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 15th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Rev, I agree with you about chant and music. A lot of (heh, should I qualify that?) recent worship stuff notoriously involves repetitious lyrics that could qualify as chanting. I’m not opposed to incorporating some Buddhist thought into Christian practise, btw.
The blue pill was discovering powerlessness? Hmm. There’s an invitation to a whole big discussion about the psychology of personal boundaries in Western culture if I ever saw one. The “blue pill” by the way, was the one that had you living in the construct and not emerging.
My side, if I’m taking one, is fairly red pill… That is questioning just about everything said by anyone who claims to be some authority in Anglo culture. I’ve seen way too much, and experienced way too much, abuse of power by people who claim to be something they’re not. I think the reason people are suspicious of associating with “the church” is because of such a history of abuse. Who wants to be the church if they’re a bunch of power tripping control freaks?
So if we’re engaging in mission, what is it that we’re trying to convert people to? “Jesus” is not a good enough answer. Are we giving people the time, space, tools and support to discover a life relating to God through Christ, regardless of how different that may be from our own? Or are we offering them a little box of good moral behaviours to conform to and expecting them to turn up to whatever kind of regular group meeting we’ve dreamt up this time?
September 15th, 2006 at 11:46 am
tbokar -
Can you name some sources - ie books etc? You don’t need to name the name of individuals, but perhaps you can name the community they are a part of? What services have you visited?
It’s very difficult to know what you’re talking about and engage with it otherwise. For example, there’s many things written on the EC that’s not based on fact at all - in fact that recent Sydney Anglican piece got a lot of the facts completely wrong, and referred to an example of EC that was a complete joke! (As in, it was a joke - the community has never existed).
September 15th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Sorry for the multiple posts…I hate it that we can’t edit our posts!
Tbokar - in the communities I’m familiar with, “contemplative meditation” comes not from Buddhism but from the Celts or Catholicism, it comes from ancient and respected saints. I’ve never heard anything about “inner energy” or the martial arts (although my fiance - yay! I get to say that now) is part of the EC and does kendo - does that count?! “Symbols curtesy of the Catholic church” - the only thing I can think of is candles and iconography, and the icons are never statues but paintings etc, and they’re only ever of Jesus (or they might involve an image of Mary holding the Christchild)…and they are not worshipped, but used as aids to contemplation and ’sermons’.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
there are so many strings to Viola’s bow he must have become a Violin!
Also I can’t hold a candle to Catholics!
If people think that being a christian is going to church then they are probably not in the church. I really don”t care what label is put on any group as long as they evangelise and edify people with god’s word.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
I see a lot of people in the bogosphere writing some pretty lame crap about the EC and it’s main puibloic faces (Mclaren et al) Don Carson has written a book, this particular blog ( http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/tag/emergent-church/ )is very interested in writing crap - as per the following:
People attack what they don;t undersatnd a lot of the time, but it seems that there are a whole lot of IC people very scared of the EC. (sounds like and episod eof the OC don;t it!)
Emergent type churches and I am really quite new to the whole concept (only really started exploring it over the past 2-3 years) is the saving grace of the church for me - it is bringing a whole new realisation of what it means to be in relaiotnship with God.
September 15th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
As an aside, I appreciate what the rev has said. While there are differences between the EC in Aus, US and Europe, it is sometimes tempting to distance ourselves from criticism of Emergent and others by saying “we are not like them”. While true to an extent, the fact is that the critics of Emergent and others would likely also criticise the Aus EC for similar reasons.
FWIW my expression of EC is very divorced from alt-worship type stuff such as meditation etc, simply because I don’t connect naturally with a lot of that stuff so I don’t pursue it. I don’t think that the mode of worship is really the point though.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Yes Dan, I don’t want to isolate away from them either. My point was that its origins were different, but we are conversing with each other and growing together, with each group bringing something to the table.
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Oh by the way Lis,
What pill takes you into the real world?
I think I got them mixed up.
For me what vaulted me into a world that was real, and that reality was such that I would never be the same was the call to powerlessness and the kingdom of God.
And speaking of conversion, we are converting people to the kingdom of God through the work and example of Jesus.
rev
September 15th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Greg, that article makes the very statement which makes Christians highly suspicious about the emerging church in that the leading figures appear to have a very liberal understanding of the bible.
Very poor biblical doctrine in the EC is the essence of the Carson book and when people such as McClaren do not directly support either the cross or the physical resurrection then the EC is not part of the Church at all.
It makes a very good point about ex positional preaching too.
September 15th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Interestingly, one of the features identified by writers was the lack of ability to define exactly what the emerging church movement really is. Defenders are therefore able to shift the apparent appearance to counteract criticism. It’s a bit like trying to hold down Medusa.
Other features identified include a dislike of definition; aversion to doctrinal Christianity; argumentative response to challenge; the reluctance to accept authority and the inability to accept a revelation from God that may be definable. In looking back at the genre of comments from proponents I would suggest that all of these factors have been displayed in one way or another.
Dan Kimball, author of The Emerging Church, says that, (in the emerging church) “the basis of learning has shifted from logic and rational, systematic thought to the realm of experience. People increasingly long for the mystical and the spiritual rather than the evidential and facts-based faith of the modern soil.”
In the book, Stories or Emergence, edited by Mike Yaconelli, most of the articles reflect an element of protest. The subtitle indicates he believes that the EC is moving from absolute to authentic. They have in common a shared destination (namely, the Emergent Church movement) and a shared point of origin: traditional (and sometimes fundamentalist) Evangelicalism.
What they have in common is that they began in one thing and “emerged” into something else. This gives the book an element of protest, of rejection: we were where you were once, but we emerged from it into something different.
In his own words, Emergent leader Leonard Sweet described the emergent church with the acronym EPIC. “E” stands for experiential because post-moderns desire more than listening and thinking. They want to enter into worship as an experience of the senses.” This is why medieval rituals appeal.
This has been supported by my experience of EC in the UK, NZ and Australia. All had a strong focus on symbols and atmosphere, including pictures, repetitive chanting and incense.
I could go on, but I won’t. Instead, I think you should do your own homework. A couple of the books I have read are below. There are plenty of others that give much consideration to the topic.
However, if you are a true EC believer, then I expect that it won’t make a lot of difference, for it is all relative – different for you than for me.
If your church is one that gathers to study God’s word and to gain understanding of Him through that and then reaches out to others, then you are probably not an EC. If you are unsure of what the EC involves, then my advice would be to steer well clear, for it is not the church that Christ came to be bridegroom to.
Yours in Christ, tbokar
References:
Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church, ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003)
Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian, ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001)
D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005),
September 15th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
tbokar said “If your church is one that gathers to study God’s word and to gain understanding of Him through that and then reaches out to others, then you are probably not an EC.”
That is complete and utter nonsense.
What’s wrong with a “symbols and atmosphere, including pictures, repetitive chanting and incense”? None of these things have any “spiritual power” - Satan does not waft into the room along with incense. It’s simply a material thing that helps create an atmosphere in which we might more easily listen to the still, small voice of God, in which we might pray, in which we might thoughtfully listen to others. In my view, it’s just as silly to say we can’t have incense in order to be orthodox as it is to say we must have incense to be orthodox.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
tbokar - btw, you’re still not being very specific. Can you please tell us where or how you’ve seen these worship styles, and what exactly it is that you find so objectionable about them?
Forgive me if I’m being stupid, but I honestly fail to see what’s wrong with “pictures, repetitive chanting and incense”. Further, given that I’ve never come across a Melbourne or Sydney Anglican that has a problem with candles or the repetitive chanting involved in holding Taize services, do your concerns with the EC extend to Anglicans also?
September 15th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Homer writes:
“when people such as McClaren do not directly support either the cross or the physical resurrection then the EC is not part of the Church at all.”
Can you please give me your sources for such an accusation?
I have all of Brian McLaren books I think so I can look up page numbers if you cite them.
September 15th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
good call phil
September 15th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
I was referring to the dcebate that occured in Christianty Today and related sites some time back and Big Mac’s refusal to stand up for either of christianty central tenets. I believe this is the main reason for Don Carson’s book.
Greg’s link is a good expurgated version however
September 15th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Q: How many Sydney Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: CHANGE???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 15th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Did anyone have a good look around the site that posted the “Biblical vs. Postmodern” link at the start of this thread? I was especially taken with the section about how your kids shouldn’t read C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books because this will encourage occult experimentation. Warnings about how homeschooling parents will be soon forced to teach ungodly values… United Nations conspiracy theories. etc.
I think almost anything is occult / pagan to these guys. No wonder the emerging church gets a swipe.
It may be that the Emerging Church is in fact a little like the early church… chaotic, diverse, scattered… some branches of it will die out. It may also be God is creating a geniune new movement out of all the chaos… a bit of sifting of wheat from chaff will be going on while something new is being birthed. Time will tell… by their fruits you will know them.
(Did I mix enough metaphors to confuse everyone?)
September 16th, 2006 at 5:12 am
In the 60’s, when Clapton was with John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers people used to write ‘E.C is God’ on the wall. I think this should link to the topic somehow but you’ll have to figure that one out. I’m on night shift and in no condition to theorise further about the 60’s. I have a hard enough time remembering the 80’s. Something will emerge and the writing is on the wall…When I’ve fully emerged I’ll let you know.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:38 am
Instead of trying to describe the “emerging church”, it might be helpful to describe “emerging trends in the church”
- The Missional Revolution
- The move from solid to liquid
- Theology emerging in a number of directions
- A move from “holiness” values to “justice” values
These often tend to go together, but not always.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:53 am
So when a baptist church play hymns in a hundred year old style that connects with the hundred year old people it is Godly, even though some of those were pub songs from their time. But when an emerging church uses candles and silence to do the same thing then its eastern religion.
When the emerging church gets attacked for being heretical and we fight back we are being arguementatitve.
When the traditional church is attacked for the idea of soul sleep, or anhilationism they say, well that isn’t the official doctrine, but just one of many that some evangelicals accept, but when the emerging church does that we are being obtuse and refusing to define ourselves.
Doesn’t it make sense when there is something that is trying to figure itself out it will take a while to get all the details done? And when the point is that many of the details are just inconsequential distinctions then the failure to see the need to addresss and codify these seems even more sensical.
Now I think certain of the EC leaders have done us no favours, that have rightly pointed out that we aren’t sure about things yet, and can’t make a definitve comment on things yet, but they still put out book after book. And in these books they have failed to explain, (or more likely people have failed to understand) that we are asking questions, and looking for answers, and are not satisfyed with the old answers.
But ultimately I would say the major objection comes down to this, our way is right and you people must be leaving the faith to do it differently. If you aren’t singing worship songs that are deep and doctrinal (like I go to the garder alone while the dew is still on the roses i presume) and then followed by expositional preaching for fourty five minutes you aren’t doing church. Which is bullshit.
rev
September 16th, 2006 at 9:46 am
As I understand it the fundamental driver of the EC is the understanding that there is now a need to think and act like missionaries in the West… to apply the principles of missiology that were once used by cross-cultural missionaries. We now need to start thinking about this seriously in terms of various sub-cultural and multicultural groups in the Western world. It’s not “brand new”… John Smith was applying some of these ideas in developing God’s Squad back in the early 70’s… there was a developing house church movement then too… Christian surfers just a little later I think?
What’s new is that this missionary endeavour is happening on a much larger scale in the Western world, and there’s a huge amount of experimentation going on… there are no doubt some who are imitating the “style” of a particular EC group with little understanding of the missional imperative behind it… they’ll probably be weeded out by some kind of spiritual “natural selection”. The experiments that are more successful in making disciples in a subcultural group would be expected to multiply and grow.
While to some extent we “wait and see” you’d hope all people of faith could extend a bit of very old fashioned Christian grace to one another instead of throwing potshots. (not optimistic on that score, alas)
Oh, by the way, the theological qualifications of the “Biblical vs. Postmodern” material (and that Narnia books are occultic, and other reactionary gems) are… um… he’s a lawyer, she’s a nurse. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
P.S. the “change?” in the light bulb joke need to be said in tones of horror. I don’t know if it “works” in print!
September 16th, 2006 at 10:09 am
that is very correct Janet, the difference would come in the application among different types of subcultures. However, there is a danger of us then being linked with the seeker sensitive movements, which I do believe brings up the second important point in the emerging church agenda:
the move from attractional and extractional (attract people to church and extract them from their local culture) to incarnation (live in their culture, and encourage them to stay within their cultures as they come to Christ in order to then influence others in their culture)
Now I believe Jon Smith did this, but didn’t see it as being addressed in your post above.
rev
September 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I didn’t clarify that explicitly, but that is precisely what I believe John Smith was trying to do.
The key people in the EC… that I know in Melbourne anyway… understand the difference between “attractional church” and incarnational church within a particular sub section of society very clearly.
I’m guessing however… willing to be corrected… in the mix there probably are a few groups that get together with their mates in a cafe because they’re bored with IC, and imagine they’re doing emerging missional church? My point about a group like that vs what (say) Darren Altclass is doing in Tassie, is that it is unlikely to be fruitful or sustainable… “spiritual natural selection”.
September 16th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
what does a church do if it doesn’t do expositional preaching?
How does God talk to them?
I know the local Hunters Hill Anglican ‘church’ had a female ‘minister who would talk about the Simpsons!
I don’t think it matters what is used only if it used in a biblically way
September 16th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
“spiritual natural selection”…I am a bit uncomfortable with that bit, can you guys explain that better…coz a lot of false teachers/heretics/cults e.t.c. exist within the Christian faith and some of them are still here and havent been naturally selected out.
September 16th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Homer writes: “I was referring to the dcebate that occured in Christianty Today and related sites some time back and Big Mac’s refusal to stand up for either of christianty central tenets. I believe this is the main reason for Don Carson’s book.
Greg’s link is a good expurgated version however ”
Ok, so we have established that your source of the comment that “people such as McClaren do not directly support either the cross or the physical resurrection then the EC is not part of the Church at all.” was not any of his published books but rather an article in a magazine.
Have you read any of McLaren’s books Homer?
But I have to ask again that you quote the bit that leads you to the assumption that McLaren doesn’t support the cross or the physical resurrection. Can you please quote from the article so I can see what you are refering to?
Also, I am not sure where the link is that you said Greg gave.. can you link that up too.
September 16th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Have been slowly reading through the posts in this topic (mostly because I’m slow), and it has helped me get a better perspective on the EC (in differing countries also), and more importantly, understanding a little bit more, of ‘where people are at’, if you know what I mean.
We are all on a journey, but not all roads lead to (the one true) God, Jesus is the only ‘way’ (John 14:6 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.)
Where are we hoping our journey will lead us to ? Who is it, that we are seeking after ? Experiences, our own desires, a better way of ‘doing’, etc, etc. Are we following after an it or a thing maybe ??
Have we made a “thing” out of “who we are in Christ” and gone after this thing, or gone after an it ??
From Chapter 3 - Church: The Thing
Are we going after Jesus ?
September 16th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
“I know the local Hunters Hill Anglican ‘church’ had a female ‘minister who would talk about the Simpsons!”
I agree.
It’s time to remove all references to Homer from Signposts.
September 16th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Yes it is all about Jesus with me, and the churches I have been associated with. Infact everything FORGE tries to teach is to do like Jesus did, speaking in the language of the people, using the metaphors within their culture, and being inclusive. We seek to follow not only Jesus teachings, but his methodologies as well.
I think that the church stuctures that permeate the traditional church often wind up being more important that Jesus.
And yes Janet there are some emerging churches, infact probably many that are peoples last ditch effort to stay in church. They are often not very fruitful, but atleast keep people who have had it with the traditional church connected to a body of believers and in some way fanning the flames of faith.
rev
September 17th, 2006 at 6:24 am
Rev -”Infact everything FORGE tries to teach is to do like Jesus did, speaking in the language of the people, using the metaphors within their culture, and being inclusive.”
Isn’t that what we have youth pastors for?