Another thing I've heard a lot about lately is the Emerging (/Emergent) Church Movement. Maybe it shouldn't be capitalized - not sure, as it's hard to define, so I don't know if it's a proper noun or not.
But that's the least of my concerns. I have some reading and discussing to do before I really get my head around what's going on here. But since I refuse to be assigned to someone else's boxes, I at least ought to find out what those boxes are.
Here are some of my initial reactions:
1. It seems firmly attached to the needs and whims of the millenial generations, to the exclusion of others. The 'traditional' church made this same mistake with the baby-boomer generation. This strikes me as somewhat hypocritical - the movement claims to be a reaction against 'seeker-sensitive' worship. But the movement is by its very nature seeker-sensitive - as in "I don't get the old way so it has to change to suit me."
2. The emergent movement fails to recognize the fundamental difference between 1st century and 21st century. In NT times, Christians were executed, often on sight. In current America, you can't be President without confirming your Christian bona fides. The emergent movement seems to be pushing for a 1st century paradigm without considering the complexity of our current situation.
2. By striving to abolish the denomination/congregation structure of church, some emergents will actually make it harder to bring about God's kingdom on earth. Having no building, no doors, and no set worship time would make it difficult for others to find. The great weakness of house churches is that they are, by their very nature, closed groups. They are hard for outsiders to find and even harder for them to fit in.
3. Even when emergent worship is institutionalized in form (set day, time, place, publicly known and advertised), it can be very intimidating. The smaller group size and emphasis on narrative, dialog, and interaction is uncomfortable for many. There is a risk of strong implied pressure to join in the conversation right away even if you're not ready to.
4. Ironically, the same thing that makes it so unapproachable for some makes it too easy for others: a simple chat over coffee at any given time of the week doesn't require the sacrifice, the personal approach to God in a strictly spiritual time, that I think is essential to worship. Traditional worship's strenght is that it requires us a to set aside the world for a while and put all of our attention on God.
5. The emergent movement, like post expressions of postmodernism, has contradicted itself. Postmodernism seeks to eliminate the 'boxes' created by modernist either/or logical thinking. But the emergent movement seeks to define traditional church, place it in a box, label it "horrid," and dispose of it forever. This is an inherently modernist act.
6. Postmodernism disallows the existence of absolute, knowable truth. In embracing this idea, many emergents deny the most foundational truths of Christianity. True, there are many ways of knowing God. But our faith is built on one fundamental truth. I find it in expressed in John 3:16. Emergents sometimes argue that this truth is not necessary to the faith. I beg to differ. Faith lived is important, but is not a subsitute for faith genuinely believed.
7. To put it another way, the emerging movement focuses on the Great Commandement (Great! Yay!), but risks losing sight of the the Great Commission (Oops!). Living as a Christian day-to-day must at some point lead to baptism - our own, and others'. Which leads us back to: an institution.
So, now, let me tell you why I appreciate the emergence and am glad to see it happening at FPC regardless of my concerns.
1. Relationships over Roles.
2. Love over Rules.
3. Tolerance and inclusion over Restrictions.
4. Personal narratives.
5. Meaningful dialog among believers and questioners.
I don't want the emergence to go away. These new things are worth keeping. But so are some of our old shared traditions. So is the institution of church - the one that started computer CORE, hosts countless 12-step groups, hosts Food and Friends, and spiritually guides hundreds of people on a weekly or even daily basis. My biggest worry is that Emergence, in it's adrenaline-driven rush to postmodernise everything, will box up all the good and discard it as a worn relic of the modern era.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This should be nailed on a door! Brilliant!
I agree with most, if not all, of your concerns about some of the emerging church. We continually talk about a lot of the pit-falls you've pointed out at Holy Grounds.
A while ago I blogged about postmodernism and the church especially with respect to absolute, knowable truth.
It's been something I've been thinking a lot about recently as well. My statement on truth has become, "As my faith in God matures, I am less sure of the truth I once thought I possessed and more possessed by the God who is the absolute truth I desire."
This is brilliant. I think there is room for both/all sides in that one helps the other in most cases. Since there are so many different kinds of spiritual needs (from the basics to the more specific) we need an institution to offer opportunities for the non-institutional among us. Does that make sense?
This is really helpful though, MRD. Thanks.
I like Matt's idea (in his link) that postmodern Christians accept a truth that is definite, but not provable in human terms. That's pretty much how I've always felt.
I hope theologians and everyday Christians alike will continue to express that truth in both new and old ways. I've started to hear Christians in some arenas taking the easy way out - hiding behind postmodernism as an excuse not to have a clear articulation of their faith.
An institution that ministers to the non-institutional is exactly what we need to be. I just wonder how we can sustain that long-term. Things like CORE and Holy Grounds can't happen unless people are willing to pay for the mundane things like new doors and utility bills.
We're doing a better job articulating this than we used to. Still working (clearly) on bridging the mistrust felt by both modernists and postmodernists so we can actually make it happen.
Now that I'm on the Presby-mergent Oh-Gee (organizing group) as a 50-something - I appreciate that we are trying to make changes within an institution that doesn't seek to prop up the institution for that institution's sake but for the sake of the gospel. Does that make sense?
My biggest concern these days is when people lift up/try to preserve their own pet projects or groups or preferences to the detriment of the church as a whole. I recently heard that a spiritually mature person is willing to let go of his or her own needs for someone else's salvation. This is what Jesus did.
Post a Comment