Discussions on profanity and the emering church over at Emergent What?, although mostly contentious, have yielded some positives for me.
For one, I’m reminded that one of the primary characteristics of the emerging church is the rejection of the boundary markers the establishment uses to determine who is in and who is out.
I have some thoughts directly related to the profanity discussion here.
Every group has boundary markers, whether they know it or not. Common traits, beliefs, and practices define who is a part of the group and who is not. This is not inherently bad. You wouldn’t call a candle a truck, and neither would a professing Muslim want to be called a Christian or vice-versa.
Problems come when the boundary markers go further than being descriptive common characteristics of a group and become a way to keep people out, people who may belong. The emerging church strongly rejects certain boundary markers from the establishment.
One of which is the place of profanity. While many in the emerging church will still say it’s sin to have a foul mouth, someone using profanity is just as much grounds for excluding someone as overeating (gluttony).
Also, the established church segments itself even further based on doctrine. We may (or may not) accept the Christianity of differing denominations, but doctrine determines the in or out of the smaller groupings within Christianity.
While the emerging church recognizes the value of theology, many are not quite so sure we can or should divide our local churches and larger structures by doctrine. It’s perfectly acceptable in many emerging churches for a Calvinist to worship freely and openly with an Arminian. Someone believing and practicing speaking in tongues can worship and serve side-by-side one who thinks it’s just jibberish.
Another boundary marker is attendance to meetings. At best, you’re a bad Christian if you’re not at all or at least the major meetings of the Church. Worshipping together in community is a value of the emerging church, but much less priority is placed on attendance at the formal meetings.
Though the position on alcohol and tobacco varies greatly in the established church, it is still generally a no-no. For some, the use of alcohol at all, even responsible use, shows at best you are a carnal Christain, and at worst, not one at all. The emerging church as a whole seems to have discarded that boundary marker. Few would condone drunkenness, but all in all, we like a good beer. Since our Master came “eating and drinking,” we’re not comfortable with the idea that good Christians don’t drink.
Sometimes, we intentionally piss off the established church by flaunting the things we do which violate established church boundary markers. This is wrong. I’ve been guilty, and I confess I’m working to become the type of person who naturally treats the established church with respect, even when I’ve been harmed or see how others have been harmed by practices of the establishment.
The emerging church is not without boundary markers of its own, but we’re such a diverse group we can’t even agree on what those boundary markers are.
Leave a Reply