Posts Tagged ‘emerging church’

• Highlight(s) of the week:

1. The inauguration of President Obama was exciting, as expected. I look forward to the next four years with great anticipation.
2. I had a few job interviews lined up so it’s nice to know someone is interested in me.
3. I had a good conversation with someone about the emerging church. Basically explained that it’s not perfect, but much of what’s going on within it are good things.
4. Had a snow day yesterday, which allowed me to catch-up on some much needed sleep (which I’m losing some more of tonight).

• Disappointed by: (1) the reason I am up at 4 AM this morning typing this is because Giselle won’t sleep so…yeah. I think (I hope!) she’s teething. (2) Amanda and I are sick. Amanda more than me. (3) All the “hate” I’ve been hearing from people about Obama, the emerging church, and differing theological views. It’s just wearing on me.

• Books I’m reading:

1. The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier by Tony Jones - on hold for…
   
2. Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life by Ed Cyzewski

• Job update: had/have a few interviews. I hope to get a job full time, but two part-time is acceptable right now.

• Seminary update: finished the class on preaching. I have to hand-in a short essay, and then it will be complete. Next class is with Peter Enns, who I’ve quoted numerous times on this site, so I look forward to it.

• Looking forward to: (1) the next 4 years. Just interested more than thinking “Obama’s the messiah” type of thing. (2) Giselle to fall asleep. Is it bad to set up a pack-and-play in the basement and let your child “cry it out” there? I just may do it. Haha! but seriously. (3) Getting better. (4) Finding a job. I feel like it’s right around the corner.

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 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.

(I have chosen “Fwd:” to be at the front of the title as opposed to “Re:” to express that I am forwarding this knowledge to you, not rebutting my dear friend Tim’s post)

Tim’s reflection upon my last post “Emergence and the Struggle for Power” is a fair one, and I enjoy dialoging with him further upon the matter. Please read Tim’s reflection as an addition to my last post. I would like to make a quick point or two:

1. Power: I have used the word “power” to be synonymous with influence. I do believe, however, that we, as humans, struggle with and fear losing influence with our respective audiences. We fear “sharing the limelight,” so to speak. There is an underlying “us vs. them” feeling. For example, if you listen to my rival instead of me, I am somewhat hurt, and I would prefer that you listen to me. I will go to great extents to win you over. Or, if you like the those stinkin’ Mets, I will try to convince you to cheer for the Phillies. Why? Because I desire to have some influence on you, and I want you to see it “my way.” The same is true with (what I have termed) “good ol’ Protestantism” and “Emergence.” As Tim said, it’s the “Us” (former) and “Why not us?” (latter). Which leads me to my next point that influence determines what will survive.
2. Survival: I think ultimately we must not fear new movements. Whether people like to admit it or not, Christianity (i.e., orthodox Christianity) will survive because of new movements from within. Christianity survived because of the fundamentalist movement of the early 1900s (fundamentalist as in “fundamentals,” not what it’s become) even though a lot of baggage came with it. Christianity will survive because of Emergence, I believe, because it questions what is “old skin” and asks us to remove it to pursue a more rich and life-fulfilling faith that follows the life of Jesus.
3. No More “Us vs. Them”: lastly, the “us vs. them” feeling should be left behind when we are in conversation with one another. Rather, as McLaren says, it should be “some of us for all of us.” That is what Christiantiy is. It’s not  us vs. the Muslims, or us vs. the far left wing, or us vs. (whatever else). It is some of us (Christians) for all of us (all humanity). We as Christians must dialog with each other over how we may be salt and light in the world. These conversations are much more beneficial to all of us.

So, please read Tim’s addition to my post, and I hope I was able to clear up some more of what I understand.

I had a chance to listen to Phyllis Tickle give a sermon titled “Ancient Disciplines for the Church” at Mars Hill Bible Church (i.e., Rob Bell’s church). She reflected upon that about every 500 years there is a major change in the Christian Church. 500 years ago, we experienced the Protestant Reformation. 500 years before that, the Great Schism (East and West Church split). 500 years earlier, the Council of Chalcedon. 500 years before that, what she calls “the Great Transformation” — Jesus comes on the scene, followers of Judaism transform to followers of Jesus (which is obviously where this all started for the Christian Church). I think you get the picture. Phyllis Tickle continues to talk about how today we are experiencing the “Great Emergence.” Whenever a 500 year period passes and a new one comes on the scene, the old is not done away with, but the new is tacked on and removes some of the old skin (so to speak). For instance, Roman Catholicism was not done away with by the Protestant Reformation, but the Reformation removed some of the old skin that layered Christianity (such as the rethinking of the priesthood to “all Christians are priests,” etc.).

As I personally reflect on our past 500 years and look at the Great Emergence, I see that the Emergence is simply saying, “Let’s keep the good of the old, but we’ve gone too far with this, this, and this.” For instance, good ol’ Protestantism does not die here, but we say, “The emphasis of personal, spiritual growth is good, but we’ve gone too far in getting rid of anything we perceive to be ‘Roman’ such as images of any kind in church (some Protestants even have removed the image of the cross…yikes!).”

The question arises in my own mind, then why are people so afraid of the Emergence? Then it hit me - it ultimately comes down to power. Subconsciously, people are afraid that if the emerging church (or the emergents) get their way, we will no longer be in power, and they will be. Now, we all want control. Even emergents speak the same way about whatever has gone before them, “Well, if we fix this, this, and this, and we do such and such, and if we are leading the way, it will all get better.” Unfortunately, this all boils down to the “Us vs. Them” fiasco. Those who dislike the Emergence, deny its influence and condemn it, why?…because it’s a power struggle. Those who are part of the Emergence, poke fun at the old regime and deny its influence, why?…because it’s a power struggle. “If they are out and we are in, it will be perfect.”

The solution then is, I believe, to accept the good and the bad from both. Build off of the past 500 years, remove the bad, and add some good to it. We should not deny the influence of the Great Emergence (or that it exists…which it does). The Reformation brought a lot of good, right? And a lot of bad, too. But no Protestant is sitting there saying, “I wish that Reformation never happened because it has brought about a lot of baggage.” They are saying, “The Reformation brought some baggage, but also some good. Let’s get started!” Or now one is saying, “That pesky John Calvin! I wish he never existed.” They don’t because in many ways what we deem “bad” has made us a better, stronger church. For instance, particularly in the past 100 years, conservative Protestantism (if I may use that term) has fallen short by emphasizing the rescuing of “souls” so much that they neglected the social aspects of the gospel. On the other side of the spectrum, Emergence reminds us that one’s physical condition is important, but it must at times remember that so are “souls” (I don’t believe either would deny this things in word but often can by implication in deed). If we do so, we can become a stronger church.

Therefore, I conclude: we must put behind our “us vs. them” struggles–our power struggles–and we must accept the new Emergence as a chance to remove some of the old skin. Simultaneously, we must remember our past and the influence it has had on the world. Thus, by looking back, we can create a greater future for the Christian Church and its mission for the world.

You can listen to Phyllis Tickle’s talk on Mars Hills’ website here.