I’ve noticed a call lately, by several bloggers and others, for those within the emerging church to offer up a kind of self-critique. I think this is valuable work that needs to be done.
But it is also a difficult task. Because the emerging church encompasses so many different traditions, styles, and structures, there could be a tendency to critique what the other guys in the movement are doing. I want to steer clear of that.
So I only want to speak on things I’ve noticed in my own life and participation with groups of followers who are really trying to do something different.
1. My biggest concern is that in the quest for relevance we lose too many distinctions. The established church has been mired with “in” rules which many of us now soundly reject. However, there is a danger that we will simply swing past balance to the next extreme. I’ve seen that in my own life. With a deep seeded desire to not be like the establishment, I have a hard time holding on to anything which would set me apart. Sometimes, critiquing culture can be more important than appearing relevant to it.
2. A touchy subject in the emerging church, in my opinion, is the role of the Holy Spirit. Because of abuses of charismatics and pentecostals, many of us are wary of the gifts of the Spirit. I find myself both longing for God’s power to move in our community and being afraid that God will. After all, it’s not very culturally relevant to speak in a language you don’t know, lay hands on the sick and actually expect that God just might do something, speak out thoughts put into your mind by God for another person, and to raise your hands in silent submission for no reason apparent to the naked eye.
In our quest for relevance, we must not slip into another form of religion which does not allow for the truly mysterious and supernatural God to intrude on our space in a powerful way. Can’t there be a way to do that without sensationalizing the worship experience?
3. Our representations of the truth can be presented in a way that is not obtrusive or oppressive to others varying beliefs without sinking to a level which allows for everyone to be right. That’s poorly stated, and it is difficult for me to express what I really mean on this one. I feel like I need to say it a thousand different ways…
But I won’t. I will try it a couple different ways, though. What is at question in the popular culture, the popular manifestation of postmodernity, is not necessarily absolute truth, but our ability to understand and articulate that truth. We can allow for degrees of accuracy in our perspective on the truth without having to bow down to anyone and everyone’s beliefs. We can make firm stands on our faith. Really. I have a hard time doing it, because I fear becoming like the hardliners in branches of Christianity I’ve experienced in the past. We need to find healthy ways to communicate how our beliefs have merit.
I think the difference is in that we do not try to use outdated methods which try to boil everything down to indisputable, absolute propositions. It’s okay to absolutely believe something you know you cannot prove by reason and scientific method, but it’s not okay to hold our beliefs for no reason at all, or simply because we really, really want to believe what we do. Belief does not create reality, and not all perspectives are created equal.
4. Though many in the establised church will revile us, we must be careful to not completely reject branches of the body of Christ who maintain their methods of doing and being the Church. We must seek for the kernels of truth in their critiques, for often there are warning signs we should take heed of. Certainly much of the critique from outside the emerging church comes from a backlash of our own critique of the establishment. However valid our critique may be, the establishment will offer us, at times, a view from outside. They can see the forest while we see the trees. There are things they will see which are things we should take careful note of. Although there are many who condemn us as heretics, there are others who understand our heart and seek not to destroy with their criticisms but keep us from going on a divergent rather than emergent path.
—–
There are, of course, difficulties with the above concerns I have not expressed. This is already a lot longer than my normal blog post. As I chew on this subject, I’ll offer more thoughts in the coming days. Please feel free to comment and produce a dialogue about this subject. All feedback welcome here.
Interesting thoughts, really. I would red-flag the thought that “many in the church will revile us.” If they are as “bad” as that, do you really think they even care if an emerging church movement exists. I don’t understand this persecution mentality that pops up here and there in emergent threads (there’s one at the Ooze about how a church “has arrived” because they’ve been called a cult). If you’re legitimate, you’re legitimate; and the Holy Spirit will testify to the hearts of others about that. I’d be wary of language that insinuates that other groups of believers are your “enemies.” Sounds too much like political rhetoric.
Still, lots of good thoughts here that require some real thinking about.
Tony
January 20th, 2005
How sad it is for me to see the so called emergent church falling prey to the same nonsensical me-them attitude that has caused so much division in the body of Christ. Until we see ourselves as one body made up of different parts and individuals of varying levels of spiritual growth we will continue to please Satan by fighting among ourselves and making it all about us instead of all about Jesus. That is the thing I find missing in all these debates and rants filling up the internet. The emphasis is always on my view, their view, the old view, the classical view, the modern view, the postmodern view, the emergent view, the emerging church view. Everyone seems to have forgotten that our view means squat. What about God’s view?
All this argument is no different than the arguing that has gone on for centuries. We argue over music, worship style, worship format, building structure, language forms, even attire. It does not matter the building, the music, sermon or no sermon, structure or format. What matters is who is this all about. Too many are making it about something other than Jeus and that is the part that pains my heart and his I am sure.
biblemike
January 20th, 2005
I wanted to comment on something, but reading the other comments, I can’t remember what my comment was. Something interesting, maybe? Well, nice to read this blog and listen to the podcast. I get a different perspective from it.
(hehe)
kevatron
January 21st, 2005
Critiques of the emerging church movement
As someone immensely sympathetic to the emerging church movement, I have some critiques of the movement. I am interested in seeing what you think…
1. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems like the emerging church movement is neck-deep in consumerism. I own a lot from the emergent YS line, and it seems like sometimes they use “emergent” as a tag line for new, hip, trendy, cool. My biggest critique is that the whole movement (of which I am admittedly a part of) smacks of avant-garde consumer trendiness…
Just look at how they market Dave Kimball, or postmodern youth ministry, or Len Sweet, or Brian McLaren. At the same time these guys (rightly) eschew modern American consumerism, they are neck-deep in it.
2. There is a certain pride attached to the idea that “we” can see that the gospel is always incarnated in cultural forms so that there is no such thing as a timeless “culture free” gospel from a human perspective. We often contrast this with a critical view of “them” who cannot see that their gospel is culturally bound to… (modernity, or foundationalism, or the reformation, or the counter-reformation). Yet, there is a flaw: how can we claim that all versions of the gospel are culture bound unless we somehow see ourselves as having a viewpoint “above culture” to say that all other gospels are in-culturated? We have to assume the very thing we critique: a trans-historical viewpoint for our view that everything else is historical.
Circular, very circular. I guess I am just a skeptic of skepticism. On one hand, I do not know of any version of the Gospel that I think is free from cultural baggage. We speak in metaphors about God, and metaphors are tied to language, and language is tied to culture and history. So, in most ways I agree with the emergent viewpoint. But, on the other hand I cannot say that there is definitely not a culture free Gospel. I just do not have that epistemic certainty, nor the trans-historical perspective to say that. And, at the same time, I do know of at least one class of knowledge that is trans-historical, and that is mathematics… So, it just isn’t as easy to critique any theology’s culture-boundedness as emergents tend to think it is.
3. And then, to tie in 1 and 2, there is the whole thing about “us” (emergents) versus “them” (modernists). This breeds pride and splits up the Body of Christ in the Name of unifying the Body of Christ (if you don’t understand how dangerous that is, check out how the Stone-Campbell “Church of Christ” movement devolved from a plea for Church unity to my-way-or-the-high-way). And not only that, but when you segment two parts of a social group (i.e. the Church) and then pit them against each other, then you can sell both sides more product and make more money off of them. So, then you can get a publishing company (how about Zondervan or Baker books) who is making money hand-over-fist by publishing books on its “emergent YS” or “Brazos Press” publishing houses, marketed to young emergents about how to change the Church to be relevant. Then, from their regular publishing houses they are marketing to the exact opposite contingent books about how NOT to change with culture.
While I think that such publishing houses are needed, I also think that there is a HUGE potential for pride, division, and trendiness. We emergents need to get real humble real quick.
4. On the whole, the emerging church movement seems to offer more critique than it does construction… it is a protest movement and as such it seems to have a generally negative demeanor in many ways… that may just be the nature of the time we live in.
5. For a movement that eschews labels, we sure do like labels a lot. My friend Molly smacked me in the face with this one. We don’t want to be tagged with labels such as modern, liberal, conservative, evangelical, Pentecostal, traditional, charismatic, contemporary, or (God help us) fundamentalist… but we slap that danged ol’ “emergent” on everything… after all, it just sounds so much cooler than the rest (at least for the next two years). We gotta get off of this marketing cycle we are on, or else it will slap us all in the face in a few years as outdated, and it will discredit all of the great insights that the “emergent” movement has tried to make known.
Just some thoughts… Whatchathink?
Nate
January 21st, 2005
Thanks for the feedback everybody!
I’ll be posting more about this topic in the next few days, and I’ll be responding directly to several of the issues raised in comments.
In fact, one comment will probably be the instigator behind a main topic for a future podcast…
Anonymous
January 21st, 2005
Just thought I would add my two cents on the definition of “religion” and “faith” for reference in sorting out what’s good and what’s bad.
Most people confuse the Christian faith with the Christian religion, but what do the celebrations of Christmas and Easter really have to do with the Christian faith. What do “jolly ole elves” and “bunny rabbits” have to do with NT beliefs and practices.
The same question can be asked about involvement of ministers in marriage ceremonies, the dedication of infants, funerals, etc. Where do youth programs, marriage seminars, Sunday schools, day care centers, church buildings, etc. fit? The answer rests in an uneasy alliance between two aspects of Christian life that are easily confused, but not exactly the same: the Christian faith and the Christian religion.
The Christian faith has a unique prophetic nature in manifesting the mind of God. The Christian religion, on the other hand is not much different from other religions in responding to universal human needs. The latter is an inevitable part of society; the former stands above and outside all human systems and critiques them. Faith corresponds to the “treasure” of 2Cor 4:7, while religion relates to the “earthen vessels.” Both have their proper place, but religious people tend to elevate one over the other with unfortunate results.
Too often, distinctions between the historic Christian faith and Christian religion are drawn in entirely negative terms, with the primitive faith being portrayed as the preferred alternative to “manmade religion.” A more balanced view is that religion in general…
1. provides a meaning system to understand and cope with ultimate reality
2. gives a feeling of belonging to a group with which one shares ultimate meaning and support
3. explains, regulates, and integrates the disturbing forces of sexuality; e.g., by defining marriage, family, etc.
4. provides a channel for coming into intimate contact with transcendent powers
5. provides wisdom, tradition, and teachings that enable a person to wrestle with the problems of life
6. defines or reinforces a social structure (restrains deviance, limits change, promotes solidarity, relieves dissatisfaction)
7. smooths existential crises (birth, death, divorce, injustice, sickness, misfortune, etc.)
But religion can be corrupted. Jesus reserved his harshest words for “religionists.” The cynic might even say that religion itself is the subversion of the Christian faith to serve human appetites.
That’s going too far, but religion can …
1. offer a false view of ultimate reality
2. exert misguided peer pressure
3. pervert the forces of sexuality
4. promote psychological immaturity, and above all
5. place itself in opposition to the very Christian faith it claims to represent
Consider the eagerness of many to put a religious stamp of approval on same-sex marriage.
So no religious practice is above suspicion—except for one. James says, “pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Those are practices that need not be questioned—others are open to critique.
The challenge is to let Christian faith inform, transform, and redeem the God-given human need for religious expression. In the meantime, the American ethos will be working in the opposite direction to promote…
1. radical individualism
2. anti-intellectualism
3. pragmatism
4. democratic decision making
5. disdain for authority
6. a therapeutic approach to personal, social, economic, etc. problems
7. routinized entertainment
8. media saturation
9. fascination with technical devices
10. confidence in bureaucratic procedures
— all in the name of religion and much in opposition to the Christian faith.
The “treasure” of the Christian faith will always exist in tension with the more “earthy” business of Christian religion. The latter arises from the universality of religious needs and responds to the wisdom of personal and corporate piety, from private meditation and individual psychology to corporate worship, leadership, group dynamics, public speaking, administration, and finance.
The Christian religion differs little from other religions in all these areas— consider how Christian techniques of prayer can be so easily adopted by Jews and Muslims. The Christian faith, however, involves the “content” of belief and provides the overarching context for religious practices. It allows Christians to see through the sometimes deceitful facade of religious rituals and techniques— it is the “rod” by which all else is measured. At the same time, however, it does not necessarily enable nor does it necessarily require Christians to live lives that deny the universal human need for religious expression.
Peace,
AlamoBill
AlamoBill
March 12th, 2005
I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine who is highly invested in an emergent Church in Seattle Washington. He told me that they are entertaining the idea of screening Brokeback Mountain at there theology film night. I told him that instead of sending the Church into the world, it seems to me they are working overtime to bring the world into the Church. Chuck Colson once said “when the church looses it’s cultural distinctive there is no rational reason for it’s continued existence” Chuck Smith once said “what you win them with, you win them to, and what you win them to you must sustain them with†In an effort to engage the culture the emergent church camps out in the grey areas of the Bible and to often cross the line.
Ray
March 9th, 2006