September 22, 2008

Pagitt on Emergence, Emergent, & Emerging...Huh?

In this video, Doug Pagitt explains the relationships between the terms emerging, Emergent, and "emergence." It strikes me as trying to decide which layer of the Incredible Gobstopper is the actual Gobstopper. But you should decide for yourself.

--Url

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 22, 2008 | Comments (29) | TrackBack

September 19, 2008

R.I.P. Emerging Church

by Url Scaramanga

"The emerging church will disappear." That is what my informant told me as we shared drinks at our clandestine watering hole. I felt like Luca Brasi being handed a dead fish wrapped in newspaper. The hit had been ordered?the emerging church's fate had been sealed. In my informant's mind, the death of the emerging church was a settled matter. I double-checked my surroundings for listening ears before whispering, "How can you be so sure?" The informant (who worked for a publisher) leaned forward and said their marketing plans included dropping the "Emerging Church" brand within two years.

That was two years ago.

Now comes word from recognized leaders and voices within the emerging church movement that the term has become so polluted that it is being dropped. Consider Dan Kimball. He wrote the book on the emerging church - literally. His 2003 book, The Emerging Church, reintroduced the term into the evangelical lexicon. In Kimball's blog post from last week he writes:

Although I am finding that the term [emerging church] has become so broad now and so confusing, it is very important to know that I am not by any means stopping being involved and pursuing the heart and mission of what the term "emerging church" originally meant. At least in how I was personally using it when I wrote the book 6 years ago.

What did the term mean 6 years ago? Kimball defined it this way: "If you were to have asked me what the core of the emerging church is, I would have responded with ?evangelism and mission in our emerging culture to emerging generations.'" But, according to Kimball, few people associate emerging with evangelism anymore. (He finds himself using the term missional instead.) Today, Kimball says:

I can't defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as "the emerging church" anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with.

The other recent voice in favor of dumping the term emerging church, is Andrew Jones (a.k.a. Tall Skinny Kiwi). Like Kimball, Jones has been an advocate for emerging ideas. (He even co-signed Emergent's "Answers to Critics" declaration.) Jones conducted a poll on his blog asking whether or not to dump the emerging church term. The results were 60/40 in favor of killing the expression.

Jones travels internationally, and he's recognized that in many places (particularly parts of Europe) the term emerging church is still a popular, defined, and generally positive idea. But he concludes:

There are some countries and circles where I am no longer using the word. The word no longer communicates what I want it to so, even though I will still be in support of Emerging Church ventures like this excellent one from the Church of Scotland, I will no longer be using the word for myself and the ministries that we support.

Words change. We give meaning to words and we take it away. The word is problematic for many American institutions and often insulting to European ministries that preceded their American counterparts.

So . . . most of you said to dump it and I will. But I am still staying connected to many ministries around the world that are using it.

It seems my informant's prophetic word has come to pass. The emerging church is dead - at least in nomenclature, if not in spirit. Both Jones and Kimball are dropping the term while trying to remain faithful to the original intention of the movement. And they represent many other church leaders and bloggers who are moving toward a post-emerging church reality.

As the emerging church rides off into the sunset, where does that leave things? Well, news has been leaking about a new network being formed by Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus, and Scot McKnight among others. I understand further meetings will be happening this week to help solidify the group. The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church's mistake - define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn't get hijacked. If they do their work carefully, perhaps the new network can avoid getting "wacked" in every sense of the word.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 19, 2008 | Comments (45) | TrackBack

May 9, 2008

The Emerging Synagogue?

While following a relatively uninteresting trail of research recently (which I won't retrace here), I happened upon Synagogue 3000 (S3K). This consortium of rabbis and other Jewish leaders is committed to offering "challenging and promising alternatives to traditional synagogue structures." They call themselves "Jewish Emergents," and their understanding of their mission is, in some ways, very similar to that of the Christian Emergent movement.

They are concerned, for example, with communicating authentic faith in a postmodern idiom, which has compelled them to move worship beyond the synagogue. So, they are meeting in homes, bars, and coffee houses, among other places. They are resurrecting some ancient practices, such as worshiping in Hebrew, while ignoring others. And they are reconsidering the qualifications for participation and leadership.

There are also significant differences between Jewish Emergents and Christian Emergents, of course. Along with Synagogue 3000, Jewish Emergents seem more concerned with updating the style and format of Jewish observation and worship than with questioning or reformulating orthodox Jewish theology. Also, while the Jewish Emergents are eager to reconcile younger non-practicing Jews to the faith, they are not concerned with proselytizing.

These differences (and others) highlight the single greatest difference between the groups (not counting the difference in religion): the Jewish Emergent movement is an institutional effort, not an anti-institutional rebellion. In that way, it may be more akin to the Anglican-sponsored emergent movement in the United Kingdom.

Not only are there superficial similarities between Christian and Jewish Emergents, the two groups are formally in conversation (as formally as emergents do anything). Synagogue 3000 invited Emergent spokesmen Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Dwight Friesen, and Dieter Zander to attend their 2006 meeting as advisors. You can watch a brief video of that meeting below.

The presence of "Emergents" in two major world religions, and the cooperation of the two groups together, elicits a few questions in my mind:

1. For the critics of the Emergent movement: does the development of the Jewish Emergent movement indicate that the Christian Emergents are on to something? That is, does an analogous response from adherents of another religion validate the emergent impulse? If the emergent movement is not a strictly religious phenomenon, but is a cultural one with religious implications, what can traditional churches do to keep up with the times?

2. For proponents of the Emergent movement: what is implied by the fact that Emergent conversation leaders seem more willing to work cooperatively with "emergent" adherents of other religions than traditionalist or "Reformed" Christians? Is the emergent label of greater concern to them than the Christian one?

3. If Jewish Emergents can operate within the institution, why can't Christian Emergents? Can institutional churches and emergent ones benefit from a collegial relationship with one another?

Watch the video. Visit the websites. Tell us what you think.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 9, 2008 | Comments (13)

April 25, 2008

Monsters on the Loose 2

Read part one of Craig Detweiler's post here.

Monsters movies are a tired, moribund, nearly dead genre. Roland Emmerich's 1998 Godzilla remake was horrible - all the effects, none of the joy. It had a traditional scenario, established stars, and extravagant set pieces. But the end result was a snooze. Where was the giddy thrill of discovery? The fear of what happens next?

Cloverfield goes back to the original Japanese source material to reinvent Godzilla. It has all the familiar notes: What is that thing? Where did it come from? No time to find out--RUN! The tension builds in traditional ways. Long quiet passages punctuated by panic. The rats in the subway tunnel run the same way. It offers a creature in the background you can't quite see.

But Cloverfield didn't just revive an old genre; it also uses the latest video camera technology, such as creepy night vision, in a raw and authentic way. The movie generated antipathy simply because of its shaky, handheld video style. It feels loose, informal, and spontaneous - it can also make you seasick. The style itself becomes a stumbling block. Plenty of viewers longed for Cloverfield's camera to settle down and conform to some pattern. But the chaos also means you can't be a passive observer. The audience is forced to participate.

Emergent churches are equally authentic, immediate, and lived. Their services feel unscripted, even though they may be planned. Like Cloverfield, they offer the illusion of spontaneity which is an art unto itself. The generation that embraces Cloverfield and emerging churches isn't interested in second or third order reflection. They live in the moment, treasuring direct and unmediated experiences.

For better or worse, handheld digital video is the affordable future. This new, highly democratic medium has barely begun. Everyone can and will be a filmmaker. There will be plenty of junk, but an immediacy will emerge because everyone now has a chance to tell their story. The same goes for churches; everyone can become a theologian as formalized education becomes unnecessary. Sure, there will be plenty of junk theology and it will take time to sort out the essential from the popular, but in emergent churches leaders would rather learn by doing ministry than studying it just as film students would rather start making movies rather than sit in a classroom. Despite its faults and limitations, the next generation prefers on the job training. This could be their blind spot or their competitive advantage.

The critical backlash to Cloverfield was inevitable. Many of the critics announced, "I hate the characters," especially the cameraman, "Hud." By casting no-name actors, Cloverfield didn't rely upon people we previously cared about or trusted. It undercut the established star system of Hollywood. Who is the star? Who am I supposed to follow? Similar questions are being asked in emergent churches. Who is the pastor? It is a team? Who do I listen to? Where is the authority?

Flat casting forces us to pay attention, to work harder than we're used to. It also results in that rarest of experiences - a chance to be surprised. No stars mean everyone is threatened and could be snatched away at any time. Cloverfield allows us to feel just as vulnerable and clueless as the characters onscreen. It is supposed to evoke empathy, not revulsion. What would I do in the same situation? Haven't I made the same mistakes?

Cloverfield's style may be different, but it's a film that deeply respects the past. So don't attack it for trying something new. Embrace the effort. Applaud the ingenuity. Amidst the thrills it even manages to slip in a life-affirming message: Treasure your relationships. Enjoy each day at Coney Island. Fleeting moments of romance can be gone. Love somebody with passion, today. Enjoy a walk in the park. These are not new truths, but the reclamation of ancient wisdom.

Same goes for the emergent movement. Emergent churches are wired by digital natives. Their leaders were raised on the World Wide Web. They've all been to the T.E.D. conference. They are utilizing the latest technologies. But they also have a sense of history. Emergent Christians carry a profound appreciation for ancient Christian faith despite all the handheld shenanigans. Sure, they will have their blind spots, and sometimes their style will be nauseating. You may not be the target market for the emerging church or Cloverfield, but try to enter the audiences' shoes. Listen up. Don't fear the future. Sit back, relax and maybe even enjoy the show.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 25, 2008 | Comments (12)

April 22, 2008

Monsters on the Loose

If you hate Cloverfield (or don't even know what it is), then you probably loathe emerging Christians. If you like Cloverfield, you're likely to dig the emergent conversation. Both deliver on their grand promises in a novel way (that is decidedly not for everybody). But why does the film (and the emergent folks) inspire such antipathy? Why can't we appreciate the next generation's re-imagination of tired clich?s?

Movies offer a safe way to process our cultural anxiety. In monster movies we're presented with an opportunity to corral our fears. Zombies or UFOs or viruses wreak havoc for ninety minutes before order is inevitably restored. Cloverfield depicts a seemingly ordinary evening in New York City that is derailed by an unexpected and unexplained attack. Sound familiar? Cloverfield is a direct response to the fear unleashed by the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Eerie shots of panic in the streets remind us how vulnerable we felt. We follow shell-shocked New Yorkers crossing the Brooklyn Bridge in search of safety. The film doesn't offer any reasons for the monster's rampage. It is pure terror. Our way of life as we know it is vanishing, and nothing seems capable of stopping the assault.

For some, the emergent movement has become a monster to be dreaded and feared. Despite leaders' best efforts to explain their theology, rumors about the Emergent Village keep swirling in the blogosphere. A struggling, insecure church has identified emergent Christians as the new enemy. How a small band of smart, reasonably clean-cut ministers like Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt or Rob Bell could inspire so much fear is a tribute to the mania available on the Internet. To some evangelical watchdogs, public enemy number one has a goatee, an earring, and a dog-eared copy of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. How did this get so far out of hand?

Cloverfield started with a teaser trailer. The obscure name "Cloverfield" was never really explained. But the Internet buzz generated by a single commercial reaped huge dividends. People went wild, analyzing the trailer shot by shot. "Who created this movie? What is it about?" And most of all, "When can I see it and solve the mystery for myself?" It was as if the Hollywood studio behind the movie made it purposefully obscure.

The emergent movement works from the same mindset. It starts with random, unchurchy names. Some sound like booths at a Renaissance Faire: "The Well," "The Journey," "The Quest." Others apt for a coffeehouse vibe: "Elevation," "Area 15," "Thad's." They don't spell it all out. They let people talk and discover it for themselves. Word of the mouth is the best marketing. It is cheap and effective. "You've got to see it." "What is it?" "You've just got to see it." We can all learn from Cloverfield (and the emergents) ability how to arouse curiosity, build anticipation and preserve a sense of wonder.

For those who have invested enormous sums in stately locations or grandiose settings, such underground marketing phenomena can be frustrating. To those who have been building, planning, and working hard it seems quite unfair. How can sixty seconds of showing nothing but the Statue of Liberty's severed head, generate more enthusiasm than something literate, important, and ambitious like the film Atonement? How can established denominations that occupy the prime corner on the most traveled streets in town lose members to a gathering held in a warehouse? When did a shaggy mutt become preferable to a pure bred? If you're amongst those seminary-trained pure-breds, it should make you mad to see a goateed, self-taught computer geek take over. It is easy to get bitter. Unfortunately, you must learn the native tongue, understand the new medium, deal with the new terms.

Of course, the enormous anticipation generated by Cloverfield resulted in the inevitable letdown. It is easy to generate suspense in a trailer, but to measure up to pre-release hype is tough. "It wasn't as interesting as I thought." "It's not that scary." "There wasn't enough blood." The same can be said for the emergent church. On the other side of mystery arises the reality of disappointment. "That's it? It's just a church." Just singing. Basic bible reading. Coffee time.

So much energy has been devoted to discrediting the emergent movement, that it can also be disappointing to discover just how modest and meager their changes are. They may do church in the round. They may sit on sofas rather than pews. They may wear jeans rather than khakis, but basically, the emergent movement is a heartfelt gathering of Christians trying to follow Jesus together. At the end of the day, Cloverfield is just a movie. The emergent movement is just a loose affiliation of churches. Neither is a revolution; they're more like a romp.

In part two (the sequal) of his post, Craig Detweiler explains why critics panned Cloverfield for its unorthodox style. Are critics of the emergent movement reacting to style, or is their objection more substantive?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 22, 2008 | Comments (25)

April 21, 2008

You Might Be Emergent If...

In the introduction of their new book whose title says it all - Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (Moody, 2008) - authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck offer yet another attempt at defining "emergent Christianity." I've included the full quotation below. Check it out and tell me whether you fit the bill.

After reading nearly five thousand pages of emerging-church literature, I have no doubt that the emerging church, while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash's Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Frank, Walter Winks, and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem;...

if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don't like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren't sure it can be found; if you've ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn't count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic, na?ve, and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritize urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe who goes to hell is no one's business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word "story" in all your propositions about postmodernism - if all or most of this torturously long sentence describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian.*

Now that you know the symptoms, take the quiz on the left and let me know if you consider yourself an emerging Christian.

(*Reprinted with the permission of Moody Publishers)

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 21, 2008 | Comments (69)

October 5, 2007

Me, Myself, and Jesus

David Fitch is back with part 2 of his critique of the emerging response to evangelicalism. In part 1 he noted the "we're in, you're out" mentality in much of the evangelical church, and the anemic emerging reaction to this black and white theology. Here, Fitch takes on our over emphasis of having a "personal relationship" with Christ while ignoring the social component of the gospel.

A second weakness I see emerging churches responding to is the individualizing tendencies of evangelical ways of being Christ's church. Our churches are organized to meet the spiritual needs of individuals, and our salvation is incredibly individualistic. Calling Jesus "a personal Savior" sounds like Jesus is in the same category as my personal barber, personal trainer, or personal dental hygenist (BTW, I don't have a personal trainer). The danger is making salvation all about me.

I know it didn't start out this way in evangelicalism, but it was latent in the structure of our soteriology. And so we have almost romanticized our relationship with God; created a narcissistic experience of it. And churches become all about preserving, maintaining, and nurturing this experience in their parishioners.

But the gospel is not about getting something, it is about participating in something - God's work of reconciling the whole world to Himself. And yes, we do have a relationship with God which becomes personal but it is inseparable from His mission.

I said in an article I wrote for Allelon:

Imagine what it would be like in our churches, if there were no such division (between personal justification and social justice). If we were not invited to go forward as individuals to receive a packaged salvation from God that gets us off hell, but instead came forward to become part of something, what God is doing in the world through Jesus Christ - the reconciliation of all men and women with Himself, each other, and all of creation (2 Cor 5:19), which BTW inextricably must still include my own personal reconciliation/relationship with God.

Again, McLaren is speaking to this when he says in an article:

The term missional asks this question: what is the purpose of the church? To enfold and warehouse Christians for heaven, protecting them from damage and spoilage until they reach their destination? Or to recruit and train people to be transforming agents of the kingdom of God in our culture? The missional church understands itself to be blessed not to the exclusion of the world, but for the benefit of the world. It is a church that seeks to bring benefits to its nonadherents through its adherents.

In relation to emerging church's response to the false evangelical dichotomy between personal salvation and social justice, I think the missional mantra - God is already working, let's just join up with Him wherever he is - sometimes ignores that God is not working everywhere. There are powers in rebellion against God. We fail to deal with Foucault's great insight: worldly power is this homogenous totality that engulfs, absorbs, and incorporates all resistance within it. So in essence, we start out working for justice against the dominant Symbolic order and end up supporting it, helping to spread its injustice even more.

In short the emerging church is right when they say "NO JESUS WITHOUT JUSTICE" but is naive to think we can know JUSTICE WITHOUT JESUS. I'm not saying that all works of justice and mercy require a gospel tract to be handed out. But I'll have to write more about this later.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 5, 2007 | Comments (9)

September 28, 2007

The “We’re In, You’re Out” Mentality

Friend of Ur, David Fitch, is back with a few thoughts about the deficiencies in evangelicalism and the emerging movement’s reaction. But he’s not exactly enamored with the emerging church solution either. Fitch is a pastor at Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, and a professor at Northern Seminary.

Evangelicals of all types are taking notice of the emerging church/missional church and its variations. Its rise to prominence is owed in part to the rejection of the evangelical church by many sons and daughters of Boomer evangelicals. At a recent Up-Rooted gathering, we talked about the real or perceived shortcomings in evangelicalism the emerging church is responding to, and the strengths and weaknesses of that response. Scot McKnight and Wayne Johnson were a part of that discussion, but here is part of my response to the question.

I believe one weakness in evangelicalism that the emerging church is responding to is evangelicalism's excessively rationalist approach to truth and salvation that birthed a stubborn "we're in/you're out" mentality. There has been an impulse in evangelical fundamentalism towards (a) an intolerant judgmental exclusivism, (b) an arrogant, even violent, certainty about what we do know, and (c) a hyper-cognitive gospel that takes the mystery out of everything.

Many of us grew up with this. This was most obvious in the way we made hell the selling point of the gospel. We said if you do A and B, you’ll be pardoned from sin and escape hell. Those who do not do A or B are going to hell. We built an apologetic that defended this to prove to people outside the church they were doomed. It came off arrogant, coercive, unloving, and indeed antithetical to the very nature of the gospel. In a world of democratic pluralism, the gospel's witness became shut off, dispassionate, and downright sectarian. It became impossible to represent such a gospel as "good news."

McLaren talks about this in New Kind of Christian when he says:
If we Christians would take all that energy we put into proving we're right and everyone else is wrong and invested that energy in pursuing and doing good, somehow I think more people would believe we are right. p. 61

If you ask me whether I believe there is a hell, I will tell you yes. To me the reality of hell is evident in the evil and destruction of souls I see here on earth all the time. If you ask me whether I believe that the salvation God has worked through the person and work of Jesus Christ has direct consequences on our eternal destiny as persons, again I will tell you yes. But if you ask me whether this singularly defines what it means to be saved, here is where I would say no. For our eternal life is the end of a life lived in His salvation (Rom 6:22), not the goal in and of itself. And so let's not put the cart before the horse.

The good news is that God has come in Christ inaugurating his salvation in the world. In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is now forgiveness of sins that sets loose grace and forgiveness among us and to the world. In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is reconciliation with God that breeds a new reconciliation among us and to the world (2 Cor 5:18-20). In Christ (and His Kingdom) there is a healing that has begun through the cross among us and to the world. In Christ's Rule there is indeed a new politic, a way of being, living in the life of God made possible in Christ's life, death, and resurrection that takes shape among us and into the world. Behold all things are made new (Rev 21.1.; 2 Cor 5:17). Our calling is nothing more or less than to invite the world into this incredible new life.

The strength and the weakness of the emerging response to evangelicalism' judgmentalism has been the wide embrace of deconstructive theology. Deconstructive philosophy/theology certainly gives us the skills to diagnose our narrowmindedness, ways we have imprisoned God in the rationalized controlling structures of certain Reformed Western systems. But it fails to deliver the truth. It is always "yet to come." It leaves the gospel disembodied. As I have argued elsewhere, there are resources in McIntyre, Yoder, Hauerwas to help us be embodied communities, communities of hospitality, open communities of witness.

In part 2 of his post, David Fitch will discuss the way evangelicalism has separated personal justification and social justice.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 28, 2007 | Comments (22)

September 6, 2007

Emerging + Missional = Emergissional

Dan Kimball is a recognized authority on the emerging church. After all, he did write the book on the subject. At a recent conference we sat down to talk with Kimball about the future he sees for the emerging church, and how it relates to the growing popularity of all things "missional."

There has been a lot of talk at this conference about the emerging church. Looking into your crystal ball, where do you see this going? Do you think this conversation has legs, or will it morph into something else?
It is totally hard to say. The term "emerging church" now means so many different things depending on who you are asking. So it all depends on what stream of the emerging church we are talking about. For me, the term means churches that are being missional in our emerging culture. That part of the conversation certainly seems to be gaining steam and interest from churches of all types. So I really hope the missional outward thinking is something that grows stronger and lasts. But what that looks like may be constantly changing as culture changes. But I hope we keep gaining a passion for being sent by Jesus into the world. I hope that stream of the emerging church grows and lasts.

You've talked about Guder's book, The Missional Church. Do you see a convergence between the ideas generated by the emerging church and the growing popularity of missional theology, or do you see them as really separate conversations?
To my best understanding the emerging church and the missional church are very much the same. But when you talk about the "emerging church" there is also a stream of conversation which focuses more on pragmatic changes - like worship gathering and helping younger people connect with worship. That is part of it, but it is far more than just making changes in the worship gathering, it is a philosophical way of being a Christian and being churches sent into the world. Personally, I use the terms "emerging church" and "missional church" interchangeably. They are synonymous conversations. But not everyone sees them that way.

Because they're not addressing the deeper, philosophical, theological issues, they're just changing their style?
Some churches only change the style or add an alternative Sunday night worship gathering to see younger people come to the church and consider that to be missional or emerging. That's a wonderful hope and worthy motivation, but usually that isn't addressing the deeper issues. Adding an alternative worship gathering to an existing church is very difficult because the philosophical DNA not going to be different. Being missional requires an ecclesiological change.

That's why I never recommend starting an alternative gathering with a different pastor in an existing church. Being missional must impact the whole of the church, not just a department within the church. That's why most churches-within-a-church don't work and why we are seeing so many church planters. It's hard to change an existing church at this deep a level. It's not impossible, but it is a lot harder than just changing the style of an alternative worship gathering.

Dan Kimball is pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007). A review of his book can be found in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 6, 2007 | Comments (4)

April 30, 2007

Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Journey Was Our Journey

Theologian, scholar, and worship guru Robert Webber died Saturday, April 27. He was 73.

Webber will be remembered (and appreciated, mostly) as the man who gave a name to the quest to recover both philosophy and experience of worship that were endangered by contemporary evangelical practices in the late 20th century: He was the father of "ancient-future worship." His book by that title was followed by Ancient-Future Faith, Ancient-Future Time, Ancient-Future Evangelism. Webber wrote more than 40 books on worship. His most recent works are The Younger Evangelicals and, soon to be released,The Divine Embrace.

Remarkable about Webber is his spiritual journey, and how, a generation ahead of the emerging leaders he later chronicled, he created a new cutting edge in evangelicalism by leaving its "contemporary" expressions in search of older and more mainline ways of doing and being Church.

And he took a lot of heat for it.

In their obituary of Webber, our colleagues at Christianity Today online quote Edith Blumhofer, director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College and affiliate professor of Church History at Northern Seminary (Webber taught at both of those schools): "If you stand back and look at his life, he represents one of the ways evangelicalism has changed and unfolded, [especially] if you think about [his journey] from Bob Jones University to the Episcopal Church to all of this focus on remembering the ancient as we move into the contemporary."

John Witvliet of Calvin Seminary adds: "In many ways, Robert Webber paved the way for many Protestants, especially evangelical Protestants, to take worship seriously as a primary occupation in both the church and the academy." And he called Webber "a real pioneer."

Webber died of pancreatic cancer at his home in Michigan.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 30, 2007 | Comments (9)

April 26, 2007

Shepherds or CEOs?

Recent excerpts we've posted from An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Baker, 2007), edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, have generated a lot of discussion. This final installment should keep the trend going. Sally Morgenthaler writes about our cultural shift away from an autocratic CEO model of leadership toward a more reflexive and cooperative model, and why many churches have failed to get the memo.

Significance, influence, interaction, collective intelligence - all of these values describe an essential shift from passivity to reflexivity. We are no longer content to travel in lockstep fashion through life like faceless, isolated units performing our one little job on an assembly line. This attitudinal shift is nothing short of revolutionary. True to form, Western Christendom seems oblivious to its implications. But it is the entrepreneurial church (congregations of roughly one thousand and above) that seems particularly clueless about the shift from the passive to the reflexive. And this, despite all its posturing about cultural relevance.

This disconnect shouldn't really surprise us. Large-church leaders have been trained in the modern, command-and-control paradigm for thirty years. Here, organizations aren't seen so much as gatherings of people with a common purpose but as machines. There is no irony here. Machine parts don't have minds or muscles to flex. They don't contribute to a process or innovate improvements. Machine parts simply do their job, which is, of course, to keep the machine functioning.

The mechanical paradigm of organization largely explains why modern church leaders are trained as CEOs, not shepherds.

Sheep have their own ideas of what, where, and when they want to eat. They may not want to lie down by quiet waters and go to sleep at eight. They just might want to check out the watercress down by the streambed. Or they might want to head out over the next ridge to see if there are any other flocks out there. Conveniently, machine parts don't get ideas. They just get to work, and they work according to specification.

Church members who don't comprehend this three-decade shift in leadership paradigms are frustrated that their CEO pastor is so self-absorbed. They were looking for a shepherd - albeit, one with a big
name and a big flock. What many of them ended up with instead was a "my-way-or-the-highway" autocrat - a top-down aficionado whose ecclesiastical machine whirs only to the sound of his own voice and functions tightly within the parameters of his own limited vision. One doesn't have to be on the pastors' conference circuit long to figure out that prime-time clergy (ages forty to fifty-five), are marinated in this kind of thinking. They have been told repeatedly that this is the only leadership model that will ensure success. (And make no mistake: in new millennium America, success equals the greatest number of seats filled on Sunday morning.) Theirs is a mono-vocal, mono-vision world - one that affords the most uniformity and thus the most control. It is a world of hyperpragmatics where the ends (church growth) can justify the most dehumanizing of processes.

Pity the member who questions the machine and develops any significant influence. Sooner or later, that member will be disposed of - shunned, silenced, and quietly removed from any position of authority on staff, boards, worship teams, or within the most lowly of programs. Unwittingly, this member has run headlong into an industrial age anachronism: "the great man with the plan" methodology. And he or she has lost.

But it is not only individual members who lose. It is God's kingdom and the waiting world that is being sacrificed. Sacrificed on the altar of pastoral ego. The question is, how long can these antiquated, top-down systems last? As long as people will let them. In a push-back world, hierarchy can function only in the womb of passivity, which may be good news - at least on the survival level - for big religion. Because, if there is anything the entrepreneurial church is good at creating, it is compliant cultures - those Stepford-like minicities populated with otherwise savvy, creative human beings. Yet these otherwise savvy children of God somehow missed the memo: they have a brain, a voice, and a Jacobesque call to wrestle, not only with the living God, but with whatever institution claims to hold all truth inside its too perfect confines. Is it any wonder that megachurches proliferate in areas of the country where the church attendance percentages are well above the national norm?7 This is not quantum physics. It's the law of supply and demand. Entrepreneurial churches thrive in the most churched areas of the country because they are populated with the already churched, not the unchurched. And their leaders know this, despite their incessant outreach-speak. They know who their real target market is: it is hothoused Christians. And if hothoused Christians are anything, they are passive.

If passivity is a requirement for participation in big-church America, then it is no wonder that most new world citizens wouldn't put so much as a tire mark on our parking lots. Maybe they get what we refuse to get: supersized ecclesia is as much about power as it is about God. With luxurious facilities bordering on the obscene, organizational hierarchies designed to feed pastoral ego, and constituencies of the robotically religious (who else would tolerate living in a machine?), it's not hard to figure out that one's story, creativity, and opinions aren't welcome. Newsflash: the "Forty Days of Honest Dialogue" campaign is not coming to your local suburban church-plex anytime soon. So much for relevance in a reflexive culture, the members of which will most likely keep driving past our parking lots. No one has to tell a new world citizen that power-and-control religion is about monologue, not dialogue. It is about one leader's vision; one take on what God is up to in the community, the nation, and the world; one single, often blurry, and out-of-context frame in this speeding movie we call life.

Sally Morgenthaler is recognized as an innovator in Christian practices worldwide. Known best for her book Worship Evangelism (Zondervan, 1998), Morgenthaler became a trusted interpreter of postmodern culture and a guide to the crucial shifts the North American church must make if it is to become a transforming presence within pre Christian communities.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 26, 2007 | Comments (33)

April 10, 2007

Muscular Christianity or Fluid Theology?

Barry Taylor is back with another excerpt from An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Baker, 2007), edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. As our culture abandons any sense of certainty, how should Christians respond? Taylor invites us to consider a less dogmatic and "muscular" view of our faith in favor of one that is comfortable in the ever-shifting currents of our world.

The times in which we live are intense on any number of levels. The threat of terror haunts the world like a specter; issues of global poverty and disease are constant reminders of economic disparity
and human despair. Our world has also recently been rocked by a series of natural disasters, the sheer force of which has raised renewed concerns about environmental issues and the ramifications
of our commitment to fossil fuels, chemicals, and other resources on the planet. The impact of globalization and its many discontents on various parts of the world is a continuing part of our daily lives. Along with this, we in the West find ourselves drowning in choices, trying to balance our rampant materialism with a renewed desire for meaning and purpose.

These are certainly not the times to be seeking self-preservation, but that seems to be the general focus of the church today. Everywhere we turn we see books, conferences, workshops, and a host of other
resources that focus on what can be done to preserve the church, and we are willing, it seems, to employ any marketing device to make it happen. Trend watchers and marketing strategists offer ways in which churches can connect with the culture. We brand and market Christianity in attempts to make it viable again.

But what if we let go of our need for a branded and marketable entity and turn instead toward a new way of living and being in the world? This is not an entirely new idea. Dietrich Bonhoeffer posited a "religionless Christianity" in the 1940s, but what if it is an idea whose time has finally come? What if "religion," and by this I mean the institutional and organizational form around faith, is no longer necessary for the future of faith?

Religions exist in certainty and sanctity; faith lives in inquiry and fluidity. The reason traditional faiths are having a hard time of things is that the present situation is one in which certainty is suspect and sanctity is being redefined.

We should consider letting go of our obsession with certainty; we do, after all, "see through a glass darkly," as the apostle Paul reminds us. It is hard to claim clarity when shadows linger over what is revealed. The future of faith does not lie in the declaration of certainties but in the living out of uncertainty. "Believing that one believes" is how philosopher Gianni Vattimo puts it: "To believe means having faith, conviction, or certainty in something, but also to opine - that is, to think with a certain degree of uncertainty." Our declarations about matters of faith are always fragmentary and provisional.

This idea challenges religion's commitment to sanctity. Sanctity implies security and inviolability - the territory is delineated, the lines clearly drawn. Contemporary society is reluctant to draw such lines of division; sometimes it is difficult to tell where one idea ends and another begins.

One of the most interesting dynamics of the present time is the collapse of distinction between the sacred and the profane. Contemporary society allows for the "holy" to be found in the most unexpected places. As Christopher Partridge writes, "The new spiritual awakening makes use of thought-forms, ideas and practices, which are not at all alien to the majority of Westerners. They emerge from an essentially non-Christian religio-cultural milieu, a milieu that both resources and is resourced by popular culture." The future of Christian faith lies in its ability to inhabit this gray world, not attempting to "sort it out" as much as to be available to help others navigate and negotiate the complexities that such a dynamic raises. To "go with the flow" might seem a trite way of describing theological engagement, but a commitment to fluidity and a willingness to swim in the cultural waters rather than insisting on one's own paddling pool is a necessary perspective.

All of these thoughts can be summarized as a commitment to weakness rather than strength. "Muscular Christianity" and "robust faith" are views that worked well in modernity's concrete world, but the viability of Christian faith in the twenty-first century is not guaranteed by claims to power and declarations of strengths and doctrinal postures. This is not a slide into relativism but a commitment to nondogmatic specificity. We can tell the gospel story without resorting to competition, exclusivism, or elitism.

Barry Taylor teaches at Fuller Seminary in California, where he has developed a number of courses focusing on the intersections between theology and popular culture. He also teaches on advertising at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena.

Used by permission of Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group, copyright ? 2007. All rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Publishing Group.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 10, 2007 | Comments (31)

March 29, 2007

Goodbye Religion, Hello Spirituality

Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, two prominent voices in the Emergent conversation, have edited a new book called An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Baker, 2007). The dictionary defines the word manifesto as, "a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions." That should encourage people who see Emergent as being too ambiguous, but the book will undoubtedly give additional ammunition to its critics. In the coming weeks Out of Ur will feature excerpts from the book. The first comes from a chapter titled "Converting Christianity: The End and Beginning of Faith" by Barry Taylor.

What it means exactly when a person declares himself or herself to be "spiritual but not religious" is a matter of some debate. Some people find spiritual an irritating term that means nothing of any real substance, a marker for a sort of "wishy-washy" sentimentalism that passes itself off as real faith. Others have embraced it wholeheartedly, and the rise of spiritual language in sermons and discussions, as well as a growing interest in spiritual directors in many churches, point to an embrace of the term on some levels even amongst the "religious."

I don't think there is one definition for the term or for its usage. Spirituality is an umbrella word, a catchall concept used to characterize a commitment to the sacred elements of life. It defies a singular definition, hence the fluidity of the usage of the word; it is also an evolving term rather than one of fixed determination.

One thing that it does signify, almost universally, is the rejection of traditional faiths as a primary source of connection to the divine. I would argue that traditional faiths are no longer the first resource that people go to in order to develop and nurture their spiritual lives, but instead function more as secondary archives with which new spiritual permutations are created. Those who do choose to explore their spiritual quests within traditional faith environments do so with very different eyes and intentions than previous generations of seekers have. For me spirituality is the religion of the twenty-first century.

This is a dramatic shift, and one that some might contest, but the momentum seems to be toward this perspective. It should come as no surprise to us that our understanding of religion is undergoing a transformation. In times of significant cultural change, all the ways in which we order ourselves socially are usually affected. For instance, religion as it was experienced in the post-Reformation period was quite unlike its pre-Reformation incarnation. That faith in the postmodern world is showing itself to be markedly different from faith in modernity only serves to underscore the significance of the cultural changes we are presently experiencing.

If then we truly find ourselves in a new situation, one in which the old ways simply no longer suffice, what then of the future for Christian faith? I have already raised the notion that there may not be a future for "Christianity," the religion of Christian faith. I mean no disrespect to historic Christianity when I make this comment, nor do I seek to simply dismiss centuries of faithful service, worship, and theology.

I think that the Christian faith has been held captive to a "pseudoorthodoxy" for much of the late twentieth century. Christianity's love affair with modernity and its universalizing tendencies created a climate in which the general assumption has been that what constitutes Christian faith has been "settled," and therefore any challenge to the status quo is often rejected as unbiblical or unorthodox. The assumption is a singular understanding of the faith. The easiest way to undermine different perspectives on issues like faith and practice during my lifetime has been to call someone's commitment to orthodoxy into question. But Christian faith is open to discussion. Historically it always has been. It can be questioned and reinterpreted. In fact, I would argue that it is meant to be questioned and reinterpreted.

Religion is always a cultural production, and sociocultural issues cannot be discounted from the ways in which we envision and understand faith. Issues and questions raised by our particular cultural situation not only inform but shape the various ways in which we interpret the gospel. If there ever was a time to question the status quo, it is now.

Barry Taylor teaches at Fuller Seminary in California, where he has developed a number of courses focusing on the intersections between theology and popular culture. He also teaches on advertising at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena.

Used by permission of Baker Books, a division of Baker Publishing Group, copyright ? 2007. All rights to this material are reserved. Materials are not to be distributed to other web locations for retrieval, published in other media, or mirrored at other sites without written permission from Baker Publishing Group.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 29, 2007 | Comments (46)

March 19, 2007

The Future of the Emerging Church

Conversations about the future of the emerging church can be overheard at conferences, seminaries, chat rooms, or anywhere church leaders congregate. Does the movement have legs? Does it represent a passing trend or a new Reformation? Not long ago we sat down with author/scholar/editor Phyllis Tickle to discuss the subject. Tickle, a feisty Episcopalian from Tennessee with an intellect matched only by her sense of humor, has served as a religion editor for Publishers Weekly and has written over two dozen books. Her three-volume prayer manual, The Divine Hours, has renewed the discipline of fixed-hour prayer for Christians in many traditions.

What do you see happening to Christianity in the twenty-first century?
Many people have observed a five hundred year cycle in western history - a period of upheaval followed by a period of settling down, then codification, and then upheaval again because we do not like to be codified. So, about every five hundred years the church feels compelled to have a giant rummage sale, and we're in one of those periods now.

The Reformation was about five hundred years ago. Five hundred before that you hit the Great Schism. Five hundred more was the fall of Rome and the beginning of monasticism. Five hundred before that you hit the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, and five hundred before that was the end of the age of judges and the beginning of the dynasty.

So, how is the current upheaval different from what the church has experienced before?
For the first time we've done it in an age of media where we are historically informed and we can perceive the pattern, and for the first time we've had the ability to talk to each other, to be self-conscious about what is happening, and be somewhat intentional. This is very exhilarating.

We have a huge responsibility because of what we know. We are seeing the start of a post-Protestant and post-denominational era. Just as Protestantism took the hegemony from Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism from the East at the Great Schism, so the emerging church is now taking hegemony from Protestantism.

But would you place the emerging church with Evangelicalism, or it is something else?
No, it's not evangelicalism. American religion has four, pretty much equally divided, quadrants. Evangelicalism is one of them, charismatic Pentecostalism is another, the old mainline or social just Christians is a third quadrant, and then the liturgicals. And where the quadrants meet in the center there's a vortex like a whirlpool and they are blending.

So, much of the political energy is evangelical. There's no question about that. Much of the religious energy is Pentecostal, but that's combined with the strong ballast of social consciousness and of applied gospel that comes out of the mainline. And into the mix comes the liturgical traditions with the great gifts of the heritage of the church.

And the emerging church is bringing these different elements of the church back together.
The problem has been that since the Reformation belief for most of the people has gone north to the head. The emergents, supposedly, are saying it needs to go south to the heart. I don't think it needs to go south at all. I think it needs to meet somewhere in the strength of the life - mind, heart, spirit and strength. Belief needs to be incarnated.

The response for the emergents has been to incarnate their beliefs right in their own neighborhoods - and that's wonderful. They want to live where they worship, that's great. The problem is that the emerging church does not have enough organization within itself to get beyond the sound of its own voice. Each little cohort is very limited in its impact.

So, how can the emerging church expand its impact?
Right now we're beginning to see it organizing. It is institutionalizing. We're building the next model which in five hundred years will be thrown away. But nonetheless, the emerging church has got to find some way to reach out in a coherent and effective way beyond itself.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 19, 2007 | Comments (35)

August 16, 2006

Family Faith Feud: Why are young adults not finding their places in their parents’ church?

Many churches struggle to reach the ever-elusive young adult demographic. Are 20-somethings simply disinterested in church? Not according to Brian McLaren. He believes we are failing to listen to the questions young adults are asking.

This post is a preview of McLaren's commentary in the upcoming Fall issue of Leadership. Here the Emergent leader encourages churches and parents to begin investigating why young adults are leaving the church - not to argue them back into the fold, but simply to understand their perspective. NOTE: Some of the more thoughtful comments to this post will be reprinted in the Fall 2006 print issue of Leadership, available in mid-October.

There was irony in the title of the old TV game show Family Feud. The irony was that the feuding between families was much less intense than the cheering within families as members tried to answer the same trivia questions.

In our churches, family feuds of another sort arise when members of the same family are asking different questions. For example:

In the third row, left side, mom and dad are asking how they can raise their 14-year-old daughter so she will never rebel and never get in trouble. Meanwhile, their daughter, seated with her friends in the last pew, is asking how she can get out from under their control.

Or in the ninth row, another mom and dad are wondering how they can be sure their 18-year-old son will (a) go to a good college and get a good education so he can have a good job and a good life, and (b) not be exposed to philosophical, scientific, or political questions that may cause him to question his faith. But their son, sitting with his girlfriend in the pew directly behind them, is asking how he can find a college where he can ask the philosophical, scientific, and political questions he has already been exposed to in high school.

These families share something in common: their young adult kids are not easily finding their places in the church of their parents. The problem is widespread. I have been in two groups of pastors lately where someone asked how many of our post-high-school kids were actively involved in the church. No pastor in either group had a majority of his kids involved in the church; most had no kids actively involved.

We are well-practiced in the arts of blame and guilt and shame. But I would like to propose a different response. Why don't we start asking the same questions? Why don't we begin with the questions young adults are asking? Let's start collecting data from families in thousands of churches on the responses to these questions. The purpose would not be for rebuttal or argument, but simply to understand and learn. Here is a question that might begin the conversation:

What questions did the church not answer for you or not answer well?

Maybe a season of asking questions like these could move us beyond family faith feuds, to family faith conversations.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 16, 2006 | Comments (44)

July 18, 2006

Axis Denied (part 2): What should we learn from the demise of Willow’s Next-Gen ministry?

In part one Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, discussed the inherent difficulties of the church-within-a-church model that has been popular with churches wanting to reach the next generation. In many cases the divergent values between the mother church and the alternative "Gen X" service cause friction - with the younger leaders usually getting burned.

Seeming to contradict Kimball's experience, Scot McKnight reports that Gene Appel, a pastor at Willow Creek, said "that it was Axis that had led to dramatic changes in the rest of the church." And Willow had adopted enough of the younger generation's values "to call into question the viability of Axis having a separable service." Was Axis really a victim of its own success?

In part two, Kimball shares his story of leading a Next-Gen ministry within an existing church, and bids a heartfelt farewell to Axis.

What is the answer to the church-within-a-church dilemma? I don't know. For me, after leading an alternative worship gathering within a church for many years, we finally planted a new church. Like many others who launched an alternative gathering within a church, we realized that tension eventually arose because of the value and philosophy differences needed to minister to different populations. It turned out that our mother-church (which is a wonderful church) did not want us to truly change beyond just the worship style itself. We were expected to conform to the systems and values of the mother church. We found that it just couldn't work, because the need for different values and philosophy of ministry from the mother church was the very reason we needed to start the new alternative gathering in the first place.

I truly wish these alternative worship gatherings and ministries within a church could work, but they usually don't. I have hope for the future with them, as senior leadership in some churches is open to what it really means to launch something that is "alternative" in more than just style of worship. I believe that it is possible to have both generational and worldview(s) differences within the same church. But it is important to recognize that having an "intergenerational church" is not about just seeing people sit in the same worship service for 60-90 minutes. We do that in movie theaters, and that is not community. Intergenerational relationships occur outside the worship gatherings, so focusing all our energy on the worship service does not produce an intergenerational church.

Axis certainly served a purpose, and I remember when it was thriving. I was close to an Axis staff person and heard about the wonderful things going on there. But Axis is now the latest story of yet another alternative gathering, a church-within-a-church, biting the dust.

Oh, Jesus, lead your church. Keep our own human egos and control issues out of the way so we can let others lead who are in tune with different cultures that we may not be in tune to. May we yield to those placed in leadership above us if serving on a staff. This is your church, Jesus, may we never forget that and may we serve you in the way you want us to for your Kingdom and the mission.

Farewell Axis. Cheers to you. You served a wonderful purpose in the Kingdom and helped many, many people through the years and inspired so many of us to experiment with launching new gatherings. Thank you, Axis (and Willow Creek), for pioneering new ways of ministry. Your influence and inspiration continues to spread wide.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 18, 2006 | Comments (23)

July 13, 2006

Axis Denied: What should we learn from the demise of Willow’s Next-Gen ministry?

Ten years ago the leaders of Willow Creek Community Church realized that 18-30 year olds, popularly known as Gen X, were largely missing from their church. In response, the "seeker-driven" church launched Axis to help "the Next Gen connect with God through high-intensity weekend services with relevant teaching, worship and art." Willow became one of the first churches to experiment with the church-within-a-church model, and many others followed Willow's example hoping to reach Gen X.

This week Willow Creek announced the end of Axis.

Gene Appel, lead pastor of Willow's South Barrington campus, said that leaders have been asking God for months for a new vision for Axis, and they sense an emerging desire to be a "diverse church with an intergenerational vision." If Axis's launch ten years ago signified the start of the next-generation-church-within-a-church phenomenon, what are we to make of Axis's demise? Has Gen X ministry been a failure, or was Axis a victim of its own success - a transition ministry that has outlived its usefulness?

Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of Emerging Church and Emerging Worship, has written about the end of Axis. In part one of his post, Kimball discusses why the church-within-a-church model is difficult to maintain.

I don't know all the behind the scenes discussions that led to the decision to end the Axis worship gathering at Willow Creek. I have talked with some of the Axis staff throughout the years, so I have a general understanding of the history and changes made since it started. I even wrote a chapter specifically about Axis in the Emerging Worship book. But whatever all the reasons for shutting down Axis were, I can say, it saddened my heart. But I was not at all surprised. In fact, I am surprised it didn't end sooner.

With Axis, Willow Creek was one of the first churches to experiment with launching an alternative worship gathering within an existing church. Over ten years ago, Willow was noticing that value differences and cultural differences between generations were emerging. Despite the great success Willow was having with older generations, they realized they needed new expressions of evangelism, worship, teaching, learning, and spiritual formation for those younger people they were not seeing in the church. Needing new expressions of ministry for different cultural populations should be a natural thing. To my understanding this was the reason behind the birthing of Willow Creek itself back in the seventies.

However, when launching a new worship gathering within an existing church, the questions to ask should be: Are the changes occurring mainly generational (music style, appearance, language), or are the changes bigger? Is a shift in worldview(s) occurring? If it is just a generational change, then you might as well just change the music, add some candles, create hip environment, and play a video of the senior pastor. That's changing the style, and I think that if we really peeled back the layers of the majority of these alternative services within existing churches, that is what we would find.

Many of the generation-focused worship gatherings may have a younger pastor with a goatee or funky glasses that wears his shirt un-tucked and looks like he could be a band member from Death Cab for Cutie, and this leader may have some freedom within that service, but he or she can't really make holistic changes to the church at large because their ministry needs to fold into the systems and values of the larger church. Pastors of generational ministries typically report to the senior or executive pastor at a church. That is the power structure for allowing control and change in these situations. To some degree, and I say this with respect, it ends up shaping these alternative worship gatherings into an extended youth ministry, or mini-me hipper version of the main worship gathering.

However, if the changes in culture are bigger than merely generational styles, it is absurd to think that creating a different aesthetic environment and changing the music is really being missional. To be missional to a cultural population that is different in more than age, means looking at everything through a different lens. It means looking at community differently, spiritual formation, evangelism, membership, leadership, communication all through the lens of the new culture and bringing the gospel to them in the unique way that connects to them as any missionary would. This means that the whole culture of a church will change, not just what happens in a worship gathering. That is why only changing the worship gathering is not the answer.

This is why so many worship gatherings launched within a church last only 3-5 years. Very few last any longer than that. They end up imploding because if the new worship gathering is truly rethinking everything as a missionary would to a different culture, then the new ministry with different values struggles to squeeze into the existing church structure's cultural form of ministry. Because the power lies with the senior leadership, the decisions are made from top to bottom, and the alternative worship gatherings are not at the top.

Ironically, the very thing (the need for something different) that the senior leadership was excited about in birthing the new worship gathering, ends up causing all the tension. This usually happens after lots of conflict and difficulty. I have heard too many stories about the sad things that have occurred in these situations.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 13, 2006 | Comments (39)

May 25, 2006

Is Emergent the New Christian Left 2: Tony Jones takes on Chuck Colson and "true truth"

In part 2 of his post, Tony Jones addresses emerging church critic extraordinaire Chuck Colson. Colson sees the Emergent conversation as a threat to traditional Christian understandings of the "truth." Jones responds by discussing the interdependence of truth and community - the essence of the Emergent Village conversation.

I thank the many commenters for thoughtful and, generally, gracious comments, and I want to respond in a bit of a roundabout manner. If you can bear with me, I think I can speak to the concerns of many.

Yesterday I received my latest copy of Christianity Today. I look forward with some ambivalence to the even-numbered months' editions because they contain both the columns of my friend, Andy Crouch, and of despiser-of-all-things-emergent, Chuck Colson (and his amaneuensis and, it seems, proxy church observer, Anne Morse). Colson has had a burr under his saddle about the emerging church for some time - for instance, in his last column he equated the emerging church with namby-pamby praise music (as he was bemoaning how many Christian radio stations are dropping his daily commentaries).

What Colson's writing has in fact betrayed over the last couple of years is that he knows very little about the emerging church. In this month's column ("Emerging Confusion: Jesus is the Truth Whether We Experience Him or Not"), he recounts a recent conversation with a "young theologian" named "Jim" (whose name has been changed to protect the innocent). "Jim" asked Chuck to take it easy on the emergents; they're just trying to translate the gospel for postmodern folks, "Jim" pleaded. That's a noble motive, Chuck replied, but if they undermine truth, then all is lost.

In his penultimate paragraph, Colson refers to D.A. Carson, fellow critic of Emergent, who argues that objective truth precedes relational truth. Colson then weighs in with this philosophical doozy: "Truth is truth." (Why don't you read that again.)

You see, by saying that "truth is truth," Colson is essentially saying...well, nothing. That's called a "self-referential argument," or a "circular reference" and it's non-sensical; it doesn't say anything, and it doesn't mean anything. I can't tell you how many times I've been speaking and heard similar statements. I'll spend a couple hours doing my best to lay out a rather intricate understanding of truth and interpretation, only to be told by an audience member that some things are "really, really true," "true with a capital 'T'" or my personal favorite, "true truth."

But if I can try to surmise Colson's meaning from the subtitle of the essay, he means to indicate that we in the emerging church have placed too much weight on "relational" or "experiential" theories of truth. The gospel is true, Colson seems to be saying, regardless of your human experience of that truth.

But philosophically, the obvious follow-up question is, Why? What makes the gospel true, especially if those of us in the world have no experience of its truthfulness? Is it true because Chuck Colson says so? Because Augustine said so? Because Paul said so? Is it true because, as Karl Barth might say, God's revelatory action that breaks into our space-time continuum? But isn't even that subject to our interpretation of the event?

In the essay, Colson also warns us in the emerging church about being in league with Stanley Fish, postmodernist extraordinaire and, to Colson's thinking, the epitome of yucky liberalism. Colson quotes Fish as saying that there are no "independent standards of objectivity." Truth cannot be proven to another human being, and thus, Colson concludes, Fish is arguing that truth cannot be known.

But, in fact, Fish says nothing of the kind. What Fish says is that objectivity is unattainable. In his excellent book, Is There a Text in this Class?, Fish argues that truth comes to be known in and among and on the basis of "the authority of interpretive communities." We are subjective human beings, trapped in our own skins and inevitably influenced by the communities in which we find ourselves. And isn't this what the church is, or at least should be: an authoritative community of interpretation? Indeed, isn't this just what Colson did when he converted to Christianity in prison many years ago: placed himself under the authority of the church of Jesus Christ?

What I was trying to get at in my blog post earlier this week is that Emergent Village endeavors to be a catalyst of conversation, community, and, ultimately, interpretation. We want the church to reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence. We want Christians to be engaged politically and culturally, and we want to provoke robust and respectful dialogue around issues that matter. Many of us think that the polemical nature of the church today precludes just this kind of necessary conversation. So, we're going ahead and doing it, with or without the imprimatur of evangelical elites like Colson and Carson.

If that's a compelling vision for you, then jump on board, we're glad to have you. If, however, you'd like to first see our doctrinal statement on penal substitution or read a position paper on homosexuality, then Emergent Village isn't for you.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 25, 2006 | Comments (81) | TrackBack

May 23, 2006

Is Emergent the New Christian Left? Tony Jones responds to the critics

In December, Brian McLaren was arrested along with 115 other activists while peacefully protesting the federal budget that he believes unfairly treats the poor. As one of the most visible participants in Emergent Village, McLaren's increasingly outspoken political views has some wondering - is Emergent a new camp for Christian liberalism? In this post Tony Jones, the national coordinator for Emergent, responds to critics by championing Emergent's conversational purpose and celebrating the group's diversity.

I read a lot of blogs, my wife and friends say too many. And some of those blogs are deeply critical of Emergent Village, a decade-old friendship that has, after my family, become home to my most important relationships. My Emergent friends, old and new, love Jesus and are robustly grappling their way into God's future. It seems to me that the two most important commitments that we in Emergent share are 1) we are ultimately hopeful about God's future, and 2) we are committed to moving forward together, as friends.

What continues to surprise me is how dangerous some people consider this friendship I'm in to be. If you take some of these blogs (and books) seriously, those of us who make up the Emergent Village are a great threat to the Christian church - we have undermined doctrine, truth, and church life. The fact that we're discussing theological items that have been previously deemed "undiscussable" is considered grounds for labels like "heretic" and "apostate."

Honestly, I care little about these critiques. They come from those who either have no idea what Emergent is all about and/or could not possibly be persuaded from their position anyway.

On the other hand, I'm currently hearing and reading that Emergent is part of the "New Christian Left." Mark Driscoll, for instance, has recently drawn a line in the sand between "emerging evangelicals" and "emergent liberals." He places himself in the former camp, and I assume he'd assign me to the latter. Others, like Ed Stetzer, have similarly attempted to divvy up the emerging church. Stetzer gives three labels: relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists. Again, I can assume that I'm among the lattermost, whose "prescriptions fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God," according to Stetzer. Yet another Christian leader has recently accused us of becoming one with Jim Wallis, Sojourners, and the Christian Left.

The problem with all of these critiques is that they fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Emergent Village. We are a group of friends - about 20 in 1997, and now in the thousands - who are committed to doing God's Kingdom work together, regardless of our theological, ideological, and political differences. Are we friends with Jim Wallis? Yes! And are there Bush-loving neocons among us? Yes! Emergent is a loose collection of folks who feel that true, robust conversation about issues that matter has been chilled out of modern Christian institutions (seminaries, mega-churches, denominations, and para-church groups, to name a few). We're trying to make a place to bring conversation back.

Thus, we have friends among us who think that small government, free market economies are the solution to poverty, and others who favor federal programs and higher taxes - honestly, this is an ongoing conversation within the Emergent friendship. But we all agree that something must be done about extreme poverty, especially in Africa.

Within Emergent are Texas Baptists who don't allow women to preach and New England lesbian Episcopal priests. We have Southern California YWAMers and Midwest Lutherans. We have those who hold to biblical inerrancy, and others trying to demythologize the scripture. We have environmental, peacenik lefties, "crunchy cons," and right wing hawks.

I suppose it's easy for those who stand outside of Emergent Village looking in to credit the politics or theology of a few to the whole group, but that's inaccurate. And I can understand the frustration of those who want to criticize us and box us in when we say that we don't play by the old rules, that we can't be categorized as "left" or "right," "evangelical" or "mainline."

But, I think those same critics will only be more frustrated as the tide of those rebelling against a commodified and domesticated Jesus gain momentum. If the mainstream media is a harbinger, then I'd say that recent columns by Gary Wills and Andrew Sullivan show that a tipping point is just around the corner. Jesus really wasn't a Democrat or a Republican, and he won't be domesticated by political agendas. I do, however, believe that he will inhabit the robust and respectful dialogue about ideas that matter.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 23, 2006 | Comments (63) | TrackBack

March 7, 2006

The Paradox of Emerging Leadership

How do we organize a church without becoming "organized religion"? Dan Kimball, author of The Emerging Church and pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, wrestles with this paradox in the upcoming Spring issue of Leadership. Here is a preview.

Leadership in the emerging church is a paradox. I am someone who fully sees the need and value of mission statements, organizational charts, and a strategic approach to leading. I read everything John Maxwell, Bill Hybels and Jim Collins write, and they really do fuel my heart and passion for leadership. The irony however, is that most growing up in our emerging culture are fairly critical of anything that looks like "organized religion." So when it comes to developing a leadership culture, there is great suspicion of anything that seems to be "business" oriented or too structured, since that feels like a reinforcement of the exact thing they are critical of.

Where previous generations were more understanding and even related to more of a highly structured leadership culture in a church ? many in the emerging church are drawn to more of a loose, lesser emphasis on strategic goals and a non-hierarchical approach to leadership. Much like what is emphasized in the writings of Henri Nouwen.

I've read Nouwen's book, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership a dozen times. Reading that book convicts you to the inner core about motives and the heart of leadership. However, Henri's leadership writings were directly about his experience in shepherding and loving a relatively few people. Leading a church that is growing, launching new worship gatherings, and building multi-level leadership teams needs Henri Nouwen, but also needs John Maxwell.

So I wrestle with this paradox. I find that in our church we live in the tension and try to do both. I dive into my John Maxwell books and focus on building leaders and setting up the organization of developing various leadership structures needed for a healthy Ephesians 4:11-12 equipping type of a church. After a while, I need to run back to Henri for a season. To some degree, these two paradigms seem polarized ? but I think it is possible to still be "organized" without becoming "Organized religion". In the end, it is the Spirit of God who does things through us anyway ? but it is definitely a paradox we live in today with new thoughts and values of what is looked for in emerging church leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 7, 2006 | Comments (14) | TrackBack

January 18, 2006

Unbundling Christianity: An Attempt to Define the Emerging Church

Since this blog launched last October one of the alluring conversations has been the nature and definition of the "emerging church." The debate started when James McDonald declared why he is not emerging, gained volume with my report on Brian McLaren's seven layers of the emergent conversation, and has continued to surface through many of Ur's entries.

To the frustration of its critics, and to the delight of its advocates, the emerging church has successfully resisted boundaries, categories, and labels. Such devices are seen by emergent's adherents as the shackles of modernity used to confine and control what should be free and fluid. To an increasingly suspicious culture even the desire to established discernable boundaries is met with alarm. Such categorization can only serve two purposes - either exclusion (the judging of others determined to be unlike me), or exploitation (the targeting of others for my gain).

So, it is with some trepidation that I venture into the forbidden territory of definitions with admittedly less experience and knowledge of the emergent landscape than many of you reading this post.

My reason for entering is simple - curiosity. Most of the outspoken opponents of the emerging church have leveled the same criticism. They accuse it of being merely a deconstructionist movement - deconstructing modern church forms, theology, and strategies without constructing valid (i.e. modern/rational) alternatives. However, I have a hard time believing a purely deconstructionist movement would endure and gain momentum as the emergent conversation has done. Likewise, if the emergent church were not constructing some alternative theology/philosophy of ministry why would so many opponents feel threatened?

So, curiosity has led me to ask - is it possible to identify the emerging church by what it is constructing instead of simply by what it is deconstructing? Of course any effective process of differentiation requires both, so my definition must include some discussion of deconstruction. But, rather than using that inflammatory and hopelessly postmodern terminology, I prefer the word "unbundling" to describe what the emerging church is achieving.

In marketing bundling is the practice of packaging several items together as a single product. For example, being nearly bald I really don't need conditioner for what remains of my hair. However, if I want to use a certain shampoo I am required to also purchase conditioner because the manufacturer has bundled them together. Bundling is a strategy that forces people to purchase more than they want or need by limiting their options.

The modern church is characterized by bundling. Modernity's insistance on categories and boundaries has meant certain theological traditions have been bundled with certain worship styles, forms, and modes of ministry. For example, in the mid 20th century a progressive view of social justice was typically bundled together with liberal theology and traditional worship or liturgy style. In the 1980s and 90s a serious commitment to reaching non-Christians was often bundled together with conservative theology, contemporary worship forms, and program driven ministries.

The prevalence of bundling in the modern church is obvious by the clearly defined categories by which churches identified themselves. In 1987 if someone identified their church as "seeker-driven" we all knew what that meant theologically, aesthetically, and culturally. Just as everyone knew what "traditional," "mainline," and "Pentecostal" meant. Today these categories are far more ambiguous.

In my experience, the most significant contribution of the emergent movement is the unbundling of the Western church. The assumption that certain theological traditions, forms of worship, and modes of ministry must be packaged together is no longer valid to those with an emergent disposition. These church leaders are looking over the vast landscape of the Church, whose horizon reaches 2000 years back and whose expanse is wider than any single tradition, and they are questioning the validity of modern American evangelicalism as a bundled entity.

Instead, the emergent movement is creating a new ministry paradigm where unbundled elements of the church can be reconfigured into previously unseen forms of Christian community and mission. For example, some emergent communities are combining conservative Protestant theology with Roman Catholic and high church forms of worship - two things previously kept in separate bundles. Likewise, we are seeing a progressive social and political agenda no longer strictly bundled with liberal theology. The fact that Rick Warren and Bill Hybles are addressing poverty and AIDS in Africa reveals that unbundling is even occurring in the flagship of modern Christianity - the megachurch.

The combining of traditions and theologies estranged in the modern era may also explain why emerging church leaders hold strong affections for the spiritual formation movement. An older friend once asked me why young church leaders were so drawn to Dallas Willard at a conference. After all, Willard had none of the style, flash, or youth often associated with the emerging church. But Willard, like Richard Foster, Renovar?, and other pillars of the spiritual formation movement, do draw richly from many church traditions previously not bundled with evangelicalism. They defy categorization, and represent the reuniting of Christian spirituality. They share the value of reconfiguration with the emerging church.

Perhaps no one personifies this better than Tony Jones. Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent - so his credentials as an emerging church leader are indisputable. He is also the author of The Sacred Way, a book that explores the spiritual disciplines of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions and then offers suggestions for how to apply them in our cultural context. Jones openly celebrates that we "live in a time of unprecedented cross-pollination" in the church. He, and other emergent leaders, personify McLaren's principles of generous orthodoxy.

If we take this practice of unbundling/reconfiguring as the defining characteristic of the emerging church then perhaps the movement is misnamed. The dictionary defines "emerge" as "to come out of." It's a word that emphasizes what the emerging church is moving away from - it's a word rooted, as critics have noted, in deconstructing the modern church. A more constructive word, I believe, is "merge." It is defined as "to join together different elements, mix, or combine." Perhaps a better name for what we are experiencing is the "merging church" as previously estranged elements of Christianity are unbundled from modernity and reunited into endless permutations of mission and community.

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 18, 2006 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

How Emergent Are You? McLaren's Seven Layers of the Emergent Conversation

Islam has its five pillars. Buddhism has its eight-fold path. Evangelicalism has its four spiritual laws. And now the Emerging Church has its seven layers of conversation.

Last month I was part of a small gathering of church leaders that hosted an evening with Brian McLaren. And the conversation turned as hot as the chutney. A number of participants were eager to discuss the criticisms that have been levied against the emerging church in recent months. The hijacking of the emergent movement by those merely interested in new worship trends rather than more substantive issues aggravated others. Everyone was looking to McLaren to chime in.

Always more likely to defuse than to detonate, McLaren entered the spicy conversation casually while slouched into the sofa with beverage in hand. He cautioned us against judging where others were in the "emergent conversation." Leaning forward, he outlined what he saw as the seven layers of the emergent conversation. "We all enter at a different layer," he said, "but everyone should be welcomed into the conversation no matter where they may be."

Based on McLaren's description, I've outlined the seven layers below.

I've added my own titles and used the imaginary "Seeker Community Church" to illustrate each point.

Layer 1: Style
Seeker Community Church realizes they're ineffective at reaching the coveted 18-32 year old demographic. They send a few staff members to a conference and they come back with goatees and candles.

Layer 2: Evangelism
After trying every facial hair permutation, Seeker Community Church discovers that to actually communicate the gospel to a younger generation they've got to learn to speak their language. They hire a former youth pastor to start an evening worship service with an "x" in its name.

Layer 3: Culture
It gradually dawns upon Seeker Community Church that the new challenges they are encountering are not limited to the younger generation. The entire culture is shifting away from the modern presuppositions their church was built upon. Some of the language and practices of the "x" service trickle into the rest of the church.

Layer 4: Mission
The emergence of Postmodernism causes Seeker Community Church to reevaluate the effectiveness of their mission strategy. Altar calls and gospel tracks are left behind in favor of community groups and relationships. Conversion is accepted as a journey and not merely a point of decision.

Layer 5: Church
Seeker Community Church begins to wonder if a multi million-dollar building housing a theatrical production every weekend is the only way to do church. Drawing from new and ancient forms of church, they launch alternative communities - one meets in a bar on Sunday night, and the other is a liturgical gathering. The church also partners with an inner city monastic group to reach street kids.

Layer 6: Gospel
The leadership of Seeker Community Church is stunned when the senior pastor confesses, "I'm not sure I've really understood the gospel." He begins to wonder why Jesus never said God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? And why Paul never asked anyone to invite Jesus into your heart? He starts to realize that the Good News is much more than he'd ever imagined.

Layer 7: World
Maybe the mission of the church isn't simply to become a bigger church? Maybe, like Jesus, the church is to engage the larger world to reveal that the kingdom of God has drawn near? To their amazement, Seeker Community Church discovers significant swaths of the Bible (such as the Pentateuch, prophets, gospels, and epistles) talk about justice, poverty, and compassion. The church begins to speak about social issues and participates in efforts to combat poverty, AIDS, and global injustice.

So, how emergent are you?

Posted by Skye Jethani at October 28, 2005 | Comments (38) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

Why James MacDonald Is Not Emerging (Part 2)

(Here is the remainder of James MacDonald's commentary on emerging culture. MacDonald is pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, and its several satellite locations. He is also the featured preacher on the radio program Walk in the Word. )

4. Because the answer is Jesus, not cultural analysis.

Several times in the past few years we have baptized more than 200 adults in our church in a single weekend. When you listen to so many concurrent stories of conversion to Christ in such a short period of time, you get a clear picture of how it happens. "I was going along thinking I was ?too sexy for my shirt,' and God dropped a boulder on my life to break me down and get my attention." While the label on the boulder may change, the story does not. Bottom line: God uses the painful circumstances of life to soften human hearts and bring people to faith in Christ.

In the past few years we have analyzed our culture ad nauseum. Cultures don't come to Christ, individuals do and the fields are more ripe for harvest than ever before.

Our endless discussion of culture has become just an elitist substitute for rolling up our sleeves and getting the Good News to the people who are hurting right now! Baby Boomer, GenX, Postmodern, blah, blah, blah. The discussion itself is modernistic and we're just talking to ourselves. How about a more compassionate extension of our own life in Christ and please . . . a lot less perpetual babbling about culture, which even when rightly observed is not the answer, duh - Jesus is!

5. Because Jesus is the purpose for the party, not the surprise hiding in the closet of respectability.

If you have not traveled to the places in our world where the Gospel of Christ is spreading like wildfire, I covet that opportunity for you. What you find there is not careful connoisseurs of some Rodeo Drive Jesus, but flag-waving, flame-throwing, on-fire followers of Christ. The power of God's Spirit is moving because Jesus is experienced, adored and proclaimed in all of His transcendent glory.

Why do so many of the emerging church websites speak of God/Father and less overtly or not at all about Jesus Christ the Lord? Claiming to be postmodern we are still marketing Jesus and hiding Him in the closet of respectability until we feel like people are ready to handle Him. Jesus can't be handled and He doesn't need spin doctors. I know we're pretty fussy about music forms, but let's bring back an old chorus, This Little Light of Mine, and in case we've forgotten the answer to "hide it under a bushel?" is NO!

Anyway . . .

I am thankful for the honest and often accurate critiques of current western Christianity flowing from the emerging church movement. I strongly desire to see them show greater promise in the arena of solutions or at least be more open to analysis from outside their community than they have been to date. (Witness the harsh rejection, rather than careful analysis of D.A. Carson's book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church on many emergent blogs.)

These are some of the factors affecting my decision not to emerge. What I am doing is hoping, praying and spending myself, along with many others, for "revival in the church in America in our lifetime." The problems in the western church are extreme: legalism or license, dead orthodoxy or compromised consumerism, professional entertainers with pop psychology or angry disregard for the sinful world Jesus weeps for. The western church in our lifetime has become an awful mess, but Jesus is not giving up on her and neither should we.

Now hear this: the answer we desperately need is a fresh move of God. We need a renewed vision of God's exalted, infinite holiness. We need an overwhelming sense of our own pride and personal sinfulness. We need our eyes lifted from the bankruptcy of cultural reflection to the crucified, risen, glorified Christ. There must be a returning to the centrality of the unadorned Gospel and the power of God's Spirit to redeem, restore and rebuild broken lives. We need men and women on fire with passionate confidence in the power of God's Word proclaimed; not because pagans say they want it, but because God promises to bless it. In short, what we need, what we desperately need is a renewing work of God that will cut a swath of revival across our land like a tornado across a Kansas wheat field.

That's what we need and nothing else will do. In fact, anything else is window dressing.

Most urgently I am praying that we will repent and turn from the horizontal, man-centered focus that grieves God's Spirit and prevents the presence of Christ from emerging more fully in our midst.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 24, 2005 | Comments (23) | TrackBack

October 17, 2005

Why James MacDonald Is Not Emerging (Part 1)

(James MacDonald is pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, and its several satellite campuses. His preaching is featured on the radio program Walk in the Word. His is another perspective in the postmodern, emergent church dialogue.)

Let me begin with a word of personal appreciation for the current leaders of the emerging church movement. I am deeply grateful for your courage in standing against the many shortcomings of the modern Western church. Thanks for insisting that authenticity in relationship is the foundation of genuine Christian community. Thanks for standing against the formulaic/instant Gospel which fills our churches with tares and insulates the human heart from a genuine transformational encounter with the living Christ. Thanks also for daring to believe that failure is not final and that Christ yet longs for His bride to function with the health and wholeness He created it to enjoy.

In case you are wondering why my gratitude for the leaders of the emerging church does not translate into enthusiasm for their current emphasis and direction let me take a few words to explain why I am not emerging.

1. Because observing the bad is not a credential for guiding us to the good.

Even if every placard-carrying protestor across from the White House has a legitimate complaint they will not soon be invited to cross the street and participate in governing our nation. The hippies of the late sixties told us that the choice to "make love, not war" would go a long way toward solving society's ills. We now know however that free love is a fast track to rampant perversion and escalating victimization of the innocent among us. History is replete with proof that those most articulate about our shortcomings are often least able to bring balanced, objective solutions.

I resonate deeply with much of the criticism flowing from the emerging church against current Western Christianity, but I am deeply grieved to see the emergent remedies accepted so uncritically by those who feel gratified by the accuracy of their critiques. Knowing the soup is bad does not make one a chef. If successful diagnosis was a license to treat the patient every lab technician would be a surgeon . . . scary.

2. Because God is looking for obedience to revealed truth, not just sincerity.

I have had numerous interactions with and time to personally observe several of the key emerging leaders such as Chris Seay, Carol Childress, Dave Travis, Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell. Some I have only spoken with, others I consider to be dear friends, but each that I have been exposed to gives strong evidence that they are sincere and genuinely committed to Jesus Christ. If all that Christ asked of us was a gracious, kind demeanor they would be exemplary indeed; however the Lord is asking for much more.

In John 14:21 Jesus taught "he who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me." We are expected to obey our Master and to accept His Word without equivocation. Cavalier questioning of the explicit statements of Scripture regarding the necessity of the new birth, the priority of biblical proclamation or the binding authority and sufficiency of Scripture cannot build a stronger, more Christ-honoring church no matter how sincere the messengers. Critiquing the church is good; disregarding or diminishing the revealed truth of our Founder is not good, no matter how ?nice' the people are who do it.

3. Because Christ's is a kingdom of substance, not style.

Candles and bells, paintings and sculpture, incense and chanting--great! Let's bring back the best of all those offerings of worship, but let's not confuse style and substance. According to Jesus it's still truth that sets you free, not artistic expression. Wearing suits and ties is certainly not necessary and it can be contrived and unnatural, but wearing jeans and sandals is not a means to the revealed presence of Christ. John 14:21 teaches that obedience to the substance of Christ's teaching brings His "manifest presence," not forms--old or new. In most of these discussions we are simply inserting an ancient-dead form in place of a modern-dead one. The former feels new because it's so ancient, as in "wow, we lit candles and sat in circles at church--that was so powerful." Or wait, was it the form that was powerful or just the broken routine that allowed my heart to worship with fresh sincerity? The renewed, ancient forms of worship are powerful if they are offered in spirit and truth and will become just as worthless as they become routine.

The power of Christ is not experienced in style, but in heart-felt substance and to miss that point is to set the stage for Emerging Church II when our kids get sick of the currently cool. Style is fun and fresh methods can promote sincerity, but the manifest presence of Christ which is the life of the church comes in response to biblical substance from the heart, not surface adjustments which can quickly become an end in themselves.

Coming: Part 2

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 17, 2005 | Comments (32) | TrackBack