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 27th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I really admire McLaren too. For what it’s worth, many of the past and present leaders in my own church would answer questions the same way, because the complexity of the answer is such that it requires a long conversation. Which is the whole point of McLaren’s oft-quoted essay on homosexuality of course…the irony is that his critics missed the point of the essay entirely.
Rev, I really think that change can only occur if we’re prepared to listen to each other. I don’t think that people ever change their minds as a result of being verbally assaulted. I say that as someone who finds it very hard to be patient and tolerant, especially when I think gross injustice is being perpetuated.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Bec, I find it very hard to let others trounce on my life and my ideals, and to do so based on lies and half truths and not respond with an appropriate anger. Jesus sure didn’t suffer the pharisees for their arrogant judgmentalism did he? I am no Jesus, but I am trying to be, and I do not feel the need to be the whipping boy while a bunch of egg heads talk about what I am doing, while actually not having a bloody clue.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Dan, you are being rather precious.
From my reading of the debate in CT Mclaren merely had to say he believed on both the crucifixion and resurrection and he refused to commit himself.
Lets face it Don Carson, Dan Wallace James White or even the anyone from Moore college don’t fudge.
They clearly either say yea or nay.
Mclaren fudged and so was criticised. As he should have been.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I have heard McClaren with my own ears completely affirm the literal bodily resurection of Jesus, as well as affirming the cruxifiction and even the second coming.
I guess McClaren must not be in the emerging church huh?
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Again why doesn’t Carson the great arbiter of all things evangelical have a go at N T Wright? Because he would get eaten for breakfast that is why.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I think that McLaren has alot of good things to say and is, as Dan says, often incredibly gifted at knowing how to walk a precious line between coming straight out and saying what he believes and leaving things up in the air for further conversation. However there are some times when I think he could just come out and say what he believes when he doesn’t. Sometimes I get the impression he is a little too timid and afraid of offending…. Anyway they’re my 2 cents worth…
September 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Oh and by the way Rev, I can understand why you were upset and some of Oygle’s comments. Perhaps he didn’t know just how many practitioners of the Emerging Church are actually on Signposts. And it does hurt to have people give out seeming unfair and unjust and unfounded critism when one is putting their heart and soul into something.
Keep going mate….
September 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Rev,
Hmmm…still thinking through the Jesus one, but I suspect he responded to the Pharisees with anger because they were perpetuating injustice, and because they were people in power.
I am angry about people that say Aboriginals eat their babies, or Muslim men will rape us all, or that junkies lie in wait behind corners waiting to mug us. Those things are lies that stir up paranoia and hatred. But the stuff Ogyle’s saying is just misinformed rubbish - it’s offensive, but doesn’t actually perpetuate any social injustice (does it?) I’ve heard those sorts of comments before, I’ve had them directly levelled at me personally (Ogyle’s not actually naming you here!), but I don’t think I’m gonna change anyone’s mind by charging them.
I don’t see how Ogyle is making you a “whipping boy” - I think that if anyone’s being targetted, it’s a bunch of people here, not just you. And I actually don’t know that Ogyle’s actually targetting anyone, but rather responding to a post with the information that he (I’m assuming Ogyle’s a he - maybe he’s a she?!) has actually read.
I’m not criticising you - you have every right to feel pissed off. I just think that it’s sometimes better to go off and slam a few doors rather than hurl angry words. Mind you, I’m not very good at doing that!!
Homer - once during question time after a sermon, someone asked Tim Costello, “Tim, was Jesus REALLY God?” Tim responded with “ummm…I think we need to discuss that over a coffee.”
Now before you denounce HIM as liberal/heretical also, I was there, he was my minister, I knew the person that asked the question, I’d heard the questions that surrounded it, and believe me - context is EVERYTHING.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Bec, I have been attacked repeatedly by the same nonsence that Oygle has written, so I respond personally, because it is personal. Some person will read those articles, or maybe read Oygles posts and use them to attack someone else for their sincere and well informend biblical faith.
As far as I am concerned the people that perpetuate these kind of slanderous and ingnoble attacks are the Christian power structure. The same people that give tacit approval of Bush, and the welfare system that keeps the poor marginalized, and the same people that demonize gay people, and people of other faiths. If they will attack their own, you think they will not hesitate to attack others? Jesus attacked the pharisees and sadducees because they were more concerned with their traditions and doctrines than they were in the kingdom of God, and that is what these people are doing as well.
And I am not angry at you bec, thanks for your questions, they make me take a good hard look at myself…
I have gained a bit of weight
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
ROFLMAO. You crack me up, Rev.
Hmmm. I see what you mean about the power structures bit, but…
are we seriously suggesting that the EC is not a powerful force in its own right? ‘Cos I think Forge is *very* influential…I mean, Forge speakers get into a lot of places. I can’t imagine Marcus Curnow getting asked to speak at Crossway Baptist, but then I might just be jumping to conclusions.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Rev…
sorry, random thoughts that weren’t strung together well there - the point I was trying to make is that I’m not so sure that Forge is on the ‘margins’ now. I definitely think it was once, but now? I’m not so sure that you can identify a single, or even a few, ‘Church power structures’, or that Forge is apart from that. I think maybe Forge is one of the power structures? Or at least influences.
For what it’s worth, I used to cop lots of the kind of stuff Ogyle’s coming up with. I was a kid who’d moved out of and away from my home in the country, I had no community other than the ultra conservative one I was surrounded with. I didn’t have the social structures necessary to help me deal with a lot of the flack I copped, and yeah, I still carry the baggage from that. BUT today, I often see the people who reduced me to tears at Forge gigs. Whether that’s testament to the ability of Forge speakers to speak to a hard-to-crack crowd, or whether it’s just that the people I know have changed a bit, but…well, it’s interesting.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
roflmao? whats mao? im soo not up to date on this stuff
September 27th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
abtruth, don’t make me spell it out for you, i’m a coy little christian girl!! use your imagination!!
September 27th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
rolling on the floor laughing my ass off
FORGE is less on the margins than it was before, the mainstream in Australia is moving out of desperation. And now that Al and Mike are “famous authors” things are becoming a bit weird. But come on, power structure? FORGE is so powerful all of there staff is parttime, they cannot support a single full time person. They have no power at all. They are influential, but that is not the same thing as powerful.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
mmmm…is that splitting hairs? I mean, you can have economic power and limited social power (at least in certain circumstances), and lots of social power but limited economic power…
I was just observing - no dig at FORGE intended, Rev!! And I’m not so sure that the new cred. of FORGE has got to do with desperation - most of the people I’m seeing at FORGE gigs don’t come from the struggling traditional churches, they’re coming from the big charismatic ones. Nah, I think it goes deeper than ‘desperation’ re: numbers - I think FORGE folk have managed to articulate the concerns of a particular audience in a way that other organisations have not.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Bec, I have no doubt you like Tim Costello his autobiography has him believing a number of ways to salvation besides the cross.
That IS heresy
September 27th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
No I don’t think it is splitting hairs, FORGE is influential, but not powerful. We can do nothing but what others let us do. We cannot force anything.
And not to be a jerk bec, but I have been here for two and a half years and I have seen you only at one FORGE thing, and that was with a world wide author who is a bit of a guru, so I would hardly call that a typical FORGE event.
but I agree we have learned to articulate things well, sometimes to our detriment. I for one don’t give a shit about offending the traditional church.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Rev - as you point out, you’ve only been around for 2 1/2 years. I used to go to more FORGE things a few years ago, even went to South for a very little bit (so little I didn’t meet Charlie until years later). Charlie was involved in FORGE in the early days, and was very involved in South. I know quite a few folk in Melbourne that were involved in the early days, and aren’t now. There’s no real reason for that, it’s just that people move on, get interested in different things.
Homer, it’s a while since I’ve read Tim’s autobiography (and I read it way before I knew him). Please specify where and how he says that. Like Ogyle, I’d ask that if you’re going to write such things, you back them up.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
BTW, not sure how my attendance or otherwise at FORGE gigs disentitles me from having a view as to FORGE’s influence - it sure casts doubt on my beliefs as to who’s attending events, but has no impact on my views as to FORGE’s influence - there’s a helluva lot of ways to hear about what people think of FORGE other than going to a FORGE event.
Rev, I think one has to be selective about when and why we’re “offensive”. There’s a difference between saying the things that actually NEED to be said, and just being angry idiots, and not being able to see the speck in our own eyes. I see an awful lot of hurt and brokenness around me that’s justified on the basis that the things said and done were “prophetic”, “righteous” and other such crap. You wrote about it yourself on your blog the other day. Honestly, it’s so damn easy for us to keep pointing the fingers at each other. FORGE and the individuals within it have got really good, important things to say, but nobody’s perfect, and sometimes hurt has been caused unnecessarily. The traditional church and the individuals within it have some good stuff to say too, but nobody’s perfect, and most people on Signposts can attest to the fact that hurt has been caused unnecessarily.
There is only one Messiah.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Not sure what you meant by any of that.
And all I was doing is pointing out that we aren’t really being overrun by mega church people. In fact our intensives are actually being less attended.
I don’t hate the traditional church, but I don’t believe we have to tip toe around and try not to offend them. Even if we try not to we do. So I say what I believe and do not apologize for it. They sure don’t apologize for all the shit they say and do to me.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I definitely don’t think that the Forge intensives are attracting those from the mega-churches - why do you think that Bec?
September 27th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Phil, Rev,
I have no clue who’s attending intensives (and that’s a real shame if they’re not as well attended!). I was talking about the one-offs, and that’s based on who I’ve bumped into at them. Just my perspective, that’s all…feel free to shoot me down in flames, but that’s my perception of things based on who I’ve met at things in the last couple of years.
Rev, re: my earlier post - I was just trying to make the point that it’s really easy for us (and I say “us” because I include myself in that) to go in with all guns blazing and then justify it on the basis that we’re being prophetic or whatever. I think that it’s possible that a bit of the criticism aimed at the Emerging Church comes from the pain caused by things done or said by people in the Emerging Church in the past. I don’t know this for sure, I’m just surmising. Some of the criticism written is so irrational, and so OTT, that I figure there’s something more to it than just fear of something different and the unknown.
When you say “they sure don’t apologise for all the shit they say and do to me”…that’s not the point, and I don’t say that lightly. I’ve had that phrase go through my head many times (and worse…much, much worse! If that’s all you think, then you’re a far greater person than I!) Nope, I haven’t been doing this for as long as you, and I doubt I’ve made anything like the sacrifices you have, but I’ve copped my fair share of “shit”. BUT…I know that when people hurt me, offended me, insulted me - that made it really, really hard for me to be around them, let alone listen to them. And there’s “buttons” that I still have now - buttons that can be triggered by a song, certain words, certain styles of preaching…and I feel my hackles go up, the alarm bells start ringing, and I really struggle to listen. There was a period of time 7 or 8 years ago where certain things would trigger a panic attack. (mannn…Signposts is such a hospital!!)
So…I try really hard to be gentle, I try really hard to help people explore the issues, I try to use more accessible language and get people thinking rather than offend them. I certainly try to avoid causing *unnecessary* hurt and offence. There’s enough guilt and pain in our churches without me adding to it. And, my own experiences lead me to believe that people who are hurting, feeling guilty or resentful, or who are deeply offended, are going to have a hard time hearing anything I have to say.
Most importantly - I don’t know you well, but I know enough to think that it’s highly likely that your words don’t have half the impact that your life does.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Thank you, Bec, you seem to be the only one who has understood me.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:28 am
But Ogyle…if you write things that are that inflammatory and judgmental, about movements that many people on this page have given their lives to build, you have to understand that it *will* be taken personally.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Listen to Bec Oygle!
As you read, make sure you also listen to the people who don’t agree with you before you decide on where you stand.
Recently we had a conversation with Don Carson here in Perth and surprise surprise he indicated that in his humble opinion the EC in Perth didn’t seem to fit the description of the one he wrote his book about.
Now we already knew that - but if he had done some decent research then he wouldn’t have had to make that ‘disclaimer’.
Based on your earlier statements I would say you are very poorly informed and (like the rev) I am tired of uninformed noddy’s spouting off all about the EC when they have only read a few very biased sources!
If you write stuff like that then it will be taken personally to some degree because it attacks the fabric of those of us who find ourselves (for better or worse) under the EC label.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
The comment by Rev about less numbers at the intensives refers to the open nights. They are not working and I think there is a whole range of reasons for that being the case. We are rejigging the way we do those next years, which I think we will be more valuable even if it doesn’t increase numbers - which is not always the aim.
I guess for me Bec is that I have seen more mega-church when the big names like Neil Cole, Brian McLaren, Baxter Kruger have been at post-cards. But I am yet to see any flow on from this to the forge internships etc.
Having said that, I agree with your point that the forge message is being taken up in places that previously would have resisted it. Books such as Shaping.. and the Brian McLaren ones have made the emerging church a bit of the recent big thing. It will have ramifications for forge - and will be a challenging time as interest in the emerging church swirls around. This is a good thing and something to be embraced but it is also something that will be very challenging for Forge.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Phil - that’s an interesting issue you raise in the last para.
I’ve some bizarre things justified using the EC framework and vocab - ie. when I’ve commented on or complained about organisations being socially and economically exclusive (and I am a part of them, so this isn’t a case of me commenting from the outside!) I’ve been told that “yeah, well what do you expect Bec? They’re emerging from and situated in their social and economic context.” I’m not sure if that’s enough info, but I don’t want to be more specific here - suffice to say I have not been impressed by such a distortion of what the EC (and the GOSPEL!!) is on about!
This is certainly not FORGE’s “fault” of course - but it’s a reminder (yet again) of the way in which subversive messages can be co-opted and distorted to justify the very things they were railing against!
Phil - I can think of at least one person who I would have thought came from a ‘megachurch’ background who’s doing a FORGE internship. Also, the Tabor course that Mark Sayers does seems to have a lot of megachurch people. Of course, by the time people get to doing those courses, they’re often on their way out of that particular subculture…FORGE must never underestimate its significance as an entity that provides the focal point for networking for those who would otherwise feel incredibly isolated and marginalised. Networks like this are absolutely vital when people are wondering whether they can continue with Christian spirituality, let alone with the church!!
September 28th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Yes, it is true that there is atleast one person who is from a ‘megachurch’ doing the forge internship. But, I hardly think that can be seen to be representative.
The Tabor course that Mark teaches is not connected with forge and would by reason of Tabor running it be a course that has people in it from megachurches much more than forge.
So all in all, I think that your comment - “most of the people I’m seeing at FORGE gigs don’t come from the struggling traditional churches, they’re coming from the big charismatic ones.” is not correct. If I look at the current list of interns I can only think of two people who fit the “big charasimatic” category. One of them is doing the internship because of her school ministry work and the other has resigned from her position at the large church and is planting in the western suburbs next year.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:05 am
sory Phil - I didnt’ mean to suggest that Mark’s course was connected with FORGE. It’s obviously influenced by the EC stuff, though. I was just trying to say that I thought that FORGE’s main catchpool - whether intentionally or not - was probably people on the edge of the charismatic megachurch. Probably also traditional evangelical. But those are huge generalisations obviously, with many exceptions (and you’d know better than me whether they apply at all or not).
That said…I think that a LOT of people in the Melbourne (and I can only speak of Melbourne, not other cities) can be said to come from some sort of megachurch background…it’s almost inevitable that we all pass through certain places for a while…it would be fascinating to know just how many church-goers in Melbourne have, for some time at least, attended St Hils, Crossway, St Judes, Citylife/Waverley Christian Fellowship…I think it would be fascinating (although probably impossible) to chart the passage of people through Melbourne’s churches, seeing where they come from, where they go, where they go after that (given that lots of people seem to move between several churches/communities in the course of their lifetime these days).
September 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
After reading through some of the posts again from this thread, I still see no clear ‘definition’ of what the EC ‘is’. Different people have given different opinions about what it “is”. One person will say it is “this” and then another will say, “no, it is this”.
Honestly, I do see many contradictions, … read through the posts, especially the earlier ones.
Does anyone really know what ideals, values, creeds, etc, the EC does have ?
When I saw so many differing opinions in this thread, about what the EC is, or isn’t, …. hey, … who do I believe ? If there are no clear beliefs/creeds (an assumption, because many are disputing amongst themselves what it is and isn’t), then the EC can be anything at all, can’t it ??
So, I find some articles which have been well written, researched and documented, .. finally I have found what the EC is. But alas, I get stoned for providing information that was clear and concise about the EC. Finally people reply and dispute the article content, but if they are to dispute it, then please provide some clear foundations of what the EC “is”.
We will never get off this “EC merry-ground” until someone at least, does this. Think about it !!
How can people ‘prove’, that what those articles stated, is not true ? The only defense would be, … more contradictions I guess.
About people being offended by what I posted. I apologise if you were offended, I thought Bec understood where I was coming from (no personal attacks), but she did not. I did not ask for this thread to be started either, btw, but I realise all the attacks against me personally are done, mostly as reactionary only (Matthew 7:6).
Possibly the first post in the thread did not go down too well with those involved in the EC ? As this website is owned by people who are involved in a church that is “emerging” ( see http://www.signposts.org.au/can-an-existing-denominational-church-be-emerging/ ), I guess this was like going to a Roman Catholic website, and posting something like …….
Did you know Mary was a sinner ? (Romans 3:23 - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” ). Yes, people are easily offended by the truth.