Throwing Down the Gauntlet
OK, I'm sticking my head out the window and yelling, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Well, I'm not really that mad, but I am a little irked. In the last week, I have read or heard these statements:
"What emergent is discovering is stuff Lutherans have known for 500 years."
"Anabaptists don't have to become postmodern because we were never modern."
"Emergent is trying to marry liturgical tradition to evangelical impulse, and Episcopalians have been doing that for centuries."
"Baptists have always been anti-institutional."
"I was emergent when I planted a church in the early 1970's."
"Emergent leaders need to adopt the posture of humble learners at the feet of those who were the emerging church leaders of their day."
No, no, no, no, no!
Emergent is trying to do something else, something new. We are not trying to get back to what Luther and Calvin were doing. We are not attempting to recover primitivist views of scripture, like the Anabaptists. We are not trying to plant churches that are relevant to GenXers and GenYers.
Why are we trying to do something new?
Because your denominations, though formed to provide safety and security for ordained persons to follow God's call with integrity, are now controlled by principalities and powers that demand ordination candidates to ignore the revolutionary aspects of the Bible in order to pass examinations. (Similarly, the electoral college system was developed with good reason; it now serves merely to devalue the votes of those in the minority in the "uncontested states.")
Because the tenure process at your theological insitutions, though developed to demand the same level of scholarship that is required at secular insitutions based on the German university model, is now demonic; it requires scholars to write not for the church but for the academy, and to in other (but related) ways ignore the revolutionary call of the gospel.
More and more of us are now convinced that something new cannot happen within the existing organizations and institutions. They are irredeemably reified into patterns of institutional conservatism and survival; they are irredeemably sold out to market forces and have thus commodified the radical, liberating message of the gospel.
Thus I am becoming more convinced that the emerging church movement has more in common with liberationist thought than it does with the Reformation. That is, we are on a quest to unmask how the gospel has been used to serve the (often oppressive) interests of those who are already in charge. Comments from those in comfortable positions of power, like those above, are to be expected, for they show the subtle ways in which we will be marginalized. But we will not allow ourselves to be marginalized, to be labeled as "left," "right," "angry," or "immature." No, we have been disenfranchized. We have taken the blue pill, and there's no going back.
We must now work at the next level, building a web of support for those few women and men who are courageous enough to stand up at a presbytery meeting and walk out...and not look back.
[UPDATE: Don't stop now. Follow the conversation here, here, and here.]
"What emergent is discovering is stuff Lutherans have known for 500 years."
"Anabaptists don't have to become postmodern because we were never modern."
"Emergent is trying to marry liturgical tradition to evangelical impulse, and Episcopalians have been doing that for centuries."
"Baptists have always been anti-institutional."
"I was emergent when I planted a church in the early 1970's."
"Emergent leaders need to adopt the posture of humble learners at the feet of those who were the emerging church leaders of their day."
No, no, no, no, no!
Emergent is trying to do something else, something new. We are not trying to get back to what Luther and Calvin were doing. We are not attempting to recover primitivist views of scripture, like the Anabaptists. We are not trying to plant churches that are relevant to GenXers and GenYers.
Why are we trying to do something new?
Because your denominations, though formed to provide safety and security for ordained persons to follow God's call with integrity, are now controlled by principalities and powers that demand ordination candidates to ignore the revolutionary aspects of the Bible in order to pass examinations. (Similarly, the electoral college system was developed with good reason; it now serves merely to devalue the votes of those in the minority in the "uncontested states.")
Because the tenure process at your theological insitutions, though developed to demand the same level of scholarship that is required at secular insitutions based on the German university model, is now demonic; it requires scholars to write not for the church but for the academy, and to in other (but related) ways ignore the revolutionary call of the gospel.
More and more of us are now convinced that something new cannot happen within the existing organizations and institutions. They are irredeemably reified into patterns of institutional conservatism and survival; they are irredeemably sold out to market forces and have thus commodified the radical, liberating message of the gospel.
Thus I am becoming more convinced that the emerging church movement has more in common with liberationist thought than it does with the Reformation. That is, we are on a quest to unmask how the gospel has been used to serve the (often oppressive) interests of those who are already in charge. Comments from those in comfortable positions of power, like those above, are to be expected, for they show the subtle ways in which we will be marginalized. But we will not allow ourselves to be marginalized, to be labeled as "left," "right," "angry," or "immature." No, we have been disenfranchized. We have taken the blue pill, and there's no going back.
We must now work at the next level, building a web of support for those few women and men who are courageous enough to stand up at a presbytery meeting and walk out...and not look back.
[UPDATE: Don't stop now. Follow the conversation here, here, and here.]
posted by tony at 11:16 AM
34 Comments:
Good rant! Amen
Youthblog
I agree.
I think you were a better writer it would be easier to get what you are saying, but I am with you, i think
I try to avoid commenting on my own blog, but Chris brings up some great points, so let me try to elaborate:
a. Of course I'm not stupid enough to say that we're locked in some life-or-death battle like many of the early liberation theologians. But their very effective hermeneutical stance has been used by others, most noteably white women who are ensconced in comfortable, tenured chairs at academic institutions. The point is the hermeneutical tools of unmasking and critique -- the theological uses of Marxian thought -- that are applicable here.
b. What revolutionary message? You're kidding, right? That's a rhetorical question, right? And, Chris, I know you well enough that you're not reducing the gospel to "Jesus died for our sins."
Regarding homogeneity, I'm sorry that the bulk of persons who have had the courage to leave the institutions that gave them security have been white, evangelical males. It grieves me that two of the early emerging churches in the Twin Cities -- one formed by a UMC woman, the other by an ELCA woman -- are not viable in the same way (one closed, the other hired a man to replace the woman). I hope (and pray) that this trend will change.
c. Yes, I'm well aware of the once useful practice of an ordination process. I'm ordained, and I went back and forth on it, especially when a professor of mine at Fuller, Rob Banks, forsook his ordination in order to show his commitment to house churches and the ministry of the laity. I am in no position to answer what it will mean to be "set apart" or "paid" to do ministry in the emerging church. But I do firmly believe that the denominational ordination process is broken beyond repair. I also think that General Assemblies, Books of Order, and the like, though once valuable, are no longer.
d. To paraphrase Doug P. from the beginning of his book, to buy a book or hire one of us to come and speak is the cheap way to get the information -- you get to sit on your couch or in your own church pew and listen, take notes, and pick and choose what you like. What's expensive is to get in a plane, fly to Minneapolis, and live for a week in his house and at his church. Some (not all) of us who have opted out of traditional structures (which include salaries and pensions) still have to provide for families, etc.
e. thAs we have said time and time again, there is no inner sanctum. You want in? OK, you're in. All anyone has to do is contribute something -- anything -- to the conversation to be a part of it. (See forthcoming emails from emergent for more on this)
f. I'm 36. I'm not pouting (I just checked in the mirror, and really, I'm not). Not working for the sake of the gospel? You're kidding again, right? What we're not doing is working to save a denomination, or working to make sure that gays can or cannot be ordained. Those are the conversations that are demonic, for they are shifting the conversation away from the gospel.
g. I'm not saying that seminary/denomination is THE issue. It's a big one for me. Lots of my friends, like Brian M. for instance, spend lots of time working with denoms and sems and still think they are redeemable. In no way do I claim to speak for all of emergent. But I still think I'm right.
Finally, for several years I was THE ONE among the group that started emergent saying that churches and denominations could be saved. I tried, and I looked around for others who've tried, and I haven't found much, or really any, success.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
1. institutional christians are defensive. wow. but tell the truth anyway, tony. i find it so incredible how the imperative to love is so easily turned to the imperative to be pastoral meaning nice. i'm tired of being nice. i'm tired of thinking all church can be is a bunch of nice people who are damned to a perpetual cycle of introductions to the faith. it is as if we don't get the basics--if you have two coats, give one to the poor. pray for your enemies and not just people who are related to you or work at your office. i went to church today, and i went to sunday school, and let me tell you, i love my church but it was so AVERAGE, so steady, so 'nothing to rock the boat' and i'm even open to the spirit. the most stunning moment was when my son isaiah (six years old) followed his friend who didn't receive bread but a blessing and isaiah (the entitled pastor's son) did, and then the other boy, seeing that his peer got some, came back hands open. god have mercy. we don't even feed our children. is it any wonder they don't come back? people want to be fed. fed not milk but solid food. ordination ought to about the capacity for facilitating spiritual sustanance. who cares about denominational correctness. give me a jesus that, as albert schweitzer suggested 100 years ago, is stranger, that is not familiar, a jesus who puts a belt around me and takes me places i do not wish to go. i'm reminded of that powerful U2 song: 'when i look at the world' where bono writes 'when there's all kinds of chaos and everyone is walking lame you don't even blink now do you or even look away.' how often does the institutional church or the academy cause us to 'blink', to 'look away' from what jesus and his gospel compel us to see--
i'm only on point number one. i better stop. but rather than nitpick tony, i want to underline his outrage. i work at yale divinity school, for god's sake. tradition almost drowns us. how do we find a way to make change, to make something fresh, to escape the weight of academic pretention and fight for a space to consider church as it might be. i'm looking. and listening. and emergent is a conversation where space is being made for a fresh spirit to blow.
Tony said: "We must now work at the next level, building a web of support for those few women and men who are courageous enough to stand up at a presbytery meeting and walk out...and not look back."I really hope you and the others with Emergent are serious about this, because I'm one of those people who are on the verge of walking out (or being forced out) of my existing church structure, and I'm dying to find a viable support network to help me in my passion to plant an emerging church.
There's not much out there right now for someone like me, and I think Emergent is in a perfect position to start doing this. We need more emerging churches. We need new local churches that can serve as regional hubs for multiplying the kind of churches and communities that we want to see more of. It's not going to happen just by wishing. Wouldn't it be great if Emergent could begin to provide the oversight, the accountability, and the financial support for aspiring church planters?
I guess I'll have to post anonymously since I'm a non-blogger!
My comments are not meant as criticism. The idea of "the emerging church" and post-modernism is new to me. for the last few months I've been trying to understand more of what it is all about. That's why I found your last post responding to all the criticisms so interesting. I guess I feel it shows exactly what I've been feeling, which is that it's very difficult to understand what "emergent" is or what it wants to do. It's obvious that it wants to be/do something new and different. And your comments do a good job of saying what it's not, or what it doesn't want to be. But I find it hard to find much in the way of actual ideas or practices that set it apart as something new and different. Maybe it's because it's still new and so you all are still trying to figure out the "how", I don't know, just expressing my frustration as a relative newcomer/outsider trying to understand what "emergent" is all about. The article in CT and you yourself talked about the fact that many think emergent is just evangelicalism in disguise. You make it clear that you're not, but you don't really explain how you're different. Like I said just my observations.
so how does that tie in with the Emergent vision? from your website:
"The spirit of emergent is inclusive. We seek to welcome all those who wish to journey with us and enter into a friendship around our shared mission and vision and voice, expressed in our rule. Emergent is intentionally cross-confessional. We hope to bring together Christians from varied confessions and traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox)."
It's amazing how much of a hold enlightenment thought still has on our theological and ecclessiological thinking.
Maybe the difference w/Emergent, Chris, is that every church doesn't have to come up with exactly the same answers to those questions in order to remain "in fellowship" with other emerging churches. Maybe one of the key aspects of emerging churches is that for once we really do focus on essentials and don't divide on non-essentials.
it's interesting to me that so many of the comments here are about the forms and structures. They really boil down to Anastasia's question of authority. There seems to be a great deal of concern that someone be in charge here, that someone define what it means to be "emergent" so we can all fall in line (or jump out of line if we feel it's heretical). But isn't that "in or out" thinking part of what so many of us are trying to emerge out of? The question of authority ties us to a way of thinking about the gospel, the church, our communities, as something that is only accessible to a few who have the right credentials.
On Sunday at the Porch, Doug based much of his sermon on the insights of a 23-year-old artist in our community. He pointed out that she hit on something in the passages at hand that theologians had been discussing for centuries. So here's a girl with no "authority" who has been given permission to take part in the way we talk about the Bible, about God, about God's work in the world and what do you know, the Spirit of God lives in her, too.
We miss out on so much when we get hung up on authority rather than trusting that God can and does work in and through all of us. We can trust that as communities of faith, we have the ability to discern what is true and what is not. God is the authority and we all have access to that authority.--carla
Marko's right, the sticky issue is how do we define essentials... but I've also found that often in churches there are all kinds of undefined essentials as well, that you'd better not cross at your own peril.
So, for example, in my own church currently, the Statement of Faith is pretty strait forward, not too far beyond the ancient creeds. But now I'm starting to find out that to keep my job there I also have to have all sorts of beliefs about "absolute truth", and the necessity of a moment of conversion, and hostility towards secular culture, and a belief in the divine sanction for capitalism and democracy, etc...
Wouldn't it be amazing if there could be a community that defined for itself what it's true essentials were, and then just stuck to that, and were really, really serious about not dividing over all the other non-essential stuff that they didn't mention?
"What is a bit disconcerting to me is that emergent really is disregarding the entire biblical witness to authority and institution. Are you guys going to cut out the things you disagree with? You cannot paint the church in Acts with the same brush you disregard "modern" or "Enlightenment" churches and people."
1. I don't see emergent as disregarding the "entire biblical witness to authority" (then again, who am I?) but if what we're talking about when we say authority is the inerrant scripture alone... then yes probably so. What might be an alternative? Maybe authority comes in a web of networks- like tradition, reason, experience, and scripture (scripture having a bit more weight obviously than the rest). It makes sense to me.
2. There is no comparison with the "Pre-modern" church of Acts and our churches of today which are steeped in modernism and liberalism. You can't argue that most all churches are caught up with either being a fundamentalist church or a liberal church. One does not find too many where the congregations are not polarized theologically.
I'd say that we dont' really want to go back to the Acts church- it worked for the early church, just as modern liberal/fundamentalist churches worked during the enlightenment. But gues what- modernism is DEAD!! Call this what you will- Hypermodernism, postmodernism, whatever- the old ways DON'T WORK. It's time for something new. And one expression of trying to do something new is Emergent. But there are others like Robert Webber's "Ancient Future Church".
Why does the emergent church not want to define itself?- we haven't figured out the definitions and language that will give us a new framework from which to do ecclessiology and ministry in a new way. Is it arrogant to think that church can be done in a different way? If it thinking that church for a new age has to look like the institutions that basically formed in partnership with American culture then we're doomed to fail. I really believe that to begin with a conversation without any foundation except the process of discerning together what God is calling us to be, is the only way we can progress.
If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if the emergent church gets to the point where we have conversations about ordination, same sex marriage/homosexual clergy, do we baptize babies, etc... I think we've framed our questions in the same ole, same ole modernist thinking and we've failed at being a church for postmodern culture....
That's ok, but it would just go to show that although the emergent church is coming- it's not us.
If you don't think it's on the way or not already here- read stan hauerwas's "a community of character" or rodney clapp's "a peculiar people" you will not be the same afterward. damn you stanley hauerwas- i can't think straight now.
Far too many comments to read in my lack of time now - but initial reaction is that I'm not ready to give up on the "irredemable" just yet!
We must have the new - while believeing in ressurection for the old!
My God this makes me so tired - I came here via Jonny Baker's blog and I'll be having words with him for sure - at 47 I'm an old guy - I was ordained as an Anglican in '86 - I worked for five years in an evangelical charismatic uk Baptist Church - I quit and worked with children in care because I got sick of know it all christians spouting off about powers and principalities and demonic institutions and such instead of getting on with loving justice and walking humbly and all that quiet stuff - I'm back in the saddle now and working with students and I suggest you put your sword away, stop bitching and get on with doing what you're doing and if the fruit is there then the people who matter will see it - we're not called to change the church but to change the world - rant over . . . if I have no business here then forgive me and carry on.
I understand what you're saying hadge, but the reality for some of us at least, is that we're being stifled in what we're trying to do for Jesus where we're at. It's not just a matter of being content where we're at and doing the work anyway. It's a problem of not being able to do God's work because of the resistance we encounter within Christ's own body.
For example, right now my pastor is increasingly suspicious of and resistant to my desire to involve the teens more in Christ's call to serve the poor and oppressed. To me that's an essential part of the gospel call, and yet in this very Republican, conservative church, anything that even slightly critical of free market capitalism seems dangerous. So If I'm forbidden to discuss issues of social justice in my church, do I just continue to serve where I'm at, or do I start or find something new that is more open to the full gospel?
Bill - I don't think I meant to give the impression that I or anyone else should become the lone ranger - in fact I am now working back in the Anglican denomination, licensed by the Bishop and part of a national network of chaplains to young people - I'm saying that we need to rethink where we fight the good fight.
Gandalf - I hear your point – it’s one reason why I left ministry and the conventional form of church to get a job in the secular world where I could work with the poor and downtrodden - maybe more of us should be thinking about doing so instead of wrestling with airheads - or join another church that is doing the stuff but is maybe theologically different - I don't know - I just know that this kind of discussion can be dangerously draining and circular . . . peace - I will be posting my thoughts more fully on my own blog soon.
All I can speak about is my experience, Tony. I recently planted a church in Minneapolis with the Baptist General Conference. I attend Bethel Seminary (I'll finish this year). However, I am not a Baptist. They haven't asked me to be ordained...or even licensed with them. I can follow God's call with integrity. One of things that attracted me to the Baptists is that they have very little of a power-structure. Though my friend Jeff Gauss and I like to gripe about the Baptists, we've never had our hands slapped nor have we been held back in any way.
Though Bethel is far from perfect, I have had a good deal of liberty to write things I want to write, I've had some professors who have brought up very challenging things about the nature of the Gospel, though not as much as I'd like, tis true. But I don't sense much of an edict from on high preventing any professor to challenge us. I've learned about womanist and feminist theologies. I've studied liberationist thought and been challenged to see the "already" nature of salvation--which results in a view of the church as God's eschatalogical people. I'd agree, however, that they are caught in the web of commodification and are focused too much on their own survival.
I feel like you are being too sweeping in your assault on organized religion. The emergent conversation is an exciting and new thing. But it isn't a Church unto itself. The Body is much larger than that. Btw, how would y'all respond to the critique in this article, which paints a picture of the emergent movement as being a bit exclusionary to women? http://www.the-next-wave.org/stories/storyReader$263
Tony, I like what you're saying, but here's the problem:
To the degree that emergence exists in real life (in the US) it is entirely an evangelical-fundamentalist phenomenon.
To the degree that emergence is not evangelical-fundamentalist, it exists purely as disembodied discourse, which is ultimately ineffectual and is ripe for appropriation and co-option by evangelical-fundamentalists.
This is gist of the criticism of your post here and here.
Steve Bush
http://harbinger.blogs.com
The need is for a rediscovery of the gospel. We, the church, have neutered the gospel. We do not need to go back to "better times." What we need is to see Jesus and His message for what it really is. This rediscovery changes everything - and we cannot go back.
I'm part of a small house church that has formed because we saw that there was no reasonable church in our city. I suppose that some people would call us emergent because we oppose many of the things that the emergent church folk oppose but we refuse to call ourselves emergent because we also disagree with a lot that we have seen in the emergent church. I think that some of the issue is that there is no real definition of emergent church besides a church that is trying to be different. I've been a part of an emergent group but I honestly didn't see it as that much different then evangellical church. They did services that were of the form: music, annoncements, music, sermon, more music, benediction. The ways that they were different were that they incorporated arts into the service, they talked about community, they tried to be more meditative, the sermons were more narative, etc. My point is that I saw that they were largely just changing the style of church. I didn't observe a real change in the focus of the church.
We hope to build a church where we can grow further in our obedience to God and closer to one another. I think that this is much more difficult then changing our style. We all know that it's hard to become more obedient to God but it is also really difficult to become completely transparent with a small group of people. A sub focus of the obedience to God is to serve the poor and oppressed. This is where I think that I can show an example of people considering different things essentials. I think that it is essential that the church defend the rights of the unborn. One of the posters insinuated that the church was wasting its time on this issue. I can't help be a little off topic but I have to point out that babies are dying here, millions of babies. How can fighting to stop this not be an essential? I know this is off topic so please don't feel like you need to respond to this.
Rose Mawhorter
http://www.mawhorter.org/blogs/rose
(I'm only anonymous because I'm not with blogger)
The problem I see with Emergent is that it is still caught in a cycle of thought that focuses on church...a new way of doing what we have come to understand as church that is not really what church is in the first place. It is like a dog chasing its own tail. My wife and I stepped out of "church" well over a year ago. It's not about a building, a place, a doctrine, a theology, a style of worship, ordination, rules, programs, or incentives. It is not a movement nor is it a structure. It is revolutionary in that it can happen at any point during any moment of any given time of day.
We stopped looking for church and started seeking God. He blessed us with a community, not a church community, but rather a city. We get to meet new people every day, develop relationships, and interact with a diverse group of people from all walks, faiths, and cultures.
We love God and we love others. Wow! Our work is our worship, our days are filled with the lives of others, and our songs are both new and established; they are the conversations that we get to share every time we meet someone new or someone familiar.
We are the Church, and we must go out into the world instead of trying to figure out how to get the world to come to us! Emergent is still caught up in trying to establish a type of church with a "community" lable instead of helping equipe people to go out into the community and drop the "church" lable. This doesn't require ordination, nor does it require membership. It requires a heart that is willing to take risks for the Kingdom. It requires a heart that is willing to love someone instead of some thing.
Pax!
Harlan
i love it when you talk like that
andrew jones
I like it and agree. Great post.
thanks jordon . . . ahhh . . where was i?
ah yes. i wanted to add a few things, regarding authority and ordination.
At the heart of emergence theory (by which our Emergentvillage is named), or how an organism/colony/community moves from low-level chaos to higher level structure, is a focus on low-level communication, local behaviour effecting the global, and the LACK of a single leader calling the shots. Cf, slime mold, bee hives, ant colonies, etc
"Observe the ant . . . . " Proverbs
In many parts of the emerging church, especially outside of teh USA where funds are low or non-existent, emerging churches are far more simple and there are no paid professionals. The 5-fold gifts come into play, simple churches meet whereever people live, people share life and give leadership to what God is doing. the only talk of ordination is for those who want to work with seminaries.
Also, from the emerging fringe there seems to be less anger with the institutions and more desire to work with them towards the common goal.
The worse bad mouthing towards institutionalism i have heard is from those deep inside the institution itself. Those on the emerging edge dont seem to be putting up a fight with seminaries or institutions and that may be because the institutions are seen as older brothers (prodigal son comes to mind), rather than enemies or competition.
Andrew Jones, writing from an emerging monastery.
I am betting there are many people.. both within and without emergent.. who would agree that the reformation did not go far enough. While some good and necessary things were accomplished, Luther did maintain close ties to the state.. to civil religion.. to what Brueggemann calls "the royal reality."
But you know.. in my own journey, I have heard the call to "Follow me," and in the last few years I have learned more about the meaning of that call and its cost.
In spite of that, I'm not quite willing to give up reformation language. In the first place, it might mean a new URL (LOL.. ouch.. count that cost again).. but more seriously, I think the conditions that created the first reformation are mirrored today, and I think the reformation itself was more diverse than the main stream writers have credited.
After all.. there were two groups.. the reformers and the radical reformers. The latter were perhaps the real "deconstructionists" of their day, and they saw more clearly to the core of the issues of Jesus followers versus Constantinian Christendom.
The sad part of this is .. I believe what we will see in the next decade or so is a similar process: a "radical" reformation and a mainstream one. Let's hope that by subversion, persuasion and the Spirit of God that there are more liberationists than reformers.
A very interesting read. About a year ago I was running away from the institutional church, convinced that "emergent" and "institution" were not compatible. I think there are no more emergent cliches outside of the church then inside. I actually hear more conversations and openness inside the church than outside; our family got frustrated by the cliches and typical emergent thinking.
In the church, because there are less like-minded people, there is actually fresher thinking, because we were made to actually start putting some feet to this "revolutionary" philosophy. It just seems like there is more room for actual conversations within the church; maybe this isn't normal, because we are now part of an institutional church that isn't about getting bigger. I guess that is why I appreciate this blog, iron sharpening iron within the emergent community, and a place where it is okay to say we are part of an institutional church and we really, really enjoy the community.
We are convinced that something cannot happen within the insitution--I guess I'm not ready to give up yet, and I'm definitely not ready to walk out and not look back.
FROM KRYPTON WITH LOVE? (emergent life and the modern matrix)
this has been a wonderful conversation... i have both 'seen the rabbit and taken the blue pill,' yet i still travel deep into the institution, as going there is something i think we emergents still need to do
(just as jesus went to jerusalem (not exactly fun). so it IS painful to have an implant (for this travel) lodged in the back of your neck.
for me, having the neck implant is traveling the episcopal and lutheran 'modern churchworld' matrix on a daily basis, as a vintage x black woman caring for a mostly gen y emergent community (church of the apostles, seattle).
each day, our twin institutions are a 'byzantine parent trap' and each day they are also our 'beloved spiritual tribes.' so, many of the things said by BOTH tony and chris i can relate to.
every other day i want to walk away from my tribes who often sap me of my emergent energy like modern kryptonite, but (like it or not) krypton is part of my heritage, and as i return there i am 'weakened by each exposure' of trying to 'relate' and 'connect' and help my tribes renew... and(like it or not) part of me DIES in the process, yet in this death, the life of Christ is in some small way being released.
this is the 'theology of the cross' - old bonhoeffer, old luther, and even older jesus' way of being and initiating change in and for the world, so even being emergent is not a 'do not pass go', around the cross. even being emergent, when Christ calls us, he bids us to come and die.'
with all that being said, each morning i pray for new life to be born in my tribes via this day to day 'death to life' struggle for emergence, resurrection and redemption for us all.
much peace to everyone.
from karen, bloggin at www.submergence.org
In the begining there was the Gen X Church (with it flannel shirts and misquoting Coupland)
Then the Postmodern (pomo) church, full of goatees and crazy about Leonard Sweet.
After that the Emergent Church, neo-hippies Starbucks coffee drinkers (until someone told them that Starbucks was evil, so they started drinking fair trade)
Now what?
The 90's cooler-than-thou pastors are now 40, bald and with a volleyball tummy. Still, no changes in the church (except for cool music, lotsa candles, and no suits).
It seems like the "emergent" leaders and pastors keep parroting and holding on to a lost dream. They are now punish to live the nightmare their "modern" forefathers lived. They are holding to a revolution-in-the-church that never came.
No matter how many books, talks about neo-theology, your use of ancient-future everything, seudo-community, techno-babble you use/invest/plan/include/swim/preach/dialogue/ - Please, wake up. For the sake of the Gospel.
Leave your americana-religion to the side. And go out and smell reality.
Your liquid church/mission/religion/relationship/gospel is evaporating.
I am new to the emergent conversation, although much of it resonates with my thoughts as well as my struggles with church and ministry as usual...
I am wondering what a "web of support" to encourage those willing to follow this new path would look like? How do you build something like that without institutionalizing it and killing its soul leaving only the style and flash?
MicahGirl
My parents are thinking about joining an emerging church movement. I am in my 20s and fully involved in my church (a different church from them)and think it just unsettles me! Yes, there are good elements of it, but surely you are moving away from what the bible teaches about the church? It all sounds a bit hippyish! You need to have apostolic leadership in the church, God loves the church and it seems that you are trying to reinvent the wheel which doesn't need reinventing. Go back to the Acts church, that is how we should be living!
Enoyed all the comments...Some random thoughts and questions:
1. If entry into the post-modern culture/mindset is one of Emergent's goals, then how is it any different than what missionaries since Paul have done when preaching the gospel to various social, philosophical and ethnic groups? Indeed, culutral adaptation and entry is common practice in missions work among "denominational" churches and para-church organizations. As impossible as it may seem (I believe it is the way to go) Wouldn't it be more profitable for the post-modern Christian community to work to convince the traditional denoms to recognize post-modern unbelievers as a unique culture in and of themselves.
2. The Emergent Church appears to be more of a philosophical/theological critique on contemporary practical ecclesiology than anything else.
3. In regards to evangelism, form, style and structure are secondary issues; they should modified and adjusted according Paul who claimed to have become all things to all men for the sake of saving some. If such is the focus of the church, do we necessarily need a movement such as the "Emergent Church?"
More so than Luther or Calvin, Paul was the first Christian reformer. In his dealing with the "orthodox church" of the times -- the church in Jerusalem -- he demonstrated obedience and respect even in regards to old Jewish customs so that he would not be a stumbling block to any of the "little ones" Jesus spoke so protectively of (cf Acts 21:21-27).
Having read B. Mclaren's article to C. Colson, I gathered that communication in truth and love did not seem to be the agenda of the outspoken Emergent church figure. Indeed, the post-modern "deconstructionist" view of the church and Christianity is just as skeptical and futile as J. Derrida's original theory of "differance" in the field of philosphy and literary criticsm.
4. Self-centered? Aside from the purpose of evangelism, revamping the structure and form of worship and how we "do" church stems from the consumeristic attitude in American Christianity. We want culture-centric music, drama, and style in the church, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, to label the change a new or emerging church is far from what it is.
5. Instead of the "emergent church," why not call it the "emergent mission," since that is ultimately what it is trying to achieve: social relevance for the sake of evangelism and contemporizing the church?
peace and grace,
mjw
I was pointed here by a friend (Jake) and feel I should register my opinion so you know how at least one reader responded. Please note I read the first comment above, and then decided I didn't have the time for the other sixty.
I never heard the term "emergent" until about 2 weeks ago, when Jake's blog (theofragen.com) inspired me to read up on it. I find much to admire about the thinking behind this movement, particularly the attempt to understand nonbelievers in today's world, and the desire to shake up the bureacracy of heavily-institutionalized denominations and seminaries.
However, practically everything I have read about the emergent church has struck me as entirely too self-aware. Emergent blogs and websites tend to point at themselves and their movement more than at the actual reforms or new principles and practices they espouse. In fact, it's nearly impossible to find any explicit delineation of these reforms, principles and practices -- only articles extolling their virtues.
It's nothing to claim over and over again, "No, we're doing something new!" From my perspective the emergent church is doing practically nothing besides making this one claim. I would be much more impressed by a movement that simply did what it set out to accomplish, quietly and without trumpet fanfares, while letting the rest of Christendom, as well as the secular media, laud its accomplishments.
Scripture itself recommends this second approach: the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing (Matthew 6), and it is not the son who says he will obey his father, but the one who actually does obey, who is truly obedient (Matthew 21).
Besides, it seems disingenuous to claim that the emergent church is overwhelmingly new, so much so that any connections to existing movements or denominations are beneath notice. Nothing new occurs under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1) -- all things merely stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before. It would be healthy for emergent thinkers to project themselves two hundred years into the future, and meditate on Ecclesiastes 1 as they do so, particularly this verse: "There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow." Something about the tone of most emergent thinkers brings to my mind Romans 12: "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in acccordance with the measure of faith God has given you." Emergent thinkers do have something valuable to contribute to Christendom. Let's not get carried away by thinking they are reinventing Christianity itself.
Besides, claiming the emergent church is entirely new only alienates believers in other movements/denominations, such as myself, rather than welcoming them with open arms. Why not make the more reasonable claim that the emergent church is simply the next step? Sadly, the tone of most emergent thinkers has made me suspect they don't take this more reasonable approach because they're less interested in building something new than they are in repudiating what is old.
Case in point: the title of this article, "Throwing Down the Gauntlet." Is that an attitude worthy of title "Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings" (Isaiah 58)?
I think this attitude is best summed up in the line, "We have taken the blue pill, and there's no going back." The fact of the matter is that there is no blue pill. The Matrix was a movie, not reality. The only blue pill I know of is the Bible itself, and it has been given to all Christendom (even all mankind), not only emergent thinkers. The Holy Spirit indwells all believers -- none of us have a special "inside scoop" from God. Emergent thinkers should be less interested in trying to nail another 95 thesis to the door, and more interested in restoring other believers gently, according to Galatians 6:
"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."
P.S. Jake set me straight about which does which, the red pill/blue pill. My mistake. I apologize for that paragraph. Please disregard it -- your point makes much more sense, now that I've got my pills straight.
The more I read about the "emergent church," the more it looks like the "innovative" schemes used by (lazy) liberal teachers to instruct children how to read. Remember when phonics was replaced by the "whole word" nonsense?
Religious doctrine, dogma, liturgy, catechism, clerical structure and governance are too important to be left in the hands of amateurs and play actors.
Amazing to think that one would no more trust an unlicensed "electrician" to fix the wiring in his or her house, or a quack to perform surgery, but to allow non-ordained "ministers" attend to a flock for the most important service, i.e. helping people to achieve salvation through Jesus, the so-called "emergent church" is giving a green light to rampant dilletantism.
Example: at a small baptist church in the northeast, a small group of participants attend a "contemplative service" where the "eucharist" is served and the Book of Common Prayer provides the bones of the liturgy. But guess what, the hosts are not "consecrated" by a properly ordained minister.
Sadly, I must confess that in my desire for a more traditional liturgical service, my yearnings overtook my better judgment and at first I thought these "services" were fine. But they should've served coffee instead of grape juice for their "wine." I would've come to my senses sooner.
A year ago, I returned to my Catholic Faith. At least I know and take it on faith that the Host is Jesus Christ.
"Emergents," stop fooling yourself with this sloppy theological movement. Get with a real church with a real structure and a real creed and a real catechism. You don't need baby food when you can handle the real food. In other words, GROW UP!
Post a Comment
<< Home