Emergent Church Questions Part 2
Hey Neal,
Thanks for responding. What you had to say was very interesting. I'll try to follow up the same way you did. Although I'm an artist that works with computers, I wouldn't call myself super tech-savvy. I don't know HTML and I can't write code, so I can't get my emails to look extra fancy with a cherry on top ;-)
Hmmm. I agree with accessible, and if the EC fails in this respect, your concern would be correct. "Appealing" however, not so much. In fact, there is much that comes from God that doesn't appeal to the masses (think of the OT prophets, for example).
True. I actually even questioned the word "appealing" when I added it because I wasn't really sure if it was conveying what I was trying to express. I agree that so often what comes from God may ostensibly seem counterintuitive and thereby unappealing.
But those systems that have worked so well for them are failing for those who are coming of age in a postmodern world. (Check out anything by George Barna for more on this). Actually, I think it's more than generational shift -- I think (as do many in the EC) that we're in the midst of a large scale historical and cultural shift, much like the one that led from the Medieval period into the Renaissance and Reformation.
I'd like to ask your opinion here. I have the notion that a big reason that previous systems are "failing for those who are coming of age in a postmodern world", is because Christians have failed to effectively communicate Christ in an alien culture. You know, the "E" word. In the church I attend, evangelism seems to be a foreign concept. I'm not talking about sending missionaries out to Tibet. I'm talking about simple conversations about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit to our friends and neighbors. There really are people around today, in this country who have never heard the simple story of Jesus Christ.
Okay, I'm going to go on a bit of a soapbox now to help you better understand who I am and where I'm at.
It seems to me, in order for people to begin to take the risk of striking up a conversation with someone about God, Jesus, the bible, whatever, they have to have a certain amount of conviction in their hearts in regards to what it is they are talking about. If the conviction isn't there a person will almost assuredly be disinclined to share something he may not be truly convinced of himself. There are many in the church today who don't really talk about faith matters outside of church and can't conceive of it. I see two main reasons for this apprehension. One is the prevailing cultural view that matters of faith and religion should be privatized and the other is lack of conviction. I understand the danger of conviction and of being too sure. Conviction can produce stridency, and thereby produce the separation and enmity that you mentioned in another part of your last email. But I honestly don't believe that evangelism, sharing, or even pointing out the possibility about how "you may be wrong, have you ever considered this?", must preclude loving kindness, patience, grace, and winsomeness in communication. This may be a crass way of putting it, but I heard someone once say: "The secret of good sales is knowing when to back off." I think if love is constantly undergirding your testimony, then what you have to say to others will not appear obnoxious or repugnant. I think when I came to the understanding that I didn't have to win every argument, and all I'm trying to do is effectively communicate Christ to others, then it really took the pressure off. So now, evangelism to me is just the planting of a seed. Let the rest be between God and them.
Was that long-winded enough for you? ;-)
Just for clarification, what do you mean when you say "EC'er?"
Sorry, I'm probably not being very accurate with my terms. I guess I'm probably still assuming that all those in the EC movement have typically common views. I understand this is not a denomination. I'm not sure what I meant. I'll just drop that term from here on out.
I believe there is room in the Kingdom of God for Modern thinkers and Post-Modern thinkers alike. I think it would be just as much a mistake for someone to force an "emergent" way of thinking upon a non-emergent person as it would be for a modern person to reject or dismiss the EC out of hand. You may be a modernist, but I am glad and grateful that you are approaching this in earnest and with attempt at an open mind. I hope your pastor appreciates and respects that about you as well.
I hope he does too ;-) He and I really need to have more up-front conversations on the topic. As hepped up as he is about the EC movement I do sense a kind of "forcing" going on. A lot of his sermons are along the lines of "something's coming so get out of the way." My interp. He Also seems to subtly deride those who may have concerns about it or post-modernism in general.
Getting along with everyone in the world is certainly a great place to start. If only it were that easy, right?
Right! It's not that easy.
Another question I have is: How does the EC, or maybe I should say the post-modern Christian, view the bible? I somehow have this picture in my head of people coming along with a big black sharpie marker, opening the bible, and in line-item veto fashion start saying: I like this, I like this, oh, I don't like this at all so let's cross this out, I like this, nope, not that. I personally want the whole gospel and the whole bible to consider. I could be (and probably am) wrong but I have this conception that the post-modern Christian (again excuse any loose use of terms) wants to keep all the peace, love, and, happiness, and toss anything to do with behavior. I'm reminded of a bible verse (can't recall chapter and verse) that says basically, "behold, the goodness and severity of God". It seems as though churches in the past have divided along these lines (among others), and it seems as though when they got into trouble was when they emphasised one aspect over the other, and became extreme in their view. I think to understand God's nature more fully we have to understand Him as being both good AND severe. I'm preaching now aren't I? :-0
As far as non-negotiables, would you mind if I asked you first what you consider to be the non-negotiables in faith? That might better help me guage what we're getting at here...
I'm thinking some of what I've said already may have answered this for you. I guess, and here is where it gets hard, the main non-negotiable for me is that Jesus is the way. Although I have never been an atheist I kind of am in agreement with C.S. Lewis when he said: "If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist (not me, him) I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic - there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others." Probably the other main non-negotiable for me is that Jesus died and truly resurrected and appeared to a number of people afterward. This to me is the lynchpin of Christianity and I don't see how there is any wriggle room there, or how one can rationalize it away and still call it Christianity.
Perhaps it just proves that intelligent people, Christians even, can still disagree about things of great importance.
I've often said this very thing myself.
Does that mean that Colson is right and McLaren is wrong? Or the other way around? I don't know.
Me neither.
Is it possible for two intelligent Christians to both be right when they disagree completely? Or perhaps they are both wrong? I do think we tend to turn many things into win-lose situations in our culture. I don't know if that's ultimately helpful or not.
I agree, it shouldn't be a win-lose. I guess some of my apprehension was that I felt our pastor has been kind of portraying it as such. But again that could just be my inference.
Keep 'em coming! After all, I did say it's all about relationships, right? Take care, and I look forward to hearing from you again shortly,
You may disagree, but I think we may be kindred spirits of a sort. I've used this phrase often: "It's all about relationships." Some of my conservative friends even tease me about it (I just laugh, 'cause it's good-natured kidding) saying "wow Chris, you're really getting all touchy-feely these days." ;-) Just lately, my wife threw a big surprise birthday party for me and she invited a lot of old and new friends. I was so surprised and moved, when I thanked them for coming I said: "It's really all about relationships", and wept!
Looking forward to your responses!
Peace and God bless, Chris ;-)
Hey Chris,
Comments below!
True. I actually even questioned the word "appealing" when I added it because I wasn't really sure if it was conveying what I was trying to express. I agree that so often what comes from God may ostensibly seem counterintuitive and thereby unappealing.
I think your word "accessible" was right on though, and something that needs to be heard in the EC. We often tend to come across as exclusive (must have goatee, tattoo and/or piercing, plus a copy of latest by McLaren or Derrida to join our "club") and if so, we will end up just another quickly fading trend. Perhaps you are the "second wave" who can help bring about that accessibility by reminding us once in a while that not everyone in the EC will look, or even think, alike.
I'd like to ask your opinion here. I have the notion that a big reason that previous systems are "failing for those who are coming of age in a postmodern world", is because Christians have failed to effectively communicate Christ in an alien culture. You know, the "E" word. In the church I attend, evangelism seems to be a foreign concept. I'm not talking about sending missionaries out to Tibet. I'm talking about simple conversations about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit to our friends and neighbors. There really are people around today, in this country who have never heard the simple story of Jesus Christ.
Agreed completely. I actually think that's a strength of the emerging church -- to most emergents, evangelism isn't a bad word, it's something we get really excited about, especially as you put it: "simple conversations about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit to our friends and neighbors." But the "simple story" is one that must be told (reincarnated) in the language of the culture -- just as Jesus used the language of fishermen, shepherds, and farmers to tell his story, we must find new and relevant ways to talk about salvation, grace, and redemption. We might even have to get rid of those jargonistic words, which are very loaded and mean the world to us, but not much to the world.
Okay, I'm going to go on a bit of a soapbox now to help you better understand who I am and where I'm at. (editor's note: excerpt, see above for full paragraph) Was that long-winded enough for you? ;-)
Again, nothing here I really disagree with. In fact, I think you're certainly on to something similar to what most in the EC are trying to drive home. You don't have to win every argument. You don't even have to argue, come to think of it. You do have to be passionate and have conviction, but also the humility to realize that others have just as much passion and zeal for other points of view. It's certainly ok to back off. In fact, I think the problem with a lot of evangelism in conservative non-denominational churches is that evangelism is done for the sake of evangelism. "I want to sell you something because it's my job" is how it comes across. I get excited about evangelism because to me it's simply building relationships with others (for the sake of the relationship, not because I want to convert them) and "letting my light shine." Just the planting of a seed. More action and gentle conversation than persuasion.
An example is the mainstream Christian viewpoint when it comes to heaven. I think we've kind of misconstrued a lot of what Jesus was talking about, and re-made it into more of a Greek notion of afterlife than what Jesus was really getting at when he used phrases like "the Kingdom of God." I think to me, the hope that I cling to when I die is not so much being remembered by people (although that's nice, too) but to be remembered by God.
Sorry, I'm probably not being very accurate with my terms. I guess I'm probably still assuming that all those in the EC movement have typically common views. I understand this is not a denomination. I'm not sure what I meant. I'll just drop that term from here on out.
You don't have to drop it -- I use it too. But your acknowledgment above is mostly what I was getting at anyhow.
I hope he does too ;-) He and I really need to have more up-front conversations on the topic. As hepped up as he is about the EC movement I do sense a kind of "forcing" going on. A lot of his sermons are along the lines of "something's coming so get out of the way." My interp. He Also seems to subtly deride those who may have concerns about it or post-modernism in general.
Yep. I can be that way too, sometimes. Unfortunate, but when we get excited about something, we tend to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else. I would honestly share what you just said in the preceding paragraph with your pastor. It's a completely valid viewpoint, and I've found in my own experience that patience, humility, and gentle nudging go a lot farther than shoving someone off the edge of a cliff.
I think sometimes the sense of urgency comes from the fact that especially in mainline denominations, we're hurting. Membership is declining at tremendous rates, and a lot of pastors see the writing that's on the wall. They just forget the fact that even if Presbyterianism dies...even if "Christianity" (as an institution) dies...God won't. The story of Jesus won't. In fact, someday we may even be called upon to sacrifice our man-made institutions and idols (including our revered, man-made doctrines and creeds) in order to see through to God again.
Another question I have is: How does the EC, or maybe I should say the post-modern Christian, view the bible? I somehow have this picture in my head of people coming along with a big black sharpie marker, opening the bible, and in line-item veto fashion start saying: I like this, I like this, oh, I don't like this at all so let's cross this out, I like this, nope, not that. I personally want the whole gospel and the whole bible to consider. I could be (and probably am) wrong but I have this conception that the post-modern Christian (again excuse any loose use of terms) wants to keep all the peace, love, and, happiness, and toss anything to do with behavior. I'm reminded of a bible verse (can't recall chapter and verse) that says basically, "behold, the goodness and severity of God". It seems as though churches in the past have divided along these lines (among others), and it seems as though when they got into trouble was when they emphasised one aspect over the other, and became extreme in their view. I think to understand God's nature more fully we have to understand Him as being both good AND severe. I'm preaching now aren't I? :-0
Do post-moderns come at the bible with a sharpie? Yes. Did Moderns do the same thing 500 years ago and today? You bet. We all bring our own cultural filters to the Bible, and read into it things that support our cultural biases and preconceived ideas about how the world works. I aspire not to do that, but I think it kind of comes along with being human. The reason postmoderns come across as disregarding parts of the bible to moderns is simply that they're disregarding the things the moderns circled, highlighted and underlined with great emphasis. I would say that postmodern (Christians) don't totally discount those things--they just de-emphasize them, because they believe that they've been over emphasized to the exclusion of other things in the past.
And I certainly wouldn't say EC'ers are all about peace love and happiness alone. I LOVE the servity of God -- especially when God is being severe with people who are Wealthy and Powerful! Social Justice is a big deal in the EC. Standing up for those who are oppressed by rich corporate interests, or by totalitarian governments (including our own). That's the voice of the Prophet coming out again -- and Jesus when he attacks the super-religious Pharisees (who in our time resemble Christians a whole lot!).
How does the EC view the bible: I think most would say as the cherished word of God, but not the only word of God; not something to be worshiped and idolized; and as the sacred source of our great story -- the story of God and His people. Most in the EC are a little wary of terms like "infallible" and "inerrant" because they are so often used to beat us over the head with someone else's bias and interpretation.
Probably the other main non-negotiable for me is that Jesus died and truly resurrected and appeared to a number of people afterward. This to me is the lynchpin of Christianity and I don't see how there is any wriggle room there, or how one can rationalize it away and still call it Christianity.
Personally, I'm not real big on terms like "non-negotiable" for the same reasons I'm not so big on "infallible" and "inerrant." First, they are phrased in the negative, in a day and age when so many perceive Christianity to be a religion of negatives. Second, I'm not a fan of absolutes, because even though I generally believe they exist, I just doubt our ability to really nail them down (we've been wrong on so many things, so many times, and usually Christianity suffers when this happens).
BUT...If I were to subscribe to a "non-negotiable" it would probably be something very much like the first one you mentioned: "Jesus is the way." I like that one a lot, come to think of it.
The second one (death & resurrection) not so much. It's not that I don't believe it, because I do. It's not that Christ's sacrifice isn't important to me, because it very much is. But I think that we in the west have centered our entire religion around Jesus' death and resurrection, often at the expense of two other things: his birth, which to me is the truly greater miracle -- that God came, as a man into our world) and his life & teachings. I see his death and resurrection as just one aspect of all this, not more or less important than his birth and life. Unfortunately, I think we've kind of emphasized the one to the exclusion of the others. Perhaps it's time for the pendulum to swing back a little. Can Easter be a non-negotiable without Christmas? It sounds silly, but that's why I don't like reducing things down to a small list of "non-negotiables." Or, if I have to have one (do I?) I want it to be broad, positive, and inclusive, like "Jesus is the way."
I agree, it shouldn't be a win-lose. I guess some of my apprehension was that I felt our pastor has been kind of portraying it as such. But again that could just be my inference.
Perhaps your pastor aspires to be more "emergent" but is coming out of a modernist background himself? Or perhaps he is afraid that his arguments won't stand unless they are delivered emphatically and without question. I don't know--I can't really judge since I haven't been there.
Remember, a big part of the emergent ethos is the humility to admit that "we could be completely wrong in all this." Conversation and sincere dialogue are, in my humble opinion, better than one-way communication and propositional persuasion. I hope to benefit from this conversation with you as much as I hope you benefit from it. I hope to (and already have) learn from you as much as the other way around. It is my hope that the EC will be equally open to listening and learning from those who have gone before.
You may disagree, but I think we may be kindred spirits of a sort. I've used this phrase often: "It's all about relationships." Some of my conservative friends even tease me about it (I just laugh, 'cause it's good-natured kidding) saying "wow Chris, you're really getting all touchy-feely these days." ;-) Just lately, my wife threw a big surprise birthday party for me and she invited a lot of old and new friends. I was so surprised and moved, when I thanked them for coming I said: "It's really all about relationships", and wept!
Read my latest blog post (www.mrlocke.net). In my "ideal church" that would be one of two core values!
Take care, and keep up the conversation! You mentioned in your first email, I think, that you are about to be ordained as an elder in your church? Or has that already happened? Either way, I'll be praying for you as you step into leadership -- I can tell just from the depth and sincerity of your questions that you will lead your church well.
Neal
