into question what they're promoting, then you'll just be accused of not reading the right RE sites/blogs.
SDG... Carla
Scott,
I'm not a full-fledged Emergent...just someone who recognizes some potential for good, a mixture of wheat and tares if you will. I appreciate contemplative aspects of Christianity that have often been absent in the overly intellectual and thoroughly "modern" circles where I've been raised. I don't think candles are the answer to all our problems, but I sure do love to get rid of the powerpoint and florescent lights every now and then.
With all that said, I'm impressed with this post. I don't usually get the impression from Fide-o that you guys think you have anything left to learn. No offense intended here, but even when you comment about something you've just "learned" from one of your heroes it seems more often than not like an underhanded way of lending support to whatever group you're lambasting. Now I say all of that with two things firmly in mind. 1) I realize that this blog is a place where you guys can get things off of your chest and 2)it is more than a little likely that my perspective of your tone is not always indicative of your intended message.
However this post was different. It sounds like you generously left out some of those things which most get under your skin (at least, that is to say that you used less inflamatory language than usual.) I think that this is probably a pretty good characterization of many "emergent" type churches, though I admit that I don't attend such a church so I'm basing my information on the descriptions of my emergent friends.
I don't really know where you're planning to go with this information but let me make a couple observations.
1)One of the most common areas where I differ from full-on emergents is in regards to "new." Finding the best "new" approach is the exact market-driven consumeristic tactic that Emergents complain about in the overly Modern churches. I applaud their desire to get away from it, but have to lovingly point out that this isn't going to get-r-done.
2)I like the way you worded #7. I suspect that this is still going to be a thorn in the side of most of the Fide-o dogpound. However, by not accusing Emergents of full Relativism, this may indeed be a very healthy concept that all of us - whether we want to be considered emergent or not - can find some wisdom in. Where relativism is accepted, the truth must root it out (see my latest post at www.bretwells.blogspot.com on the issue of Relativism,Anxiety and Doubt). But mystery and a denial of human intellectual superiority is not a New Age, nancy-boy Relativism concept. It is rooted deeply in the identity of God as partially revealed to humanity. Mystery should not replace apologetics but should rather serve as a humble and awe-inspired aspect of our worship of and conversations regarding the indescribable God.
3) #8 represents a very real danger that is already becoming a reality in some corners of the postmodernism and the Emergent church (though I don't think it is a necessary component of postmodern Christianity). Spiritual encounter is vital to the life of the church, and the Christian mystics have always served as a prophetic voice against those who, like the Pharisees want to make our relationship with God a purely legal transaction which requires the fine-tooth combing and lawyer-like anal retentive attention to every loophole, wormhole and...other.
However, if the emphasis on the mystical completely replaces a logical consideration of very real story then we have a whole other problem. I hope that we can learn to balance our approach to Scripture and one another - there is not only room for, but a vital need for both reason and mystery; knowledge and experience; passion and intellect.
To say that none of these aspects were present in the Modern/Enlightenment Church would be misguided. To say that all aspects that were a part of the Modern/Enlightenment Church should be discarded is not just misguided but completely ridiculous. And to say that none of what the Emergent Church is currently wrestling with contains value, truth or potential would be tragic.
I hope that Christians, where ever we gather, are more concerned with faithful and continued growth into the image of Christ than with defending our egos and exerting our dominance. I know that there are ambivalent feelings about "Blue Like Jazz" on Fide-o, but I really appreciated his comment regarding many of our debates that they stopped actually being about God a long time ago and are now focused on US defeating our opponents.
Thanks Scott for bringing this discussion back to a focus on God. The great thing about taking this approach is that even if we disagree, it is a disagreement between brothers in Christ rather a mudslinging contest between apparent enemies. I hope that I have shown the same respect for you in this response that you showed in the post.
Ditto what Carla said. Quote one Emergent, another will say you didn't quote the right Emergent--or that you're hopelessly modern. Read N.T. Wright with less than full approval, and it turns out you haven't read enough Wright.
What Phil said in his lecture is exactly right: a big part of the Conversation is maintaining ambiguity. They ain't never gonna consistently 'fess up to nothin', except that they're certain everyone else's certainty is unjustified.
Let me see if I can shed some light on what these points mean that were proposed by the EC website.
1. The emerging church phenomenon is exploring fresh ways to revamp and recontextualize the gospel message to postmodern people. The people are sovereign in the EC. They belive that we should edit (revamp) the message to match the people, rather than ask the people to change to match the message.
2. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a long-awaited emphasis on community and relational faith.The EC puts religion into Christianity, almost like cults rather than church. This is even evidenced in the way that they fight to protect their "personal beliefs."
3. The emerging church phenomenon has placed an emphasis on rethinking the modern church . . . its methods, its programs, its traditions, and its structure.The EC is very method-driven and steeped in pragmatism.
4. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a new emphasis on the Jesus of the Gospels opposed to the exclusive emphasis on the Jesus of Paul’s writings.The EC is anti-doctrine.
5. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a rightful emphasis on the importance of Body functioning.The EC is anti-authority.
6. The emerging church phenomenon has placed a new emphasis on the importance of narrative.The EC is filled with talk and no action. It is the Oprah generation who thinks just talking about it and telling your story heals the soul. *insert gag here*
7. The emerging church phenomenon has dumped the modern penchant to always be certain in answering every spiritual question under the sun. Instead, it has rested content to embrace mystery and paradox in our God.The EC is anti-intellectual. And the reason they do not like to answer questions because they do not like the answers.
8. The emerging church phenomenon has re-ignited a healthy interest in the Christian mystics who emphasized spiritual encounter over against mere academic knowledge of God and the Bible.Since objective truth is out of the question because of the anti-intellectualism, anti-authority, and anti-doctrine positions, the EC has turned to its only other option -- mysticism. Their religion is based upon their feelings. The people are sovereign and their feelings control them. And they will probably get really really mad at my comment and say that I just don't understand them. *insert group hug here*
Jason,
you've been reading the comment section of ENo, haven't you?
;o)
Carla, I'm sorry, but I have not. But you have peeked my interest. Under which post are you referring?
Jason, I guess we should have talked, because you just commented on my follow up post.
I would not disagree wit hanything you have posted...........though there is more to the emerging Church movement (as there is to all such movements)
I would totally disagree with Jason Robertson's inane observations. I assume he is just talking to be talking...............perhaps he has a great fantasy life because his comments are not rooted in reality.
I am always curious to find out how many of the Emerging writers and which ones people have read...........I mean the original source material, not some review or cut and paste on an ant-emerging church blog. My point is valid because a persons view of ANY movement can be skrewed by what writers they read. Depending on what author someone reads in Calvinistic circles with influence greatly the type of calvinism they come away with.
The emerging Church is far too broad to be pinned down easily and I suspect that is the frustration that many people have. I choosed to view the emerging Church from the vantage point of Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell. From that viewpoint I like what I see.
Jason said "Their religion is based upon their feelings. The people are sovereign and their feelings control them. And they will probably get really really mad at my comment and say that I just don't understand them. *insert group hug here*"
That's pretty much what I was half-jokingly commenting on. No matter what you say, or so it would seem, you'll be accused of not understanding them. I know this first hand, since they tell me this in every post I've ever written on the topic. Pick a topic, any post, any subject. The critics of the ECM are always wrong, mean, narrowminded, etc., so forth and so on - and the EC adherents are just trying to live an "authentic spirituality".
Which is why one friend and fellow critic calls this the "you're not the boss of me!" movement. No matter what you say, no matter how you say it, you're wrong, and out of line, 99.99% of the time.
Scott, not a bad post. I think the reason so many have a hard time defining the emerging conversation is that it is organized around mission more than theology. I don't know if this will define things better or not, but here are my thoughts on each of the 8 points, with responses to the points themselves, and Jason Robertson's comments.
1. The focus is most certainly NOT man centered. The emerging conversation is about mission more than it is about theology. A missionary, if they are good, goes to a cultire, sees how they live and worship, then speaks the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture to that culture in their own language. The missional focus of the emerging conversation is looking at Western culture, seeing that it is largely postmodern, and is working out how to speak the Gospel to postmoderns. This is NOT revamping the message, it is proclaiming it to people who do not speak and think as those who think and operate in modernism and the reformation.
2. Jason is just being antagonistic here. Community and relational faith is at the heart of what Acts and Paul were teaching the early church as a way to work out life together as belivers of the Gospel. In other words, all those epistles were about being Christian in a pagan world.
3. Original post - true. Jason's reply: Method-driven - not necessarily, but those coming out of the seeker movement may be tempted to think that way when they interact with the emerging conversation. Pragmatic - if you mean pure marketing, no. If you mean simply going back to scripture and working out what it says in the postmodern context as opposed to rehashing the current modern views, ok. Depending on its use and focus, pragmatism doesn't always equal bad.
4. Jason's comment is wrong. Period. It is not anti-doctrine, it is, in the reformation spirit of ever reforming, seeking to be faithful to Jesus as revealed in all of scripture, not just Paul's writing.
5. Again, Jason is wrong. Some in the emerging conversation have problems with authority, but most work it out by placing the authority in this order: Jesus, as revealed in Scripture, to the elders and teachers of the local church, to the body of the local church. There is no clear position in the emerging conversation on how to "do" church, though. In fact, this very issue is the focus of the warning given to the Emergent groups by N.T. Wright when he spoke to them in 2004.
6. The original statement is fine. Some in the conversation, who hold to more conservative reformation views, use their grounding in the reformation tradition to speak the Gospel in parables/stories/narratives. This is the language of postmodernism. Some who hold to more liberal views may exhibit what Jason said. Assuming all emerging Christians hold to one theology is silly.
7. It's not anti-intellectual. Rather, it is intellectual enough to realize that we finite humans can not fully comprehend the glory, majesty, wisdom, holiness, justice, mercy, grace, etc. of an infinite God. In that understanding, while emerging Christians continually strive to understand God as revealed in Scripture, we understand that as soon as we stop questioning and start resting on our certainties, we have left the path of wisdom.
8. Again, this is true of some emerging Christians, not of others. Caution should be taken when studying the history of mystics in Christendom. Warnings are warranted, broad stereotypes are not.
Peace,
Jason Blair
I joyfully admit that am not in touch with the reality of the Truly Real. The emergents who think that they have invented this new version of Christianity reminds me of the Celtic church that was formed by "Middle Age English stock brokers who wanted a Christian alternative to the new age movement." (Donald Meek: The Quest for Celtic Christianity)
This is a false reality that is fueled by their unbiblical philosophy of ministry that approaches evangelism and sprituality from a man-centered theology.
And I it is typical that EC'ers think that it is a virtue that the EC is "far too broad to be pinned down easily." That is typical of a movement that is not founded on truth.
Here is a fun look at emergent church..you might be emergent if... http://purgatorio1.blogspot.com/2005/11/you-might-be-emerging-if.html
Brother Blair,
You said, “The emerging conversation is about mission more than it is about theology”
I’m still unconvinced. When you further say that you are “seeking to be faithful to Jesus as revealed in all of scripture, not just Paul's writing” haven’t you just demonstrated that the issues are theological and not merely “missional. Paul and Jesus aren’t saying the same thing? Or perhaps you are saying that the non-emergent church folks are purely Pauline to the exclusion of Jesus (as if this were even possible)?
Further: “There is no clear position in the emerging conversation on how to "do" church, though.” This statement seems to suppose that the New Testament is really silent on how to “do” church. Again, this is not merely a missional issue, but a theological (and perhaps exegetical/expositional)one.
Some more: “we understand that as soon as we stop questioning and start resting on our certainties, we have left the path of wisdom.” – another theological issue. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, can anything associated with the Bible be certain? Can your only solid conviction be that you need not maintain any solid convictions. Does wisdom suggest that we let our beliefs remain liquid?
Has Scott not listed a series of emergent propositions that reflect theological leanings and are being used as borders around the emergent conversation?
Bret, I'm not denying that there is no theology being considered by the emerging Christians. Rather, they are willing to allow for differences while focusing on mission. Granted, the danger there is to fall into shallow ecumenicalism, but I think enough emerging believers have seen that dead end to at least be wary of it.
Also, I'm not suggesting that all non-emerging believers are only Pauline in belief. But, when theology is being pushed to the forefront, it seems that Paul gets most of the focus. This is, of course, not true everywhere, just as it is not true that all emerging believers are liberal, seeker-sensitive, Bible denying hippies.
My main point in the post above is to caution people not to paint all emerging Christians with the same brush. There are both liberals and conservatives, Calvinists(gasp) and Arminians, and others. The challenge being set down by them is to learn to speak the language of postmodernism and translate the Gospel to that language. In any case, that's how this Christian approaches the conversation.
God Bless,
Jason Blair
Blair, if I may make a point here without you just thumbing your nose. We you say "...learn to speak the language of postmodernism and translate the Gospel to that language" that is precisely where you have departed from a Biblical missional model. No body, including me, has suggested that to be a missionary is wrong, or translating the Bible is wrong, or working within a culture is wrong, or reaching a new language group is wrong. But postmodernism is not a language; it is a worldview. And never before in church history has evangelism been successful when the church "revamps" the gospel to "fit" a worldview. When Paul said that he became all things to all men, he was not speaking of revamping Christianity to worldviews! If you cannot see this then we shall talk in circles.
Simply put, the Emergents are not practicing a Biblical form of evangelism or ecclesiology; instead they are making the same mistake the Liberal Movement made a couple hundred years ago to the demise of such great centers of thought as Princeton, Yale, seminaries of Europe.
To be EC is to fall into the deceptive trap of pragmatism, humanism, and mysticism. These isms have distracted Christian thinkers for milliniums. I beg you to open your eyes and see that the dialogue with the world is unBiblical, unnecessary, and unprofitable.
Jason R, I won't thumb my nose at you. I'm engaging in the comments here with no intention to be snarky. We may disagree on this, but I view the use of language and culture by postmoderns as truly foreign. In that sense, my mission in the emerging conversation is to speak the Gospel to the people of postmodern western culture as an ambassador of Christ. I try to approach it like Paul to Athens in Acts 17. This is not pragmatism, humanism, or mysticism. Again, some emerging believers go for these things. Others do not. I am under no illusion that we will come to agreement in this thread, so I'll just leave it with the request that we pray for each other as we both seek to bear witness to our God and Savior before an unbelieving world.
Peace, Jason Blair
Do you have a censorship policy at this blog?
Yes, Rod, we censor all worthless comments... you know, the ones that are off subject, that are personal attacks, that are meaningless to the discussion, that are "chat room" type dialogue, etc. Out of respect for our readership we post only comments that are add to the substance of the issues being discussed and debated. We post comments that are positive, that are negative, that agree with us, that do not agree with us, that add insight, that add criticism, that add information, that are dissent, that are humorous, and many other types of meaningful comments. In the end it is up to us whether we think the comment is meaningful or not. If we misjudge a comment and post it when we should not, or not post it when we should, then we are sorry. But we will probably do it again. If you posted a comment that did not get posted, re-word it, improve upon its substance, and try again.
Jason Blair wrote: Also, I'm not suggesting that all non-emerging believers are only Pauline in belief. But, when theology is being pushed to the forefront, it seems that Paul gets most of the focus.
And what's wrong with that? Seems like this is a constant EC drone - "we're seeking to be faithful to Jesus". The implication is that the epistles are somehow contrary to Jesus' teachings. Bret asked the same thing: "Paul and Jesus aren’t saying the same thing? Or perhaps you are saying that the non-emergent church folks are purely Pauline to the exclusion of Jesus (as if this were even possible)?" And you somewhat evaded the question. Does the EC community have an axe to grind with Paul? Is Paul somehow not Christian?
This is not (necessarily) aimed at you specifically, as I've seen the same underlying theme from other EC adherents.
----
bill
Pretty much everyone has moved on from this post, but I'd like to attempt an answer to Bill's last question.
The Paul/Jesus issue is one that gets blown out of proportion from both sides of this discussion.
Are Paul and Jesus at odds with one another? No, I don't think so. The issue here is not the men or their theology. The issue is the type of text that we emphasize. In my tradition, Churches of Christ, the Pauline epistles have long been the content of the vast majority of sermons, discussions and even the occasional argument. The overall style of the epistles, because of their intended function of edification for (usually) specific congregations, is very issue oriented and focues on doctrine (not to say that the gospels do not address doctrinal issues or that the epistles are not relational). This is not a bad thing. While there are probably folks who would say that they don't want to have anything to do with the Pauline letters, I've never spent any time around such folks.
On the other hand, the Gospels are simply a different genre of literature (again to avoid unneccesary slams, I'm not relegating the Bible to secular literature, I fully assent to the Divine inspiration.) This genre, while definately foundational for doctrine, seems to take a very different approach. The gospels seem to offer a more relational approach to presenting the call to Christ.
With that said, the affinity for the Gospels over the Epistles should not lead to an exclusive, either/or "canon-within-a-canon" approach. Neither should this be conceived as choice of Jesus over Paul, but rather a more natural connection to the style of writing found in the Gospel narratives versus the Pauline Epistles.
Again, I think that both sides have made this issue much more contested than necessary. I doubt it will do so, but I hope this helps.
Addressing Jason's #1 point:
Asking "people to change to accept the message" is the #1 missionary mistake. Ill-informed missionaries try to change culture, not hearts. An example of good missionary work? Fiji => the Methodists went in and shared the Gospel in a format relevant to simple Fijian culture. Today nearly all (94%) ethnic Fijians adults are professing Christians. The Methodists didn't say "change your mode of dress, your language, your ancestor veneration, your medicine, your wild hairstyles, your use of Kava, your tatoos, your bare-breasted motif, your cannibalism." As the Spirit of God moved among the Fijians, their hearts were made new - they abandoned cannibalism and other cultural norms that were contrary to Christian faith and practice. They retained other cultural norms that, frankly, the British missionaries found distasteful. But the missionaries, to their credit, did not try to force their own culture on the Fijians. God Bless Them.
As for Emerging Church - it's like all new movements. There's good and bad ideas out there. But while arguing over the minutiae, we're missing the bigger picture - the Mars Hill moment of this day and time. The coming leaders of Millennial and Silent generations will likely usher in the biggest change in "doing church" since Luther and Gutenberg. While many will find this uncomfortable, we're clearly seeing the beginning of a fundamental shift in the way people gather and communicate information, including evangelistic information and relationships.
Outmoded "top-down" media vehicles such as television, terrestrial radio, and print newspapers are slowing or shrinking. The world’s traditional media gatekeepers are losing their grip. "Top down" media AND church models will be replaced. This isn't emerging gobbledegook. It's solid future trending from the likes of George Barna. At this year's NRB conference, a stronghold of conservatism, many media pros were commenting on the pressing need for major structural changes in the way we evangelize to emerging generations. Some notes I took from various speakers "GenY's can smell religious B.S. from several miles away. They are easily offended by unwanted marketers. They identify more with an experience and relationship than a message. Millennials see Christian evangelical programming as fake, artificial, simplistic, sales pitchy, preachy, more concerned about quick conversion than love and relationship."
Barna cites emerging trends, with the top three being: house churches, cyber churches, and marketplace-oriented spiritual expression. Nexgens are “pioneering language that bridges the gap between postmodern cultural imperatives and first-century biblical principles, to create new expressions for effective communication... these new evangelists have championed a novel universe of relational networks in which faith is a cornerstone of friendships and shared experiences.” Barna calls this the third "Great Awakening" of American religion.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=201
Barna states that the Internet currently serves as a foundation for "interactive faith experience for more than one in every ten adults," and that within roughly five years "up to 20% of the population will rely primarily on the Internet for its religious input…whether or not the cyberchurch is a `true` church may not be as pressing an issue as what current church leaders will do about the inevitable gravitation of tens of millions of people away from the existing church and how they can help to shape this emerging church form." Barna states that by 2025, when Millennials (he calls them Mosaics) have fully defined their culture, the "local church will have lost roughly half of its current `market share` and that alternative forms of faith experience and expression will pick up the slack."
This, to me, is the essence of the label "emerging church." (I hate labels). It's coming, it's here, it's the ways and means of ministry to the 20 million Millennia's now growing up. For this 50-something, I've embraced God's move among Millennials and will be a catalyst for Bible-based "postmodern evangelism," and not allow myself to get comfortably stuck in the past, or my own cultural imperatives. This isn't about tatoos and lattes - it's about stepping aside and letting God be God.
John
Jason,
So, what do emergents believe?
I've been involved with this conversation for the past five years. Many of the 'names' are good friends. Others are distant voices. Here are a few things I can say about those who are involved with emergent village.
I can already here some of the opposition say, "No you don't." Still, here's a shot.
~ We believe Jesus Christ was the fullness of God, fully human and yet fully God.
~ We believe the Spirit lives in and among those whom he loves.
~ We believe the Father is the creator of all things, and he has called us to worship the Triune God.
~ We believe the church in North America is in a great deal of trouble if we continue to move along without realizing something has changed. Many churches are seeing 80% of their teenagers and college age people leaving the church. Regardless of the causes, we have a problem. Loosing our youth isn't 'faithfulness.'
~ We believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God. We believe excellent exegesis is important to understanding the word of God.
~ This list is only a small list things...
So, while some claim that we are re-interpreting the Bible, in many cases we are simply looking deeper into the historical, cultural, socio-economic context of the time when the particular book within the Canon was written. For example, fifty years ago we didn't understand Jewish history to nearly the degree we now do. Neither was our understanding of the Greek and Hebrew as good.
Thus, our biblical understanding needs to always increase. We can not simply say "That's what it means" for all times and all places.
Before anyone gets to defensive here, remember that the protestant church in the USA used the Bible to defend slavery less than 150 years ago. We also used it to keep colored folks at the back of the bus.
So, it is imperative that we do good exegetical work. To say that we don't hold the text as important is outright nutty.
~ We are living missional lives. We are not simply sitting around 'talking.' Many of us have lived through train wrecks within more traditional churches. Some of us lived in middle class white America where the suburbs and American life are looked upon highly --- as in in 'idol' worship.
We believe God will continue to move in and through the traditional church. God will chose to move as he desires. He will not leave the traditional church.
But, he will also find new vessels, new clay pots to shape and mold. We believe God is calling some of us to take our passion for him, for his people, and for his entire creation and be daring in different ways for future generations.
I believe most of us would agree that nothing is new under the sun, but it IS new for this generation.
So, we're giving up successful positions at big churches; we're involved with our local schools; we're trying to live and move among those who are marginalized by our society. And we are simply trying to be faithful to the ways of God as passed down to us from the Scriptures, the Spirit, the traditions of the church, and the stories of faithfulness as we have heard and see lived out among us.
So, why we keep being beaten up for faithfulness is mystifying to me? Perhaps it shouldn't be... that's usually what happens to those who follow Jesus.
In His Grip & Grace,
Blessings & Shalom,
Randy Buist
Randy, thank you for your comments. And I praise God for your commitment to pure Christianity and healthy churches. I, too, have experienced the distresses of the current church problems. My stories of pastoring would make your hair on your neck stand up. I, too, wished to see a pure, Biblical church that was focused on theology, passionate about evangelism, and filled with the love of Christ. In fact, I left a "silver platter" situation to start such a church 2000 miles from my home, with little money, and no prospective members. Five years later we have a growing, healthy, evangelistic church with four pastors, two deacons, and a loving congregation. But I am not "Emergent" nor do I agree with "Emergents." The Emergent Movement is more philosophical that theological. And philosophical theories will not change the condition of today's church. My theology motivates my ministry and is the foundation of my vision as a pastor. Emergents are guilty of the same philosophical-reach-the-culture tactics as is the mega-church philosophies and strategies. And worse, Emergents are more open to heresy than the mega's have ever been. It is the age old problem of over-correcting, of letting the pendulum swing too far. Friend, I can promise you the answers to your distress are not found in the EC. Rather, look to sound theologians like Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Alexander Strauck, and others. Notice all of those men are of different denominations, so I am not just pushing mine. I tell you my friend, there is a very healthy church out there and it is founded on historical orthodoxy not some new movement that is nothing but the next fad for the next generation. Please don't be distracted by such. Seek out the men who have found the answers from a theological source rather than a philosophical one. And our pastors would be glad to help you, for we too were encouraged by others before us. Bottom line: you don't have to look for something new; every generation should discover afresh the old way! For the old way is the one established by God, and it is still relevant and it still works!
I sense in both Jason and Randy a sincere desire for much-needed change in the Church. I find myself in agreement with both of you, and would not do justice to either with a quickly parsed reply. That said, I want to address Jason's comment about "discovering afresh the old way." While our faith is founded in the risen Jesus and none other, I think the "emerging conversation" is right to explore modern vs. postmodern expressions of that faith. While the Essence of Xn faith remains historically unchanged (the same yesterday, today, and forever), cultural-bound expressions of Xn faith can (and do) change quickly and often radically.
The Reformation is a prime example of cultural change impacting positively on the Church. Before the emergence of automated printing, virtually all believers were illiterate. Their faith was as real as yours or mine, but culturally expressed in VERY different forms. I think most of us would agree that emergent literacy was a sweeping cultural change that revolutionized our collective understanding of Xn faith and allowed us to break free of man-made hierarchies posing as God's agents. Literacy gave us the tools to form a vastly new cultural expression of the Unchanging Story.
We are today in the early stages of a cultural change more powerful than the Reformation. Gutenberg facilitated a key horizontal shift in information. Today, new tools are emerging that will take horizontal convergence to a dramatic new level. I believe these changes will turn existing ideas about culture and community literally upside-down within generations. Granted, the study of long-term cultural trends is not on everyone's radar, and in the Church fewer still are taking an interest in any of this. But I'm personally convinced that those who skillfully identify (a la Luther, Zwingli, Simons, and Calvin) global trends in anti-hierarchical / hyper-horizontal emergence will become the front-line activists of an emerging Church. Those who don't may likely form the foundations of a postmodern "counter-reformation."
You're invited to disagree here, but I believe God blesses bold cultural changes, such as the printing press, that facilitate new freedoms in His Church. Of course, the Keepers of Religion in any era-of-change fight tooth and nail against such changes, offering endless arguments on why the "old ways" are superior to the "invasive influence" of new cultural tools. Such dialogue is healthy. But ultimately, culture does change - often in totally unexpected and paradigm-busting ways. I believe we're seeing the sunrise on just such a day. I encourage you, Jason, for God's sake to be mindful of these accelerating changes. Don't fear change, rather, test all things. And remain careful to not confuse "tools" and "ideas." If there's anything in the EC conversation that tends to get confused, it is this. McLuhan notwithstanding, a tool is the carrier of an idea, not the idea itself.
Post a Comment