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 17th, 2006 at 9:14 am
“Spiritual natural selection”… let me clarify what I mean.
It seems to me to be a missionary like Christ, the “cultural walls” you put up for people to cross should be very low (ie Jesus used the language and customs of the ordinary people of his day and spoke into the issues close to their heart) but his “discipleship wall” was very high. (”If you do not take up your cross and follow, you cannot be my disciple… if you do not give up everything you have, you cannot be my disciple”)
So… if I reflect on what Darren Altclass is involved with in Tassie… it’s very culturally accessible (hanging out at a pub and talking to people… doing joint community projects) but the mentoring and disciple-making that goes on is at the core of the ministry (this is as I understand it anyway from my conversations with him)… ie, the “discipleship wall” is taken very seriously. It’s the kind of ministry modelled more closely on what Jesus did than on what the IC does… and because intentional disciple making is the core activity I think it holds the promise of sustainability… making disciples, who make disciples etc. within a certain cultural group.
I think the institutional church in some places has a very low “discipleship wall”… club requirements are that you turn up for an hour or so most Sundays… not that you devote every part of your life utterly to Jesus. But it can have a high “cultural wall”… we get together, look middle class, sing songs and speak Christianese English. It’s not a comfortable environment for many Australians.
Where there is a high “discipleship wall” is the best chance for a movement of any kind to grow. I’m told the house church movement in China has as it’s opening teaching to new converts “how to die well for Jesus”. This movement has experienced explosive growth.
You’re right… heretical movements can grow… usually when there’s a high “discipleship wall” for toxic reasons (eg Jehovah’s Witnesses… I must go doorknocking to share the faith to be saved). Doctrinally “pure” Christian churches can wither… but it’s often because they have either no great passion or very poor skill / communication when it comes to sharing about faith in Jesus… or because they are isolated into a Christian cultural ghetto.
A few mates who meet in a pub to talk about faith… you’re right Rev, it’s better they do than don’t! But unless they are led into missional activity, it’s unlikely to grow.
So in summary… the missionary endeavour is most likely to produce growth if there’s care to keep cultural barriers low and discipleship requirements high… and most likely to be ineffective if cultural barriers are hight and discipleship requirements are low.
Not that growth is everything… faithfulness to what you are called to be and do is what matters to God. If you’re working with a people group that is very small, there are obvious limits to how big you can grow within that group!
September 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I think this is part of the problem I’m having with both the traditional and the emerging church at the moment.
If I go into McDonald’s…and order a Filet O’ Something Approximating Fish .. and a Full Strength None Of This Zero Sugar Bullshit Coke, and the 11 year old behind the counter asks me if I’d like fries with burger and coke…then I think….’hmmm…yes I wouldn’t mind some fries..and have it turned into an Unhappy Meal.’
But if I KNOW …that it’s not just a kindly suggestion…but that they’re trained to upsell ….then I become much more cynical….(to the point where next time I go into Maccas…..after giving my order..asking the 11 year old behind the counter if THEY’D like fries with my order…and see if they go into a psychological meltdown because I’ve upset their upsell routine).
In the same way I’m cynical about the traditional and emerging churches, because I’m cynical of the planning that’s going into church life.
You can’t just be friends with someone in church…it’s always about ‘friendship evangelism’…or someone trying to push you in some direction through your relationship… (eg. all the emerging missional church talk about the importance of ‘discipleship’)….and frankly I’m just sick to death of dealing with pastors and church people..who put on the fake smile..because they’ve got some other agenda…because they want to ‘disciple’ you…or for you to help take your church to the ‘next level’….or fill seats at a conference so they can break even or make money.
There’s a lot to be said for just having normal relationships with people..and maybe the church (traditional and emerging) should try it some time…without trying to upsell everything…..(would you like a Brian McLaren book with your latte`?)
September 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Well Lance, I understand what you are saying, and I agree. We must make friends with no strings attached. However, if our lifestyle is based on the kingdom of God, and we find great life and fulfillment in that, why wouldn’t it be natural to share that with others?
I make a cajun rice that I think is very good. I really enjoy it. It is very spicy, and makes me tear up just the right amount. Now when I have a friend, that has shown that they enjoy spicy food, I invite them over to have some of my rice, with some blackened catfish and some corn bread. Because I really enjoy it, and I think they would too. Now sometimes I meet someone who hates spicy food, and is not interested at all in my cajun rice. And that is okay, I don’t stop being their friend. And my every waking moment isn’t given towards giving them a little spice in this dish and a little in that until they will want my rice. Infact we can hang out and eat the food they like as long as it isn’t maccas, cause I hate that damn clown.
If there is a belief that Jesus helped and continues to help you be a more complete and fulfilled human being, then introducing others to Him is actually quite a natural thing to desire.
rev
September 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Thanks for clearing that up Janet, extremely good post Oygle, I was very challenged by that, thank you.
Hey Lance, good post re 62, I understand where you are coming from and I used to feel that way…and I still kinda do. Its just that there is this tension, Jesus came to earth coz he had a mission and He did everything that He did so that He could fulfill His mission, His mission was not of selfish gain or whatever and even when He made frienships with people, though it was for the sake of the mission He didnt forget that He was dealing with people and He loved them. As God’s people in Christ, we also have a mission and that is to shine the light of Christ in the world and Im on board with that. The tension I guess comes when it seems like we focus more on the end result (people trusting in Jesus) and forgetting that we are dealing with people who have feelings e.t.c. Im starting to think that we should make friendships with people in order that they may here the good news about Christ Jesus but I think that we should do it out of reverence for Christ and also so that our friends make come to know the beauty of God themselves. One thing I dont think is right is if we do it so that we can boast to people ‘how we brought such and such to Christ’ and all such other self glorifying stuff.
I am in an IC at the moment but I agree with the many objections people have about it. These days I am tending to feel that the IC is a ’stumbling block’ for Christians and non-Christians alike. If a couple of neighbourhood Christians met at the local cafe think of all the money that could be saved on church buildings and stuff and that money could actually start going to something useful like supporting missionaries. Furthermore, the IC is just not conducive for getting to know other saints well enough, you go in on a Sunday, have the service and most people get out…same thing every Sunday. Smaller communities have a chance to know each other more and really grow in love for one another. And in a smaller community set up its easier to know what going on in each others spiritual journeys so that it is more possible to encourage one another and to protect each other from all the nasty false prophets and heretics in the world!
September 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Phil, my very hazy memory has it the debate was around the time of Carson’s book.
Your Man Big Mac made some ambiguous statements which he wouldn’t qualify re cross and resurrection which seemed strange to me at the time hence the quite suspicious tone by evangelicals.
I am still quite mystified how any church cannot have expository preaching and if they don’t how they get God to talk to them.
Missy makes a good point. Small churches are better for fellowship and hence edification
September 17th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Rev, that’s a GREAT analogy. I am definitely gonna steal it some time!
Lance - I share your anger and cynicism, I really do. There was a thread on a blog quite a while ago where people were discussing the question “would you still be friends with X if you knew he/she was never going to become Christian?” I have to say, I was flabbergasted by the responses. I guess it’s good that people are honest, but I just can’t get my head around the fact that the answer for many Christians is “um, I’m not sure” or “no”. It seems a completely bizarre approach to people to me - I am friends with people ‘cos I like them, I enjoy their company, they make me laugh, they like doing the stuff I like doing…it really is as simple as that.
Missy, I don’t believe that Christ became with friends with people for the sake of mission. Christ became friends with people ‘cos he liked them. God came and walked among us so that he could demonstrate that he loves us. We should be hanging out with people because we love them, not because of any other agenda.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
No Bec he wanted us to join the Kingdom and we only become friends if we believe can ONLY get in through him.
He was such an exclusionist!
September 17th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
“Missy, I don’t believe that Christ became with friends with people for the sake of mission. Christ became friends with people ‘cos he liked them. God came and walked among us so that he could demonstrate that he loves us. We should be hanging out with people because we love them, not because of any other agenda. ”
Hey Bec, you’re right, Christ made friends with people because He loved them and I’m on board with that but I also think that the friendships that He made worked towards bringing God’s plans to fruition. I think we should also make friends with people because they are people and we should love them…but I do think that when God gives us the opportunity we should tell them about Jesus…and personally I think we are not doing people any favours by not ‘trying to offend them’ by talking about Jesus, isnt Jesus the greatest treasure anyway??? Plus as God’s chosen people who have been entrusted with the Gospel we should tell them.
And sometimes I feel like we talk about the ‘agenda’ as if its the worst agenda in the world…if I befriended you in the club so I could spike your drink and later rape you, now that wouldnt be cool…but if I befriended you so that hopefully the friendship would be useful in God’s hand to bring ‘you to glory’ (sorry for the Christian speak!) I wouldnt mind that! But believe me I am with you Bec, I know what you are talking about!
September 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Homer, you can teach the bible in many ways, some that are not expositional. You can take a subject and list all of the bible verses that key to understanding the subject. You can take a present situation and compare it to a biblical passage. You can use a discussion format where people explain how this verse or passage ministers to them. It is not neccesary to have a “preacher” go line by line over a passage, although I must admit it is one of my favorite ways to teach.
rev
September 17th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Homer, do you really mean that? I don’t think that Christ’s love for us was conditional in any way - his message was for all of us (though there were some people who were closer to him than others). I also think that God’s love is for all of us, and it’s us that makes the choice as to whether or not we’ll follow Christ.
Missy…I think that most people out there - at least most young people - see agendas pretty quickly, especially when they’re religious ones. I don’t like to approach people with an agenda (in fact, I probably couldn’t - I am embarassingly see-through). The word ‘agenda’ implies that we have a purpose to our conversations, that we’re endeavouring to convert people to a cause. Sure, there are certain things I try to convert people to - a concern for the environment, for refugees…but I don’t try to convert people to Christianity. It just doesn’t feel right, it feels completely fake, and I think it’s completely ineffective in my social/cultural circles. I’m far more likely to convert the people I know by living a life that they admire, by living and speaking honestly and authentically, and trusting that the Spirit will do the rest.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Hey Bec,
Is it safe then to say that the agenda is not the problem but the way us Christians usually carry it out???
I like it when you say:
“I’m far more likely to convert the people I know by living a life that they admire, by living and speaking honestly and authentically, and trusting that the Spirit will do the rest. ”
What I hope is that we wont use ‘living an admirable life’ as an excuse not to tell people the news about Christ because though our lives are a tool that God uses it is when ‘Christ and Him crucified’ is preached that God’s power is seen.
I think what us Christians need to do is to yes ’speak honestly and authentically.’ Our agenda should be out of love for Christ and in such a way that is respectful to our fellow human beings.
One thing that bugs me *and I know you’ve given me ur reasons and they are all very valid* is the part where you talk about being able to convert people to certain causes but not to Christianity.
First off let me say I am fully aware that the only person who can ‘convert people’ is God Himself but I believe God uses us humans in doing that. He has revealed to us in His word that people cant believe the message unless they have heard and Has sent us to preach it. So it doesnt shame me to ‘try to convert people’ (read tell people the gospel about Christ) because it is an honour that God Himself has given His saints to include us in His work of summing everything up under Christ.
I for one am thankful to God for making us a part of His work and it brings me great joy to be able to tell somebody about His great work in Christ.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Yeah I feel the same, don’t understand why its okay to convert someone to envirmentalism, but not to the saving love of Jesus.
rev
September 18th, 2006 at 8:51 am
This is an interesting conversation.
What if we’re wired differently… and called to do different things? What if “that which gives us joy and life” (not a bad way to consider what our particular spiritual gift / vocation might be) is different for different people?
The bible mentions the gift of evangelism… maybe those who have this as their primary spiritual gift do get great joy from getting to know others and “can’t help themselves” when an opportunity to talk about Jesus comes up. (Looks to me as if this is likely to be one of Missy’s spiritual gifts, and unlikely to be one of Bec’s!)
The problem might be when those whose primary spiritual gifts are service or hospitality or teaching are kind of guilted into… “You must go out and make friends with the aim of sharing Jesus”… this for them might be really uncomfortable. (and ineffective!) Instead of responding to the invitation of God’s Spirit for them, they are responding to manipulation.
I wonder if that was at heart your disquiet in the first place Lance… that “disciple making” evoked for you being recruited for a cause, being carbon-copied, being controlled… human manipulation.
What it should be… I think… is being assisted to discover and develop a life-giving relationship with Jesus. When you know Jesus and He invites you to do something, after a while it’s hard to help yourself but say yes!
There’s a tough Jesus in the bible… but when He invites a sacrifice, it’s where the joy and life is. When a person demands a sacrifice… that’s where legalism and bondage is.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Missy - I think we’re probably talking about much the same thing, and that our differences are a matter of terminology.
Maybe I’ll put it another way…I have strong beliefs on a range of things, and I’ll share those beliefs in different ways, depending on what I think is the most effective way of sharing them. This makes it sound very self-conscious, but it’s not at all - I think it’s probably instinctive to most of us. In Australia - and when I was studying in the Netherlands - the cultures I’m a part of are not ones where it is appropriate to share your spirituality in an extremely robust, up-front way. It’s considered rude, bizarre, and it’s going to be completely ineffective. On the other hand, it’s generally completely socially acceptable for me to share my views on the environment, refugees and asylum seekers, consumerism. NOTE, however, that I used to work in contexts where it wasn’t - when I was working in certain corporate environments, I was much more careful about what I spoke about and how.
This doesn’t mean I compromise my beliefs or my message - that’s not something I’m generally accused of (pig-headed, strong willed and stubborn are accusations that are more likely to be thrown my way!). It’s just that I’m aware of my surrounds and what’s considered appropriate, and I adjust the METHODOLOGY of communication, rather than the core of my message.
I can think of a handful of instances in my life where I consciously “shared the Gospel of Christ”, and I think it’s fair to say that they were all a complete disaster. It’s surprising how often the topic of my faith comes up, though, and how open and receptive people are to discussing it - and I believe this is because they don’t feel I have any agenda other than to enjoy a casual conversation.
Some examples - this weekend alone, I had conversations with different people about the NGOs I’m involved in; my fiance and my wedding plans;
what we’re doing on Sunday morning; and pretty boys on Australian idol. In each of these conversations, the key thing I (or ‘we’ as the case may be) was quizzed on was my faith. I didn’t seek out these opportunities, I had no agenda - I was simply myself, talking about what interests me. I think that’s why people feel so comfortable quizzing me on it - they don’t perceive me to have any agenda, they don’t feel the threat of being ‘Bible-bashed’. In the circles I move in at least, if people even suspected that I was ‘trying to convert them’, they’d run a mile and it would impede my ability to share the Gospel.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:44 am
bec that sound like you are saying, “I just share my own life with them, and do not share a message. I am trying to share the gospel, but doing it in a culturally appropriate way”
rev
September 18th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I don’t find it hard to imagine that someone Bec might be friends with for years bumps into someone like Missy and… surprise! They open their hearts to a relationship with Jesus very quickly… because the “walls” they had got eroded over time (”Christians are all brainless fundamentalists… I’d never want to be like that… Oh, but Bec’s not like that. She’s OK, really. Maybe there’s more to this Christianity thing than meets the eye.”)
I’m using your names to illustrate (1) someone who builds great relationships with others, and who are are open to sharing how God influences their life… and (2) someone else who has a gift for evangelism: who just loves “recruiting” for Jesus. I think many people who come to Christian faith as adults or later teens have been impacted by both “types” of people… the “friend” type and the “recruiter” type.
Perhaps if we really love God, and just do what God has “wired” us to do, the work will get done in His time by His grace.
September 18th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Rev - I don’t actively, consciously seek out opportunities to share a message, but I do think I’m sharing a message. It’s very important to me and to my housemates, for example, that our home feels like “a little bit of the Kingdom”.
Janet, I think the scenario you outline might be possible, although I haven’t ever seen it. Plenty of my friends tell me that meeting me has changed their perception of Christianity - I see that as a big compliment, and I think that makes me an evangelist (doesn’t it?).
I suspect, however, that this isn’t necessarily just about ‘gifts’, but the different cultures in which Missy and I exist. Most of my friends are very postmodern, they’re science and/or law grads (often environmental science) so they’re well versed in reasoning and rationality - and that is the very last thing that’s ever going to convince them of anything in the spiritual realm. The issue of my faith comes up when we’re talking about hope, love, values - things outside the purely rational realm. I am open about my doubts, questions, and my acceptance of ambiguity, and I think that’s one of the things the people I know can connect with most!
…I think authenticity is utterly essential. If we’re not true to ourselves, people can smell it a mile off. Missy and I may not have different skill sets our gifts - our differences may be about personality, interests and the social contexts in which we exist. So I think you’re spot on when you say “Perhaps if we really love God, and just do what God has “wired” us to do, the work will get done in His time by His grace.” [Only, I’d say that “…the work will get done in God’s time by God’s grace”!!
another source of many conversations with people I know!!]
September 18th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Yeah… bad habit I know! I just don’t like using the one word 4 times in a sentence, so I lapsed into sexist language! How about “in His time by Her grace?” (maybe that’s confusing… )
Well, we all agree that authenticity is the main thing!
This conversation has gotten me thinking too about the “hard” Jesus in parts of the gospel… you know, the one who said you must take up your cross every day, that those who love their life will lose it, that the kingdom is like treasure in a field… you must sell all you have to find it… that whoever puts his/her hand to the plough and looks back is not worthy of me.
But then there’s the “soft” Jesus… the one who parties with tax collectors and sinners, the one who died in our place, the one who justifies us by grace, who has poured out every blessing on us… nothing can separate us from his love.
Maybe we need the “hard” Jesus when we are selfish and hard-hearted… and the “soft” Jesus when we are tired and broken.
I guess Lance got me thinking about this at 62… The emerging church didn’t invent the idea of making disciples… that was Jesus’ call in the first place. But what kind of disciples?… and how to we “make them?”… and what kind of Jesus are we calling people to follow?
September 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Janet, I’ve just read Steve Said’s latest post over at Neurotribe - I highly recommend it, because he’s discussing the very issues you raise in your post above:
I didn’t mean to come across as correcting you - I was making a point about authenticity - I’m hyper-aware of the need for gender-inclusive language due to my involvement in radical student politics!
September 18th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
DOH! The link didn’t work. Try this:
http://www.neurotribe.net/blog/2006/09/missio-dei-initiation-why.html
September 18th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Thanks Bec… it’s really intersesting to reflect on what we know of the “history” of disciple making… what does it all mean for now?
September 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Janet, just wanted to point out that your comments on high walls and low walls of church and discipleship echo the Neil Cole idea of lowering the bar on what it means to be church and raising the bar on what it means to be a disciple. This is a quote that we have used in forming our discipleship order.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Thanks Dan… I haven’t read any Neil Cole, but I think I absorb these ideas from the ether. It’s interesting to think about the development and history of the Catholic orders, as well as the very “early church history” discipleship requirements.
It might be interesting to post reflections from those involved in your discipleship order… I’d be interested to find out more.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
yeah, I’d be interested too, Dan…
September 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
I have created a category which is called “kaleo” where I will be posting my reflections on involvement in the order, sometimes the readings, sometimes just my thoughts about involvement etc. It is pretty sparse at the moment but will be added to over time.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:54 am
Thanks Dan… it might be interesting to hear the reflections of others involved in this too if they’re willing to put their thoughts and experiences online!
September 19th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Can’t promise that anyone else will give their thoughts, but I might ask a few people if they are interested in guest posting some of their experiences.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:52 am
sort of irrelevant to this thread, but there are some EC folk writing here…
The New York Times bestseller God’s Politics by Jim Wallis has been characterized as the “book that changed the conversation” on faith and politics in the U.S. Now read daily posts by Jim and a host of other noted commentators on progressive faith and politics, including Amy Sullivan, Brian McLaren, Obery Hendricks, and Tony Campolo. Visit us at GodsPolitics.com for the latest news from Jim Wallis and friends.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
(Otherwise known as tbokar (tbokar = the blogger otherwise known as Roger). Just checking, the thread is still ravelling around itself, but I note the central theme of “authenticity”
One of the features identified in the EC is the desire to be authentic. Not a bad desire in itself, but what does EC do with it that other church (OC) doesn’t?
The “we are SO interested in you” line used by friendly church (FC) makes me want to vomit. At the other end, the inclusive product of (EC)authenticity is the “we totally respect where you are coming from” approach which is equally reflux inducing. The question therefore arises in how to be real, genuine and unconditional and remain true to scripture.
Carson asks a poignant question: “At some juncture churches have to decide whether they will, by God’s grace, try to live in submission to Scripture, or try to domesticate Scripture.” (Reference: D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), p. 164.)
How would bloggers from both sides of the EC debate answer this?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
I say I am trying to be submitted to scripture, having worship that is inline with actually scripture refererenced churches. Having leadership that is inline with scriptural leadership principles. Calling people to live incarnationally rather than making our own little culture and calling people to live with us in a land of make believe. Actually trying to love people with the love Jesus talked about in the sheep and the goats judgement, with the woman caught in adultery, and Matthew and his friends, while calling the unloving legalists to change, rather than living like unloving legalists calling sinners to change.
rev