A friend of mine was ruminating on the trend of the "emergent church" and the leaders who characterize it. Specifically, he writes in part,
"What strikes me most forcefully about the writers who are attempting to articulate the ethos of the emergent church is their humility. They seem unconcerned about being the ones who are 'right' and conversely very concerned about letting God have that privilege."
I thought I would share my (slightly edited) response here, and see what other people think.
people say things like "we need to change how we DO church," and i think that part of the problem is that church has become something we do, rather than something we are. we find our identity in this institutional sphere we have created, and in participating in the various actions and events we have prescribed for it, but that institution is not in itself the Church.
but yes, we must be humble. i don't want my pride to be my downfall, that i should arrogantly view myself as better or more enlightened than others because of what i do or don't believe about church. that, to me, is a greater sin than any errors of being and doing in which the Church finds herself struggling today. for how can i help her, if all i do is despise her difficulties?
but the one thing that concerns me the most about the emergent church is this. sometimes i think that we are simply reacting to how the world perceives us as Christians; in other words, we see that they don't like us, thanks to "crazy fundamentalists" who bomb abortion clinics and gather in protest rallies with signs saying "God hates faggots." i feel like at times we are scrambling to do "damage control" with our image, and perhaps some of that is good and right, for those who love Christ, the Lover of the world, cannot reasonably abide with those who hate others in His Name. but we go too far if we ever lose sight of the fact that we are to be salt and light in this world. and sometimes salt will sting if it falls on a wound, and light can hurt the eyes of those who have been in the dark for too long. the prophets of old said hard words that people did not always like to hear, but where are the prophets of today?
now wait, let me think. perhaps...if in these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son, well, there is the Final Word, and the Son then is the last Prophet and our Great King. and what did he say to us? that if the world hated him, so we shouldn't be surprised if it hates us as well. and i think that should be a warning to the emergent church; that far from seeking to placate itching ears, and tell people what they want to hear, and letting a disgruntled world tell us what we ought to be like, how we ought to behave, and what we should really believe, instead we should be concerned with following Christ, speaking truth and lighting the way back to where we belong. and if the light shines on a rough, uneven, and difficult road, what is that to us? we are here to point the way, not make it easy.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Penetrating questions! Just a thought--it seems that it's really important to define what is meant by church, and what its primary raison d'etre is. We say that it's the body of Christ, but if you're trying to build a new incarnation, I don't know if you can try to build every limb at once. I guess I assume that what 'emergent church' is trying to do is to start with one bit of what the church is ideally supposed to be. Some might be trying to start with the heart, or the head, or the hands.
Or, like spiritual gifts, some might start by focusing on the prophetic (social issues, etc.), teaching, hospitality, or whatever. I wouldn't think that they meant to stay in this vein, that they would grow organically, with whatever gifts were given to individuals and the group as a whole.
All this to say that, in my (perhaps idealised) view of it, people wouldn't compromise their faith--but they wouldn't require newbies to adhere to every doctrine that the emergent people might think they should. Likewise, whoever was starting this church would be forced to seriously consider what they thought was crucial to their own faith before trying to found a new theory of church on it.
Anyway, that's my two cents (with lots of inflation!!). Candace
interesting thoughts, candace. thanks for sharing!
perhaps what i am wondering is if it is possible for the Church to be "relevant" to today's society. is that the job of the Church, or is it to follow Christ?
not to say that the Church should be out of touch with what is going on in the world! but what should be her primary focus? and what can my role be, if i don't like "church" per se, but love the Church proper?
Gracky, some great insights. I'd agree with you that we are the Church, and that it isn't, and has never been something to "do".
All we can do is proceed... stumbling, and getting up... following the perfect example Christ gave us.
This example, this narrow road, looks less and less appealing to the world as it fills with ease, convenience, and relativism.
Maybe it is more important now than ever that we be salt and light. I thought your observations of salt's ability to sting, and light's tendency to seem off-putting to those who've been in darkness were great.
Very thought provoking. Thanks.
Often we worry about whether or not the church is catching up with culture at the expense of the truth. If it is, then the church is in sin. Yet, if the church is lagging behind culture so much that the way it communicates Christ is wrapped in archaic modernistic language, it is also transgressing. Lets face it: the only thing that is sacred is the gospel. Liturgy, Power Point slides, lighting, candles, and service orders are all fluid notions.
That being said, there is a noted change in our culture. No longer do people get saved, worship, get discipled, and then go on missons trips. Nowadays, unbelievers will worship, go on missions trips, get discipled, and then get saved.
They are tired of all the modernistic leftovers of the last generation: rationalism, empiricism, and logic. The usual process of salvation has been turned on its head.
These are the people that make up the church now. Its not necessarily that the chuch is pandering to the generation at hand. In many ways, the church is the generation at hand and that is why it changes every decade.
What may be wrong with the emergent church is two-fold. It is wrong for churches to adopt emergent frameworks for the sake of the idea and not for the sake of the congregation. We, the church, too easily apply what we find in books instead of what we find in the Bible. Not every church needs an emergent model.
Secondly, the emerging church needs to take the ministry of reconciliation seriously. Because many of our emergent members are alienated from the previous generation, tension between the older and younger generation has increased pretty drastically. The church is called to be unified. Although that may never take place between congregations, it can always take place within congregations. As emerging churches carry their crusade into the lost world to bring the reconciliation of Christ to those who don't know God, they must also bring the same reconciliation into their church bodies. The generations must come together and peacefully worship side by side; it is more than just a matter of muscial style. If managed well, these two weaknesses can became two fabulous strengths.
i like your point, onefingerraised. (and dare i ask, which finger IS that, exactly? never mind!) i appreciate your taking the time to be a part of the discussion; your points are well-taken. you bring up issues i had not considered carefully before, particularly about how the process of salvation seems to have been turned upside down.
but has it really, i wonder... now that i am thinking about it, weren't Jesus' followers a little like that? that is, they were disciples, and they served and went on missions trips, but it wasn't til they had been with Jesus several years and then after his death and resurrection that they really came to a place of power and understanding of their identity in Him. hmmm, this is interesting...
thank you again.
Hello. Here's my new thrilling revelation:
We run around all the time trying to find the 'new wineskin' by means of which the world can be saved and we can love God without hating church.
But
What about an Eternal Wineskin? Not new, not old, or 'emerging', or 'traditional'.
[deep breath]
I THINK THAT FRIENDSHIP IS THE ETERNAL WINESKIN.
By which I mean that every other system of Christian-ness gains or loses it's capability of 'holding' what God can/will do by means of the loving-God-and-loving-people relationships that are weaved through it.
Or something like that.
Post a Comment