Is the emerging church good?
Ogyle asks the question:
Hmm, .. the EC is good ?? Essentially, the EC is “change from within”, but the change is corrupt. It’s essentially Hinduism in Christian clothing. The “centering” is achieved by emptying the mind via chanting a “sacred word” over and over for about 20 minutes.
But there are many other facets of the EC, besides “chanting” that should send up warning signals. Quite a number of good articles on the Emerging Church here.
Especially the one on Biblical versus Postmodern Thinking
Warning, … danger … look out !!!
Some others have already provided their responses in the thread, but I thought I would open it up for all and sundry. How do you define the EC? What do you consider its strengths and weaknesses?
September 14th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The American emerging church is just a forum where the true compassionate conservatives (unlike Bush) and the true liberals can dialogue.
The Australian emerging church is just the traditional church with its traditional theology, but with new jargon (eg. incarnational missiology instead of substititionary atonement.)
There is nothing to fear from either because they are not substantially different from the respective Christian sub-cultures from which they have ‘emerged.’…in the same way that caramel Tim Tims are essentially the same as Original Tim Tams.
To liken either to new age or eastern religions is just silly.
The ‘emerging’ church will be just as mystifying to non-churched people..as the traditional church, because if traditional church people don’t get the ‘emerging’ church, then non-churched people certainly aren’t going to get the ‘emerging’ church.
How do you define to people something that does not want to be defined?
September 14th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I actually agree to some extent with Lance’s comments, however I’d say this - while I think that the EC is mystifying to the non-churched (man, the jargon is mystifying to anyone who’s grown up in the church!), I think that its expressed purposes increase the likelihood that one day it will be less mystifying to the non-churched. Most traditional institutional (whatever) churches have no intention of changing - they don’t see it as necessary, they’re quite happy as they are, and they’ll bemoan the empty pews but see it as the result of secularism etc. At least people engaged in the EC conversation acknowledge the flaws, and they’re endeavouring to do something about it.
Lance’s view is a bit like saying the Liberal and Labor parties are identical. They are, at present - but the reality is that they are founded on significantly different theories, foundational documents etc. We cannot talk just about what is, but what might be.
September 14th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
A political analogy is probably a good analogy…and you could probably compare the emerging church to the Australian Democrats.
In the Democrats case…the idea was good…real democracy inside a political party (although they became paralysed when they had to find a new leader in a hurry) ..but in the end..they were just politicians….failing at what they were trying to be….different.
In the end……when they had the balance of power (before they became completely irrelevant)….all they could do was pass Labor or Liberal legislation with some of their own minor adjustments.
And that will be the failure of the ‘emerging’ church……you can take the boys and girls out of the church…but you can’t take the church out of the boys and girls.
It will just be traditional church with some minor adjustments (already..the emerging church proponents have caved-in on most things to appease the traditionalist thinkers)
September 14th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
How many emerging church people does it take to change a light globe?
None, because candles are better.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
How many Sydney Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?
One - they just stand there holding it, and let the world revolve around them.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Tell us what you really think, Lance.
Much as I hate the label “emerging”, I think that your comments are pretty unfair on the majority of people who would broadly fall within that camp. Mystifying to the un-churched? The unchurched people who connect with our “emerging” communities don’t find the concept of sitting down with someone for a meal and talking about God too complicated.
I am guessing (correct me if I am wrong) you are saying that it is the EC meta-narrative which might be mystifying to the un-churched. Which might be true, but seeing at the meta-narrative is aimed at and engaged with leaders of the movement I can’t see why there would be any expectation that un-churched people would even know about let alone be across those issues.
I am reminded of my father in law who famously proposed to plant a church whose sole purpose was not to be missional, because missional is not a word. If you don’t like the jargon, call it something else, but for crying out loud, isn’t connecting between with the world and being a bit more flexible a good thing? Doesn’t it at least have the *potential* to be something different than the way things have been done in the past?
September 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I can see that a definition of ‘what’ the EC is, in Australia, is difficult, although ‘The Rev” gave some definitions (thanks).
Would it be correct in saying that the EC in USA and the EC in Australia are very different then ? The links to that site I supplied are not the only voices who cry out against the EC, btw, but are they only talking of the EC in America ??
I read somewhere, the EC was started in 2001. I do not think the EC has been around Australia for that many years, therefore it may be, that the EC in Australia, is ‘different’ ??
If the ‘definitions’ supplied by ‘Rev’ are any indication, then I would see the EC in Australia, as ’somewhere’ between the IC (Institutional Church) and the early church of the New Testament. (just an assumption on my part).
To put things into perspective (and have Rev as my friend again !!), a ‘pro EC’ person, Frank Viola, has a very good article called Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge?. It has been many months since reading the article, but I do remember he stated that there was a ‘window of time’ or something like that, and he also puts foward some serious questions about what he sees as weaknesses of the ‘Emerging Church Phenomenon’. In short, things that may hinder the EC from ‘fully emerging’ (Frank doesn’t believe in the clergy/laity distinction, neither do I, and we have several of his books).
I sensed earlier this year, that there may be people who ‘hijack’ the (true) EC, and it doesn’t ‘fully emerge’ as Frank puts it. Possibly that is what has happened and is continuing to happen in other countries ?
There may be the real ones and the counterfeit ones, that’s all I’m saying. But then to distinguish, we would need a clear definition, a creed maybe ?
What is in a name ? Quite a lot, if others have used that name (hijacked it), and turned the true purpose of the ‘movement’ into something else.
(Will the ‘real’ EC please stand up !! )
I think of ‘early church’ ( or relational christianity, NT church, simple church, etc, etc), and how, a few weeks ago, a report that Rick Warren was going to have ‘purpose driven house churches’. I thought, ‘oh no’ !!
Why do apparently good things become tainted or corrupt ?
Well, possibly the EC in Australia is still pristine, if the Rev’s definitions are anything to go by.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The way things have been done in the past, is mostly a result of about 1700 years of Paganism. How about a simple formulae ?
IC = NTC + P
where …
IC = Institutional Church
NTC = The ‘early church’ of the New Testament (house to house)
P = 1700 years of Paganism
my maths isn’t good, but to get ‘back to the future’ so to speak, we need to remove all that Paganism, something like ..
NTC = IC - P
As it has been well put, people want to be the church, which of course is never a building/place, but always a people.
I have seen nothing but good reviews of this book - Pagan Christianity - The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices
September 14th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Lance, the possibility - even probability - of failure isn’t a good enough reason to not try. I ask this in all seriousness: what do you propose we do to make communities of faith more acceptable and relevant? What are you doing to see that come to fruition?
Dan, that’s a really good point about the difference between jargon and practice, I hadn’t thought of that when I wrote the above. I get really frustrated with the jargon in EC circles - I sometimes feel like I should have brought a glossary along with me to Postcards events! - but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the practice is far more inclusive than many traditional practices are.
Lance - for me, my “church” includes my housemates and our extended group of friends. We all go to different churches, but we are committed to meeting to share a meal on a regular basis. We frequently invite non-church people into that. This is very much an EC kind of approach. It’s ridiculous to say that non-churched people find that mystifying - as far as they’re concerned, all they’re doing is coming over to our place to hang out and share a meal.
On the other hand, I still share some of Lance’s ‘concerns’. I don’t want to see us (for I see myself as an EC thinker, whether others see me as that or not is another question!) just whack different labels on the same old stuff. Personally, I find it really, really easy hanging out with ‘non-Christians’ (the majority of my closest friends would not identify with any faith), I find it really, really easy to go down to the pubs or raves, and I find it really easy to do social justice-y stuff like hang out with people who live on the streets and go to protests. As a general rule, I find it hard hanging out with Christians because I rarely feel like I fit in, while I am really comfortable talking about what I believe to non-churched types.
What I find hard is the worshp bit - I find it really hard to think about how I can create spaces for people to pray, meditate, etc (and I mean spaces specifically to do this - not worship while you’re engaged in action, that’s easy). To put it another way - I find the action bit easy, the reflection bit is harder. I suspect this is an issue for the EC generally - how do we create spaces for reflection that are more accessible to the non-churched? Even things as basic as saying “Father” or “Lord” can be very, very strange to people who have not grown up in the church.
Ogyle, I suspect you’d find a lot more to like than dislike about EC thinking, at least in Australia.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
“I have seen nothing but good reviews of this book - Pagan Christianity - The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices” - I’ve just started reading it, and am thoroughly enjoying.
Frankly, he doesn’t say anything that clever bods on Signposts don’t say, but the consistency and flow of his research make for interesting footnotes.
He debunks the lot - worshipping in rows, meeting in a big building, sermons, communion - nice and confronting to those who thought that all of these things were strictly biblical.
Re the definition of EC - if something is to ‘emerge’, that should mean that it is growing out of something else. The act of growing is organic and dependant on so many situational factors. Therefore, a ‘church’ (bunch of Jesus nuts) that is emerging from it’s traditional garb will look different from place to place. Some things will feed and inspire each group, but to slap a label and a descriptor on such an event sounds very traditional thinking…
As a culture, Americans strike me as being the kind of folk who appreciate labels, and live confortably within them. Are Australians less so? I’d like to think so. Our background tends to be more pragmatically based (my own thoughts - feel free to disagree)
As PM in it’s purist form holds up a mirror to modernism and critiques it’s effectiveness as a way of thought, I would imagine that EC examines the traditional church and critiques what hasn’t been critiqued (effectively) for many years. What outcomes are brought about due to that critique should be able to be crafted by those in the context of that group.
Would I be right in suggesting that EC described principles, not practices? Because what I see (particularly in US) is a lot of talk about the practices that are/are not EC, rather than allowing the principles to inform the participants…
Oh - interesting to read the equation of IC = NTC + P, and we need to remove P from IC to get back to NTC.
A cursory glance a Viola’s book would suggest that IC came about because of P + NTC, and that to simply remove P is not possible - it’s in the foundations and within the mortar! Therefore, a proper deconstruction is required where a separate entity is created.
Am I being too simplistic? I’m happy to be told that I am… it’s probably the coffee talking anyway…
(sorry - didn’t mean to leave a yellow smiley face like that…)
September 14th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Sooner or later…after the candlelit dinners..and sitting together listening to How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb on repeat..while watching the DVD you bought at the ABC shop of Andrew Denton interviewing Michael Willesee…..the question’s going to come up about what you believe..and what you’re trying to do…and then….it’s the jargon…..the other agenda that’s hidden from the ‘unchurched’ until they get a bit further into the inner circle…
I was invited to ‘Tuesday Church’…and it later emerged..that it was all about ‘batons’ and ‘landmarks’..and ……..’huh’?
Maybe I’m just too stupid to get all the jargon.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Bec,
What words have you not understood at a forge postcard? Perhaps we can help you ?
September 14th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Yes P may well be in the foundations and within the mortar, because it is deeply entrenched with the ‘building’. Rather than trying to remove P (which is change from within, and trying to ‘emerge’), why not be the church without P ? Now that is possible.
At the risk of sounding like an agent for Viola’s books, the one called Rethinking the Wineskin - The Practice of the New Testament Church is also very good, an overview ..
Many people are leaving the IC. Rather than attempt to change from within, they know that first, they need to go “outside the gates”, and in most cases, I believe it is God who is calling His people out. I say ‘most’, because some people leave the IC because of bitterness, resentment, etc.
It’s not just a theory for us, because we experienced ‘body life’ in this manner, more than 20 years ago. I can say it pretty much ‘lined up’ with how the early church was expressed in the NT.
I like this from Where is the Body ?, because I believe in “every member participating”.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
I s “Pagan Christianity” a plagerised work of “The Open Church” by Jim Rutz, written about 1988? I guess it wouldn’t be plagered if he sites his sources for say ing about the same thing.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
If you believe that Frank Viola has plagiarised work done by Jim Rutz, then why not contact Jim Rutz, or even email Frank Viola, and ask him ?
Whilst I have not read “The Open Church”, to say both books are saying the same thing is far from the truth, as Rutz himself states …
September 15th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Nah, I was asking a question - If they say the same thing, why wouldn’t he call it a landmark? I’ve read Open Church and i hear old Jim is going to be in our region soon and I have been planning on seeing him. The Open Church is a fairly good read also, and I think it was a pioneer book when you consider when it was written. BTW - You know a lot of Christian authors don’t plagerize - they just believe there is no copywright in the kingdom of God.
September 15th, 2006 at 7:01 am
If I
- try to be faithful to God’s call to be a missionary wherever I go, knowing that this will take me off established roads, and
- don’t care how this is labeled
will anyone mind?
September 15th, 2006 at 8:36 am
no I will not mind Jon, have at it bro.
Oygle,
The emerging church in America is a bit different that here. However, it is not at all like it is portrayed by these types of people. They have an agenda and are blowing things out of all proportion in order to justify their claims. If I were to generalize I would say the emerging church in America tends to be a bit more theoretical, and is a bit unready to deal with church structures. They also tend to look at things more philosophically, and have defined themselves by the suggestion that they are a conversation, not a movement. They are looking at new ways of seeing the faith in a postmodern context.
The emerging church in Europe has been mostly defined by the alternative worship movement. This movement originally was seeking to provide a more culturally relevent and appropriate form of worship and doing church for themselves, realizing that the old liturgies and forms were not attuned to their contemporary style, and culture. So them moved from hymns or folk music to techno music, from stained glass windows to video loops and projected images ect.
The emerging church in Australia has sought to confront stuctural ecclessiology, as well as look for a more missional engagement with our current society.
Now those truly were gross generalizations, but are true to some extent based on my experience and study. However, these movements are all in conversation with each other, and are informing each other, resulting in a more holistic faith. Every single one of these groups would say the scriptures are authoritative, thought they may translate them differently than the evangelicals accept. They tend to be a bit more inclusive, and much more willing to engage in discussion even about the most dogmatic parts of our faith.
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 9:11 am
.. so it’s mostly contemplative experientialism then?
September 15th, 2006 at 9:13 am
;p
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 9:28 am
The candle jokes are hilarious.
So, are we deciding that chanting is okay because in a book about the origins of Christian worship in Christendom there was lots of Paganism that wasn’t observed as such? Is it all about alt.worship or is it creating a place for a bunch of Jesus freaks and would-be Jesus freaks to eat together and talk about some spiritual stuff?
Are we still offering people the “blue-pill” of assumptions about authority and experience, or are we opening up a journey of personal relationship with God?
Still seems to me the whole “conversion” thing needs to be reassessed.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Lis I am not sure what you are saying, or what side you are taking, or if you are even taking a side but this is my thoughts about centering prayer:
what is chanting? If you set it to music is it then okay? In my centering prayer experience, as limited as that is I repeated the phrase “Jesus the Christ, saviour of the world” whenever my mind would beging to drift off. I tried to focus on Jesus, and the power of His Spirit overshadowing me. Is this a sinful practice? If I said Jesus, Jesus, holy and annointed one Jesus, over and over again, to music would that be a sinful practice?
It seems a matter of style to me, this is a different style of “connecting with God” a different style of worship.
The blue pill to me was the discovery that the way of powerlessness that Jesus taught has been completely overridden by the church, in its pursuit of its own kingdom agenda, and the discovery of the teaching of the kingdom of God that has been subverted for most of two millennia.
And the conversion thing, what do you mean by that?
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Phil - re: vocab, I honestly can’t remember. It’s happened to me a few times though…which has struck me as pretty funny, given that I like words and I tend to remember them (guess why I became a lawyer?!). It’s not really a bad thing - all groups have ways of defining themselves, and these include languages and vocabularies. A classic example is the fact that I’d use the word “marginalised” among my friends from Urban Seed, but if I used that word amongst my pentecostal friends, some of them will immediately think I’m a loony Marxist, so I’d use words like “poor” or “discriminated”.
Jon - I don’t mind!!
Ogyle - I’m not so sure it is possible to be the church without the P. We can’t always identify the stuff that’s in our culture, in our histories, in our stories…and besides, if God is omnipotent etc, then God is in all cultures, times and places, and can be found in P also. Note that I am NOT saying all belief systems are the same - I’m definitely not saying that. I’m saying that I don’t believe it’s possible to point to something and say “this is an entirely bad belief system, utterly irredeemable, and God is not present in any way in this culture”.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:12 am
;p? Is that an emerging church symbol?
Most of what the emerging church practices is largely syncretistic, a blending of other religious practices. Contemplative meditation from Buddism, focus on symbols courtesy of the Catholic church. Inner energy, largely aligned with martial arts. The list could go on. Another counterfeit practice enters the Christian scene.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I think one of the greatest strengths of the EC is that it is more concerned with BEING the Church rather than GOING to church.
One of the greatest weaknesses lies in the convenience of leaving the “old fogies” behind in their old traditions, pressing on in the vision that God has given.
However, the answer to this lies in John 17. Christ prayed for one unified Church. Not three sects with multiple denominations. I think the last Barna survey found over 33,000 denoms.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:40 am
tbokar:
You are describing an emerging church that I don’t recognise. Where are you get your information about the ec from?
September 15th, 2006 at 10:45 am
tbokar - ditto. I have no idea where you’re getting this information from, and it’s not at all my experience of the EC in Australia.
September 15th, 2006 at 10:53 am
It is not my experience either in the US, Australia or the UK. And this is what pisses me off so much, these so called experts basing their entire critique of a movement on something that no one in the movement that I know of, (and I am fairly conversant with the whole thing), has ever actually said.
If I talk about meditation, I am talking about the Jewish concept of meditating on the Law, or as I would call it law. Now some jackass in an ivory tower comes along and says, “hmmm well Buddhists meditate, must be some attempt to include buddhism into CHristianity” It is absolute tripe.
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 11:02 am
“Where are you get your information about the ec from? ” A polite way of saying, “I think you must be mistaken”.
To answer you, however, from the same sources as the rest of us. In my case, through careful research, speaking personally with a proponent and by visiting some ec services.
Can we really see the same thing so differently?
September 15th, 2006 at 11:12 am
No we cannot, perhaps what you are talking about is an aberation. Or perhaps you are putting your preconceptions on something. This is not the emerging church that I have been a part of for fifteen years. And like I said I have been all over the world looking at the emerging church. There are pentecostals that play with poisonous snakes, that doesn’t mean all pentecostals play with snakes, infact most do not. There are evangelicals that believe when we die we exist in a soul sleep until the return of Christ but that doesn’t mean all of them do. There are evangelicals that believe that the unforgiven dead are destroyed ie John Stott, but not all evangelicals believe that. There are liberals that believe we should lose the whole idea of a diety, but not all of them believe that.
It is possible that your aquaintance is not at all typical of the emerging church.
rev