The Emergent Church

[janine]

If the way we've "always" done things is nothing but a banging gong or clanging cymbal, we've got to change our ways. 

[memmy]

Amen Sista Janine!   :)

[rhbrandon]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

I guess my question to you, BOG, is how can you make that kind of guess without knowing more?

Relativism, subjectivism,  whatever you wish to call this stuff, has never been reliable in the past,  and there's no reason to believe it will be in the future.

And right doctrine always has? And again, I don't think all Emergents are relativistic, but in my way of thinking, being taught "right doctrine" hasn't prevented people from walking away or ruining lives.

Interesting; a very Post-modern / Deconstructive answer.
A relativistic answer; a relative comparison to what is perceived as Modern.
Justification by comparison to what is seen as the 'Modern standard'.

Strikes me as a bit simplistic, but I'm here in the rural Missouri Ozarks; I'm just glad we're with a congregation not dead set on returning to the 50s.

Even so, found this from a group in Britain:

hanging church
Brian Draper's avatar
Posted by Brian Draper Fri, 08/10/2004 - 1:53pm :: Church | more by Brian Draper

Good news! The church is beginning to catch up with the big changes that have been shaping society. Philosophical, technological, political and social upheavals of the last few years have re-moulded the way we live and breathe and have our being – and much of the church has come to realise that it must engage or slowly die.

So, recently you might have used some images in worship, for example – through power-point slides or video. You might have taken part in some 'interactive worship' by lighting candles, making a prayer tree or walking a labyrinth. You might even have gone to a conference on 'emerging church'.

In the rush to become more culturally savvy, however, the so-called 'emergent church' must beware simply dressing the same old church up in new clothes. As Brian McLaren points out in his excellent book The Church on the Other Side:

'It's been fashionable among the innovative pastors I know to say, "We're not changing the message; we're only changing the medium

[OldDad]

Our culture is changing and if we refuse to speak to those in it in a way that resonates with them we are ignoring the repeated advice of Paul.

This is true.  And has been for roughly the past 50 years.  Many of those who are disengaged from the EC "conversation" are merely pointing out that there is nothing new under the sun.

OD

[Arkstfan]

No there ain't much new out there.

In my small group last week (we are studying the book "Don't All Religions Lead to God") someone started a rant about various "new agey" teachings that were a new development.

I had to point out that these "new" teachings were basically the teachings we believe John was warning against in his writings.

If the church could survive modernisms ache to explain everything rationally it can survive post-modernism.

[rhbrandon]

Our culture is changing and if we refuse to speak to those in it in a way that resonates with them we are ignoring the repeated advice of Paul.

This is true.  And has been for roughly the past 50 years.  Many of those who are disengaged from the EC "conversation" are merely pointing out that there is nothing new under the sun.

OD

I would just suggest this: much of the modernist/post-modernist discussion seems to assume that the culture in which the Church operates is characteristically Western. Put another way, that the worldview that is either most characteristic or most appropriate for Christianity is within the Western tradition. However, for those not from a Western background, the arguments over modern vs. post-modern make about as much sense as our discussions over one-cup communion vs. trays does to an Episcopalian. We are missing something.

What we are apt to lose sight of is that Christianity is not dependent on adoption of this or any other worldview; it obviously contains all that we need in one. After all, our faith is not rooted in logic; it is rooted in the real event in history of the Cross and its effect on all those experiencing it and those exposed to those who did experience it.  So when someone like Hauerwas  points out how the message is about how we act toward each other, we are having the same experiences - and learning the same lessons - learned by our predecessors in faith over 1900 years ago. This is not a matter of "emotionalism" as some would label it: it is a matter of making the fact of the Cross a present reality in our lives.

[OldDad]

I would just suggest this: much of the modernist/post-modernist discussion seems to assume that the culture in which the Church operates is characteristically Western. Put another way, that the worldview that is either most characteristic or most appropriate for Christianity is within the Western tradition. However, for those not from a Western background, the arguments over modern vs. post-modern make about as much sense as our discussions over one-cup communion vs. trays does to an Episcopalian. We are missing something.

An excellent point, and one with which I heartily concur.

OD

[Nevertheless]

Bob, I don't know what's gotten into you today.  Not only are your posts not annoying, but I find them quite thought-provoking.  ;)

[Lee Freeman]

I know. It's kinda scary. :)

Seriously, though. I think there's a place for reason in the life of faith. I think there is a blance between reason and emotion in Christianity. Jesus said to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength Reason supports or upholds faith. Reason helps me decide that the claims Christianity makes are true and that I should believe them. Emotion is what quickens and enlivens my faith. Emotion makes sure it's not a cold, dead faith, that is only intellectual. So basically I think that Christianity is both objective Truth and subjective experience at the same time. Christianity is squarely based upon recorded historical events, which, if they aren't true, as Paul says, means our "faith is futile" and we are still in our sins and "are of all people most to be pitied."

Pax.

[rhbrandon]

Bob, I don't know what's gotten into you today.  Not only are your posts not annoying, but I find them quite thought-provoking.  ;)

I like to think that ALL of my posts are thought-provoking, without plumbing the depths of what is actually provoked.

;D

[charlie]

If the church could survive modernisms ache to explain everything rationally it can survive post-modernism.

Good point, but the concern isn't so much over survival as it is over identity. It has been argued by many that the church, in fact, did not survive Constantinian endorsement. Rather, that it was corrupted into an unrecognizable and illegitimate form and had to be "restored" years later, and while there was doubtless some faithful Christian remnant, the organization of the Church as God intended had to be jumpstarted.

Of course, we chuckle at the thought of this, and yet we hold to our own faith groups (I do myself; three fingers are pointed back at me), thus we simultaneously reject the logic of this declaration and uphold its result. All the while, we ceaselessly endeavor to throw away the dodgy elements of our attempts at churching, constantly declaring, "we've been screwing it up, but now, at last, we're starting to get it right!" Protestantism, Restorationism, Mainstreamism, Contemporaryism, Postmodernism, Emergent Church, and then there's Fundamentalism, Holiness, Conservativism, Anti-ism, Quarantining (remember Foy?), the Boston Movement, ad infinitum.

The thing they all have in common, from what I can see, is an effort to deconstruct the past and the surrounding other, and "get it right at last."

This is what happens when you put Church ahead of Christ.

[memmy]

Bob said:

This is not a matter of "emotionalism" as some would label it: it is a matter of making the fact of the Cross a present reality in our lives.

Amen!

Wow Bob! I understand and also agree with you much better over here than in the negative politics thread.

Keep it up, and maybe I should just stay away from that other section altogether.  ;)

Please stick around in this thread. I find you much more interesting over here!  ;D (Or are you "emerging"?)  ;) again.

Blessings, Memmy

[Arkstfan]

Good point, but the concern isn't so much over survival as it is over identity. It has been argued by many that the church, in fact, did not survive Constantinian endorsement. Rather, that it was corrupted into an unrecognizable and illegitimate form and had to be "restored" years later, and while there was doubtless some faithful Christian remnant, the organization of the Church as God intended had to be jumpstarted.

Of course, we chuckle at the thought of this, and yet we hold to our own faith groups (I do myself; three fingers are pointed back at me), thus we simultaneously reject the logic of this declaration and uphold its result. All the while, we ceaselessly endeavor to throw away the dodgy elements of our attempts at churching, constantly declaring, "we've been screwing it up, but now, at last, we're starting to get it right!" Protestantism, Restorationism, Mainstreamism, Contemporaryism, Postmodernism, Emergent Church, and then there's Fundamentalism, Holiness, Conservativism, Anti-ism, Quarantining (remember Foy?), the Boston Movement, ad infinitum.

The thing they all have in common, from what I can see, is an effort to deconstruct the past and the surrounding other, and "get it right at last."

This is what happens when you put Church ahead of Christ.

Organizationally we can't get it right. My thought is that throughout most of Christian history the Structure (or organization or form) has fought with Christ for supremacy over the body.

Remember in Acts and in the epistles that the early church was under attack from within about as much as it was from outside.

I think that conflict is essential to our identity it forces us to determine if our allegiance is to the building, the preacher, the convention, etc or Christ Jesus.

We need to be challenged. We need to be ready to challenge anyone who preaches a gospel short of the love of God contained in Christ's death and resurrection and be ready to be challenged on everything extra we cling to.

[ellisadam]

Organizationally we can't get it right. My thought is that throughout most of Christian history the Structure (or organization or form) has fought with Christ for supremacy over the body.

Remember in Acts and in the epistles that the early church was under attack from within about as much as it was from outside.

I think that conflict is essential to our identity it forces us to determine if our allegiance is to the building, the preacher, the convention, etc or Christ Jesus.

We need to be challenged. We need to be ready to challenge anyone who preaches a gospel short of the love of God contained in Christ's death and resurrection and be ready to be challenged on everything extra we cling to.

Amen, Ark. 
AE

[memmy]

Organizationally we can't get it right. My thought is that throughout most of Christian history the Structure (or organization or form) has fought with Christ for supremacy over the body.

Remember in Acts and in the epistles that the early church was under attack from within about as much as it was from outside.

I think that conflict is essential to our identity it forces us to determine if our allegiance is to the building, the preacher, the convention, etc or Christ Jesus.

We need to be challenged. We need to be ready to challenge anyone who preaches a gospel short of the love of God contained in Christ's death and resurrection and be ready to be challenged on everything extra we cling to.

I second that Amen!

[Cliftyman]

I like emotionalism myself.  Its what makes us human, and since we are created in God's image, I like to think we get our emotionalism from our creator.  ;D

[Skip]

Skip, if you want to think of me that way, that's fine. Like I said, I find many things about the Emergent ethos attractive and some not. The relativism, I don't, but like Adam said, not everyone who identifies as Emergent is.
...

I assume you were responding to this:
"Interesting; a very Post-modern / Deconstructive answer.
A relativistic answer; a relative comparison to what is perceived as Modern.
Justification by comparison to what is seen as the 'Modern standard'."
I think of you as a Post-modern / Emergent.
And I was observing that your answer was Post-modern / Emergent.

[Skip]

It's hardly fair.  I started the day at -4.  Don't know what I'm doing wrong.

You made a nice run to -1 yesterday evening, but you don't have 'negative' staying power.
Got you by -2.

[Skip]

Lee,

Just a reminder that BOG has given you up for Lent.
It would probably be good if you didn't jump into the midst of his discussions with other posters.

You did. But pardon me.

BOG didn't give me up for Lent.

[Nevertheless]

Lee,

Just a reminder that BOG has given you up for Lent.
It would probably be good if you didn't jump into the midst of his discussions with other posters.

You did. But pardon me.

BOG didn't give me up for Lent.

I don't remember Lee ever saying he was giving up BOG for Lent . . .

[memmy]

Wow nevertheless, you have so much manna that you are going to stretch your hammock!  ;)

[boringoldguy]

Bumping this up to the top to point out that the ACU/"Equality Riders" thread pretty well proves the limitations of the PoMo/Emergent worldview.   As Skip said somewhere -  it's unable (more likely unwilling) to identify and confront sin.

[winky]

Just FYI, choosing to engage with sinners, rather than arresting them, does not preclude identifying and confronting sin. 

[ellisadam]

Hey everyone,
Just thought some of you might find this interesting.  A few months ago Doug Pagitt and Bob DeWaay debated each other on "The Emerging Church and Postmodern Spirituality".  It's an interesting exchange that I think everyone involved in this thread would enjoy.  I'm not sure it will convince you one way or the other, but it does clearly identify the differences in the two positions.  You can get the mp3's by subscribing to "PagittCast" on itunes or by downloading or streaming them from here:
http://web.mac.com/pagitt/iWeb/Doug%20Pagitt.Com/PagittCast/PagittCast.html

AE

[Phil Wilson]

And just in case people don't get enough to listen to with Pagitt and DeWaay, there was another conversation that happened back in September at Cornerstone University.

Brian McLaren, Mike Wittmer, and Ed Dobson talked about what the Emergent Church is and isn't. It's really interesting and civil and very enlightening. You can find the mp3's here. You get to hear both sides and disagreements and the best thing was that you also get Christian behavior from all sides.

Peace.

[OldDad]

Dusting off this old thread to share from good stuff from Chuck Colson...

Emerging Confusion
Jesus is the truth whether we experience him or not.
by Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 05/31/2006 09:30 a.m.

Distressed about my widely circulated exchanges with an "emerging church" leader, a young theologian confronted me after a conference. He urged me to try to understand them. "You might be surprised by how much you agree on," he said.

Maybe I had been too harsh. After all, the theologian—we'll call him Jim—argued that emerging church leaders are trying to translate the gospel for a postmodern generation. That's a commendable goal, I agreed. Though in their effort to reach postmoderns—who question the existence and knowability of truth—I expressed fear that they are coming dangerously close to teaching that objective truth does not exist.

A lengthy e-mail exchange with Jim followed. In defense of emerging church leaders, he insisted that truth is paradoxical, simultaneously personal and propositional. It is objectively true that Jesus Christ is Lord no matter what anyone thinks, Jim wrote. But, he added, "Propositional truth is not the highest truth. Indeed, the highest truth is personal."

Like all statements that can lead us into error, those have the ring of truth. Of course, truth becomes relational when we come to Jesus, Truth himself. But our doing that isn't what makes it true. He is the truth whether or not we ever experience him. Scripture is never less than revealed propositional truth.

Jim argued that one prominent emerging church leader won't say this for fear that the greater points he's trying to make won't be heard. Okay, I conceded, his motives may be good, but his position can lead people to think that truth depends on experience or comprehension.

Jim continued to plead for my understanding. Emerging church leaders are only seeking to challenge the church to go beyond static orthodoxy. Good, I replied—but what's new? I've been trying to get people out of pews to live their faith in prisons for 30 years.

Fearful that I was being influenced by stereotypes, I asked my associate Anne Morse to visit a leading emerging church. The service was a bit unsettling to a traditionalist, she reported, with no Bibles or hymnals in sight. During the service, congregants were free to engage in activities at various "stations" of the building: praying, journaling, or tithing. The pastor, who lacks formal seminary training, offered not a sermon, but the story of his decision to "follow Jesus."

But style is not really the issue. I've worshiped all over the world, in former prison torture chambers, under jungle overgrowth in Sri Lanka, and in homes of persecuted believers. And I recognize that the emerging church is trying to engage the postmodern mindset as Paul did at Mars Hill, picking up on Athenian cultural artifacts. Once he did that, however, Paul also taught them why they were wrong. He didn't sanctify the altar to the unknown god or say that pagans have things to teach us, as at least one emerging church leader does (when, for example, he says Buddhists have things to teach Christians about meditation).

The e-mails kept coming back to that one stubborn question: What is truth? While I now have increased sympathy for what emerging leaders are trying to accomplish, I still believe some have wrongly diagnosed the church—believing evangelicals are wedded to dry, dusty doctrine, the curse of modernity.

I only wish that were the problem. My experience is that most mainstream evangelicals are so steeped in the experiential gospel that they never think about truth propositionally. (Barna found while 63 percent of Americans do not believe in truth, 53 percent of evangelicals don't either.)

The arguments of some emerging church leaders, I fear, draw us perilously close to the trap set by postmodern deconstructionist Stanley Fish. Defending himself after his sympathetic statements about the 9/11 terrorists boomeranged, Fish claimed that postmodernists don't really deny the existence of truth. He said there is simply no "independent standard of objectivity." So truth can't be proved to others; therefore, it can't be known—a verbal sleight of hand.

For evangelicalism (let alone emerging churches) to buy into that would undermine the very foundation of our faith. Theologian Donald A. Carson puts his finger precisely on the epistemological problem: Of course, truth is relational, Carson writes. But before it can be relational, it has to be understood as objective. Truth is truth. It is, in short, ultimate reality. Fortunately, Jim came to see this.

The emerging church can offer a healthy corrective if it encourages us to more winsomely draw postmodern seekers to Christ wherever we find them—including coffee houses and pubs. And yes, worship styles need to be more inviting, and the strength of relationship and community experienced. But these must not deter us from making a solid apologetic defense of the knowability of truth.

OD

[kanham]

Thanks OD.

[ollie]

What do you mean by \"emergent\"?

Another sect coming, soon to be labeled as "emergers".

[ellisadam]

Here's sort of a response to Coleson by Tony Jones, the national coordinator of Emergent (from www.outofur.com):

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.

[OldDad]

This "brilliant" nugget...

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?

and this one...

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.

pretty much told me all I needed to know.

OD

[Arkstfan]

Hang on.

Go back and read Colson again.

Barna found while 63 percent of Americans do not believe in truth, 53 percent of evangelicals don't either.

Colson's battle is already lost, he just argued and seems to miss that point.

Colson also says.
Defending himself after his sympathetic statements about the 9/11 terrorists boomeranged, Fish claimed that postmodernists don't really deny the existence of truth. He said there is simply no "independent standard of objectivity." So truth can't be proved to others; therefore, it can't be known—a verbal sleight of hand.

Apologetics exist because we cannot prove the existence of God to an independent standard of objectivity or to a scientific certainty. Faith and belief have always been part of the equation. Why Colson wishes to cling to a method of logic the inherently denies God is beyond me. Modernism declares that truth is those things observable and repeatable. We cannot carry that burden.

[Nevertheless]

We tend to think of postmodernism, or the fight against it, as a rather recent occurrence.  However, I was struck by the similarity of some of Colson's arguments to the first page of Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, written in 1941.

My dear Wormwood,
I note what you say about guiding your patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend.  But are you not being a trifle naive?  It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches.  That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier.  At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it.  They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning.  But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that.  Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head.  He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily 'true' or 'false', but as 'academic' or 'practical', 'outworn' or 'contemporary', 'conventional' or 'ruthless'.  Jargon, not argument is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.  Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true!  Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous -- that is the philosophy of the future.  That's the sort of thing he cares about.
[...]
Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences.  Your business is to fix his attention on the stream.  Teach him to call it 'real life' and don't let him ask what he means by 'real'.

[OldDad]

This thread gets bumped every couple of months...

I've recently begun reading the blog and listening to the podcasts of Mark Driscoll, founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA.  Fascinating reading and listening.

I stumbled across this today on his blog at theresurgence.com:

"In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.

Since that time I have frankly not known what my place is in the greater church. I am part of no denomination and in a city where the evangelical heterosexual male pastors could have a meeting in a phone booth. Theologically I am an old school Bible-thumper, and culturally I am a progressive because my heart burns for the church to be an effective missionary to the culture for the gospel. "

Amen.

OD

[ellisadam]

OD,
If you like Driscoll's blog and podcasts, you should really check out his books "The Radical Reformission" and "Confessions of a Reformission Rev."  He is a really interesting guy, and I think he has a good heart.  Recently, he got into a heated debate (of sorts) with Brian McLaren over at the out of Ur blog.  He later logged on and humbly apologized for the way he had conducted himself (while still holding his position).  All in all I think he's a good voice to listen to and he has a lot to contribute.
AE

[marc]

I'm bumping this, although the first part is a bit out of order, because I get the idea that the emerging church idea has less sympathy on this board than it once die. I'm likely one of the few left who have emerging leanings, even though I'm a bit all-over-the-place on this. One result of the addition of the sub-boards, particularly the end times board, is that this board has become more fundamentalist.

What do you guys think?