Posts Tagged ‘Culture’

Theology

We’ve explored two specific marks of the missional church over three different posts. This leads us to the last mark of the missional church — a theologically educated laity. As one approaches the general laity in his or her congregation, he or she can quickly assess whether or not the local church has properly served its congregants by providing some type of theological education for engaging everyday life. In the trend of seeker-sensitivity, many churches have neglected theology believing that “seekers” individuals have no interest in such training. However, Tim Keller suggests that missional churches need to theologically train laity for their vocations when he explains, “In a ‘missional’ church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…lay people renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocations must be lifted up as ‘real kingdom work’ and ministry along with the traditional ministry of the Word” (p. 2). As seminaries continue to close their doors and biblical illiteracy increases, theological education of laity must be of utter importance in the Church’s call to disciple-making.
The twenty-first Church continues to struggle with its identity in the current context. However, there are numerous things, which the Church should continue to focus upon, if it is to be a peculiar people. The Church has and must continue to be shaped by the Great Commission, specifically surrounding the area of discipleship. As stated, discipleship is the most important task for the twenty-first century, missional Church. In light of this, the Church must paradoxically engage culture while at the same time promoting a counter-cultural mentality. These are difficult to balance, but the Church must be able to do both. The missional Church is counter-cultural specifically by promoting multiracial communities and rejecting consumerism and nationalism. In the end, it is important that laity be theologically trained in order to participate as missional people in daily life. The Church for so long has relied on Christendom to assist its efforts for making disciples. However, Christendom overemphasized conversion and not discipleship; thus, neglecting the Great Commission. The people of Christ are to be a peculiar people. If the Church forgets this and falls into the trap of overemphasizing something like relevance, it forgets its identity. If the Church focuses strictly on conversion, it forgets its identity. If the Church becomes racially homogeneous, it forgets its identity. Thus, the Church is a peculiar people, and a peculiar people that have forgotten their identity can never fulfill Christ’s words to “make disciples of all nations.” These things must mark the missional Church in order to do ministry in a twenty-first century context.

There is not enough time to cover all the “marks” so what “marks” would you add?

+++++++

Conclusion of series on “The Marks of the Missional Church”

Read Part 1 on Discipleship here. Part 2 - (Counter)Culture 1 here. Part 3 - (Counter)Culture 2 here.

Citations for all posts:

1. DeYoung, C. P., Emerson, M. O., Yancey, G., & Kim, K. C. “All Churches Should Be Multiracial”, in Christianity Today 49 (April, 2005).
2. Emerson, M. O. & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by faith: evangelical religion and the problem of race in America. New York: Oxford.
3. Hirsh, A. (2006). The forgotten ways. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.
4. Keller, T. (2001). “The missional church.”
5. Walsh, B. J. & Keesmaat, S. C. (2004). Colossians remixed: subverting the empire. Downers Grove: IVP.

Consumerism

Thoughts on a multiracial church lead to the second way in which the Church must be counter-cultural. The Church must be counter-cultural by standing against the overwhelming consumerism, most prevalent in American culture. Emerson and Smith suggest that evangelicals are not immune to consumerism when they state, “The organization of American religion is characterized by disestablishment, pluralism, competition, and consumer choice. This organization is partly shaped and often capitalized on by evangelicals. And as a consequence of sociological and social psychological principles at work, congregations become and remain highly racially homogeneous” (p. 151; emphasis mine). The racial homogeneity of Christian congregations is a by-product of the emphasis of the surrounding culture.

(more…)

Culture

For the people of God to “make disciples of all nations,” they must be not run from culture but engage it. Keller suggests that Christians engage the stories of the culture in order that they might restate the stories in light of the gospel. Christians will be faced with a strong temptation to fall into sectarianism, but they must never yield to this. Engaging the culture marks the missional Church, as Keller states that “to ‘enter’ [the culture’s stories] means to show sympathy toward and deep acquaintance with the literature, music, theater, etc. of the existing culture’s hopes, dreams, ‘heroic’ narratives, fears” (p. 2). The missional Church must familiarize itself with its surrounding culture.

The Church has always been tempted to over-engaged culture that it becomes the culture’s bedfellow. Paradoxically, the missional Church must engage culture and be counter-cultural at the same time. If the Church is not counter-cultural, it ceases to be a peculiar people and abandons its calling. The Church has often neglected its calling by overemphasizing the desire to be relevant in order to reach the culture for Christ. However, in many situations, the Church fails to look different from culture since the people of God were so concerned with looking like society.

(more…)

One other thought about homosexuality, and its place in the emerging church. If the emerging church continues to promote homosexuality to the top of its list of revisions to be (or not be) made, we run the risk of making it the issue. Thus, we fall into the same trap as our evangelical, conservative brothers and sisters, and we are right back to where we started.

Conservatives have made homosexuality (so to speak) the “number one sin.” In order to counteract conservatives, liberals have done the “pendulum swing” and promoted it as acceptable (or perhaps the former was to counteract latter). Emergent circles must be careful of being part of any “extreme” and must, rather, in order to promote discussion, remain more down-the-middle on homosexuality and the church. This is not to say one cannot hold one of the extremes as his or her viewpoint, but he or she must always allow the discussion to come to the middle for sake of unity.

Remember as a kid when your mom would tell you not to touch something because it was hot? Or, better yet, remember the last time you sipped your coffee too quickly, your synapses fired-the coffee’s too hot!!!-and you had to do that gag-thing to get it down (or you spat it out)? Many Christians have felt the same way about homosexuality. “It’s hot! Don’t touch it! Don’t get near it! Sit down! Don’t move!” Or we’ve engaged in a conversation about homosexuality in the church, sipped a little of it, realized that it was too hot (because your friend is angry like that), and gagged on the conversation just to get past it? Yeah, I’ve been there.

The issue of homosexuality in the church has been somewhat of a “hot topic” (understated) in

recent years. We, evangelicals, are partially to blame for this. Not only have we often condemned it over every other “sin,” we’ve actually have had a few of our main opponents of the issue take part in homosexual relationships (and, hence, their hypocrisy was exposed). However, I have to say that a fair amount of this condemnation has come as a counterattack to mainline churches and denominations that have accepted homosexual men and women and their lifestyles.

Much of this has ended in angry debates, harsh words, and hurt feelings. Mainliners have felt ostracized by evangelicals, and, equally so, evangelicals have felt so by mainliners.

Enter the emerging church.

Often, the emerging church been condemned for not taking a stance on homosexuality. This has come from people from the outside looking into the emerging church. Anyone in the emerging conversation will tell you, there is no “emerging church stance” on homosexuality. There are multiple opinions, and, unlike a denomination (which the emerging church is not one), it does not have a “set leadership” (per se), and so there is no possible way for emergents to have a “doctrinal statement” that includes the topic (and likely never will be). Thus, if you are looking for the emerging church’s stance on the issue, you’ll never find it because if you talk to me I’d say one thing, and, if you talk to someone else, they’d say another. It’s not as simple as a doctrinal statement.

However, many emergents within evangelical circles have attempted to remove the idea that homosexuality is the issue (along with abortion, of course). During the election, such people were reminding their fellow evangelicals, “Don’t be two-issue voters.” The reason is that the Bible has a few (somewhat obscure) passages about homosexuality, but it has many, many passages about helping the oppressed so, just by that fact alone, we should reevaluate how we vote (plus, Jesus didn’t really mention “homosexuality,” but he sure hangs with the poor folk).

My issue is this, as emergents, we must be sure to have open dialog about homosexuality. We must be continued to be known for this. We do not need a doctrinal statement. We are not a denomination. But we do need to have open discussion. We must belittle those who disagree with us. We must not say, “Well, you would agree with homosexuality if you just had a homosexual friend.” This is simply not true [and I think such a response is (how do you say?) a "cop-out"].

Here’s what I propose to all Christians, not just emergents — let us have an open discussion about the issue. But let us remember, we will not all agree on the matter.

It is not as simple as, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it!” If that were the case, we wouldn’t have so many denominations or disagreements. Also, it’s not as simple as, “The culture of the Bible was different than ours.” Such an argument neglects global Christianity and the views of millions (billions?) of Christians across the world.

For me, when I want to talk with someone, we grab coffee. So…let’s grab coffee together (we’ll make sure it’s not too hot). Or some fish and chips. Or some lo mein. Or something they eat in Africa. But let’s talk. Let love be on our lips. Our positions will undoubtedly hurt someone, but let’s talk. It’s OK to disagree. It’s OK to walk away without a settling the matter. It’s OK to get ask for a refill, even though it costs $.53. Let’s do it.

But, if we neglect to talk and neglect to do it lovingly and open to disagreement, we may just create our own cliques, or worse, more denominations.

So, would you like to grab a cup of coffee with me?

I’m a little late at getting to this. Sorry, but here you go -

Highlights of the week:

1. my birthday was this past weekend. Likely, the best birthday I’ve had yet. Amanda really went out of her way to make me feel special, and I appreciated that. If you’re married, have you ever had a moment where you said, “Now, I know why I love him/her so much”? It was that type of moment. We had friends over on Saturday, and we had a family dinner at Pizzeria Uno’s on Sunday.
2. Eagles are going to the NFC Championship gaming after laying the “smack down” on the Giants.
3. my post Why I’m Not Emergent received much acclaim. Emergent Village’s Twitter-feed was the first to mention it, followed by Baptimergent’s Twitter-feed. I hope to compile all of this later.

Book(s) I’m reading

1. The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier by Tony Jones
2. The Art & Craft of Biblical Preaching: A Comprehensive Resource for Today’s Communicators edited by Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson

Couch-potato:

1. Been playing a lot of Rock Band and Rock Band 2. Amanda enjoys it so it’s kinda like we are bonding. I guess, we are.
2. NFL Playoffs have been holding my attention, especially since the Eagles are still in it.

Had a good laugh at: Donovan McNabb’s mid-game “phone call” on the Giants’ sideline. I thought it was pretty funny.

Like I said, I thought it was funny. But Troy Aikman didn’t. I find it slightly hypocritical because I seem to remember a certain Dallas Cowboys team that the before-mentioned QB was on where the players danced after every good play. Talk about wondering what “goes through guys’ heads.”

Job update: likely having an interview for an automotive salesperson position. Not sure when, but my aunt is trying to hook me up. Probably, this week or next.

Seminary update: I was chosen to speak first for my homiletics class this Saturday. I will be speaking on Job 28. I guess if you go first, they don’t have anyone to compare you to so that should work out.

Looking forward to:

1. Eagles vs. Cardinals in the NFC Championship Game. Go Eagles!
2. Eagles the Super Bowl. Yes, book it.
3. Paula Abdul to be phased-out from American Idol. Yes, book it. Why do you think there is all-of-a-sudden another female judge? Can American Idol keep 4 judges?
4. Spending a night this weekend in downtown Philadelphia with Amanda.

I remember a story about a famous punk rock star, who was walking down the street as he was being interviewed by a journalist. The journalist asked this individual, “What is punk rock?” The rocker, hearing the question, turned to a nearby trashcan, kicked it down, and said, “That’s punk rock!” Believing to now understand the punk rock scene, the journalist kicked down an adjacent trashcan. “That’s punk rock?” he said. The rock star smiled and replied, “No, that’s trendy.”

Part of my original attraction to the Emergent conversation was that I didn’t have to be defined by my theology. Specifically, I didn’t have to do theology in a systematic way. For instance, if I believed in Calvin’s doctrine on atonement, I didn’t have to be a “Calvinist” (whatever that is). Equally attractive was that I could believe in Arminian free will, and those who disagreed with me wouldn’t resent me but actually engage in conversation with me. Thus, I wasn’t defined by my theology, but I was defined by my humanity. I wasn’t seen as an “outsider” because I didn’t hold the exact same theology as those who disagreed with me. Instead, I was listened to and engaged with by others. I guess that means we were “in conversation.”

Our human (modern?) desire is to define each other. “He or she is a Democrat.” That feels good. It’s comfortable. We now “know” who/what they are all about. But the problem is that people are just messier than definitions. We don’t fit in boxes very easily no matter how hard we struggle to. I’m not a Calvinist, but neither is John Calvin. I’m not a mainliner, but neither is Walter Brueggemann. I’m not Anglican, but neither is N.T. Wright. We are not confined to our boxes, but we our defined by our humanity; or better yet, our new humanity. Part of becoming a follower of Jesus is shedding definitions, breaking out of boxes, and helping others do the same. We are under the umbrella of Christianity, but one person sharing it may be different (and is allowed to be) than another person sharing the same umbrella.

This being said, it has become slightly popular to now say, “I’m Emergent.” To which I respond, “What? Doesn’t that kick against everything that is ‘emergent’?” I do understand the purpose of definitions, but my fear is that if we define ourselves by “Emergent” we may exclude those who aren’t. Once we define ourselves as that, we reinforce the lumping of the individual into what other people call “Emergent.” For instance, someone says, “Evan is Emergent;” thus, he must agree with Brian McLaren when he says such and such, and Tony Jones when he says such and such, and Doug Pagitt when he says such and such. If one must be defined as “Emergent,” then I’m not Emergent.

Like the story above, punk rock isn’t something you are or do, but it’s an “ideal” or a “mindset.” Similarly, Emergent must not be something one is, but rather it must remain a mindset since there are certain Emergent ideals (e.g., missional living). So, if one who follows those ideals is “Emergent,” then I am Emergent.

Emergent is a working definition (a work in-progress per se). It must refrain from attempting to be fully defined…because it can’t be. It is not defined, rather Emergent is defining and re-defining; and it should remain this way.

Maybe we could say, “If you say you’re Emergent, you aren’t”? You can’t be Emergent. Emergent is a conversation. It cannot be ultimately defined. You can live Emergent. You can embody Emergent, but you are not definitively Emergent. You are a human, a new creation, one created in the image of God.

My prayer is that term “Emergent” will soon phase out and that the ideals of Emergent will become what it simply means to be “Christian” (which I think already does mean so).

Postmoderns are OK with paradox so – I am not Emergent. I cannot be defined. I am messier than that. But I am Emergent. I hold those ideals. I have that mindset. I believe in the missional call of Christ. I believe in conversation. I believe in unity.

Part of being Emergent (I believe) is that you simultaneously aren’t. You are part of something bigger than yourself, but you cannot be defined. You are part of a movement that needs no definition. It has ideals, but it can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t be fully defined.

So, I guess I’m not Emergent because I am.

I was contacted by the creator of this video, Randy Brandt, and he let me know that this was not an attack on the Emergent movement, but it was meant for humor. Please read the comments for this post to see what Randy said.

God bless, Randy. I pray that there will be more “Randy’s” on both sides of the spectrum.

[the original post is below]

–

Credit to Tall Skinny Kiwi for pointing out this video.

It seems that most are viewing this video as an attack on the Emergent church. However, it was really funny so it may simply be a well-intentioned satire (but I doubt it).

But, if it is an attack, my question is, “Have we gone too far?” I know we all won’t agree, but isn’t equating the Emergent/emerging movement with Hitler too much? Even poking fun at one of the most tragic events in human history is upsetting in and of itself, don’t you think?

I would like to caution us to be (uhh…) cautious in our criticism and be loving in the avenues we choose to use when doing so. If this video is an attack, then I find neither cautious nor loving.

Highlight(s) of the week: (1) The Phillies won the World Series! (2) Partying at Five Points in NE Philadelphia. (3) Parade with Amanda and Giselle. (4) Amanda has been incredibly supportive of me, and I really appreciate it (see “Ministry Update/Something(s) that broke my heart” for reason why). (5) Sunday - I got to go to The Well, and I actually was able to go to church with my family without having to do a million things (again, see below). (6) Amanda made waffles for breakfast yesterday. That was really cool.