I for the most part agree with this statement, but *bleck* on the use of the word 'organic'. That has become way too cliche and is even less informative than 'emerging.' *Bleck* all over!

"We approach things more creatively, more organically."

Ya know, manure is organic, too; and with some gritty sand, some chopped straw, just the right amount of water, and a whole lot of elbow grease you can make daub...which is pretty funny, because that's what a lot of the medieval peasants used for constructing their homes.
So it's good to see that the newer generation is relying on good old fashion (metaphorically speaking) techniques to "doing" church.

Seriously, I find these "us" vs "them" comments of "doing" church to be cliche and overused.

i guess that's one way to put it.

i'd say it's simply the recognition that everyone in Jesus' day - including Jesus - didn't carry their NKJV bibles to small groups every thursday night, pray for a close parking place at wal-mart, or try to find a 'church' they could 'get something out of' on Sunday mornings.

somebody got lucky (but it was an accident)* and realized this was supposed to be a lifestyle and not another to-do list appointment.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

* bob dylan, pledging my time

I don't like this quote 'out of its context' for the same general sentiment expressed so far. It sounds like a huge overgeneralization and it smacks of pride (I'm sure it sounds different 'in its context'--so maybe I'll have to get the print version).

Anyway, I understand the epistemology of Western philosophy, which was launched with the Enlightenment, and makes Dave's comment somewhat valid. HOWEVER, it reads more like this: "Yeah, people have been getting this 'how to do church' thing all screwed up for about 500 years or so. But luckily me and my buddies figured it out. So, it's all good now."

question: does being respectful to history mean we are not allowed to do old things in new ways in the present?

I just get that feeling from some of the comments recently. It's as if since it has happened in the history of the Christian faith it can't be talked about in fresh ways in the present. I don't think that's what some of my brothers and sisters here mean, but I just thought I'd ask.

grace and peace

I would have to agree with the Jonathan. I am a young adult, and the last thing I want is more of that "us and them" talk when it comes to age and generations. We need to bridge a gap between the differences of styles or "doing church" not point at them and elevate them. Just a thought...

Interesting post.
I loved it.
I think we can never find the right approach to ministry until we let God direct us and we consult Him on what we do and want to do in our church. May God never be left out. Again, great post yet again. I frequent this blog quite often. Keep up the great blogging.
I have another request that is off the topic if you don't mind. I have a prayer request on my blog for a family that is suffering greatly. I have never seen this kind of trial and difficulty that this family has had and I have work in ministry for over 15 years. So please...stop by and make a differnce for this family.
God bless you in all you do.
In Him,
Kinney Mabry
Aka,
Preacherman

Here we go again . . . another clanging emergent cymbal.

Has everyone just gotten bored with church? And if so, is the church out of whack, or are these people just no longer putting up with sound doctrine?

BRAVO for the comment about the over-use of the word "organic". If I hear of one more "organic" ministry or Bible-study, I'm gonna blow synthetically processed chunks!

Sorry about that. Blame it on over 20 years of youth ministry.

You want "organic?" Try the 1960's, now THAT was an "organic" time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again (maybe I should write a book about it, everybody else writes books), but all this "new" emerging, organic, creative talk is pretty much Jesus People Movement 2.0. That's not to say we don't need some fresh reminders to keep it fresh. oooh another organic term.

Yes...and, No.

That's all I can 'organically' come up with at this late hour.

I'll do better next time...

I might disagree that liner leadership began with the Enlightenment (what, there was no Pope before the 1500s?), and the buzzwords "art" and "organic" don't appeal to me, but the idea Dave is expressing is sound: Biblically, there's more than one way to run a church. "Submit yourselves one to another" requires some form of co-submission even for leaders. This is an idea I've come to accept only recently. You don't have to be "emergent" to know that an organization isn't an organism. Only one of them is the New Testament church.

I'm all for fresh, innovative methods of delivering sound doctrine - in fact, I think it's crucial.

I'm just concerned when I hear doctrine and leadership spoken of in disparaging terms.

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth - the soft, compromising nature of the latest trends threaten to turn it into the "pillow and cessation" of truth (cue cymbal crash).

Ah... nothing like blasting away at a few words taken out of context. Maybe the point of this segment is for us to seek the context before being so quick to approve or disapprove? I think I sat in a seminary class once that taught me the importance of doing just that.

TNL church's leadership philosophy and structure is very much reflective of their own unique story and journey, not just postmodernism in general. Rather than fire away at Dave's comment, spend that brief amount of time looking at the story behind it. It'll be worth it.

The original church was 'organic' because it was an 'organism' -- it was the only living being that did away with buildings, priests, sacrifices, and rituals. (You could use the definition that it indeed "affected living tissue".) Thus it evolved organically: developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth.

'Ekklesia' was used each time in the Bible to describe the human component of the Body of Christ, literally.

Many leaving the church are returning to this because of a hunger for the original G-d and Christ instead of following contrived humanistic forms that follow adopted manmade rules & ritual, mostly from the time of Constantine. Also, the choice to leave institutional Christianity is because many of those inside are closed off to change and the wish for unity is stronger than division.

This is the gentle prophetic voice.

So, emergents are simply seeking to return to the glorious, pristine simplicity of the original "organic" church?

That wouldn't be the church recorded in the book of Acts and addressed in the New Testament letters, would it?

Nah, couldn't be. That church had to deal with issues of racism, sexism, class envy, favoritism, and petty schisms - not to mention incest (of a kind that does not occur even among pagans!) and rambunctious partying at the Communion table!

I'm weary of those trying to create the perfect church - whether you call it a generous orthodoxy or a Christianity worth believing.

I've always heard that if you find the perfect church, don't join it - you'll ruin it.

I've also heard that this emergent movement is for the "spiritually mature".

Sorry, but "spiritually mature" sounds like another way of saying "holier than thou".

Wow, a leadership model developed on the model of US... some people would call it an Elder polity with shared leadership which is rooted in the Scripture... but I guess U2 works just as well and it is a lot more culturally relevant than the NT.