Last week I had several posts (#1, #2, #3) pondering our status as a movement. In response, I received a number of very thoughtful comments. Thanks!
Before putting this subject aside for awhile, I want to address the relationship of the Church of God to the "emerging church" movement that is sweeping across the English-speaking world. I know that there are a significant number of individuals within the Church of God who find themselves resonating with Emergent, including many readers of my blog. For example, the ChOG Postmodern Thinktank blog regularly probes into this topic, and a number of other blogs frequently touch on emerging church issues.
It is apparent to me that the emerging church movement is far more than another programming fad to briefly appear in the North American church. Even researcher George Barna (who I'm not normally crazy over) recognizes the significance of this trend, and has published a new book, Revolution, that acknowledges the major shifts that are occuring, largely because of the Emergent perspectives and actions impacting the church across virtually all denominations. I tend to agree with Barna that we could be at the verge of one of the major spiritual turning points (i.e. Great Awakenings) in the history of the U.S. Despite what they may think in light of their growing political influence, Evangelical Christianity will likely not be the impetus for this revival as it is actually losing credibility and the ability to speak to our culture. Overall, modern versions of Christianity are quickly revealing their spiritual bankruptcy and a growing number of people are questioning their theological and methodological underpinings. A new movement of Jesus-followers is truly emerging out of the shambles of the modernistic church.
On the surface I am convinced that we in the Church of God are especially suspicious of other movements, mainly because we are still trying to come to terms with our own sense of movement. And, because a large proportion of our constituency has sold out to American Evangelicalism, we tend to share their insecurities and defensiveness when confronted by the challenges of the emerging church.
My question is: How open is the Church of God to the emerging church movement? Are we so fixated on our movement agenda of 125 years ago that we may miss the opportunities in new movements of God today? Or, will we capture a new vision of mission and our own identity within these opportunities? Certainly we should not renounce our own movement roots and aspirations, because we actually have much to contribute to the spiritual climate today. On the other hand, however, we should not blindly follow the emerging church movement without careful reflection and engagement.
I'd be interested to hear from many of you who are following these developments, to find out how you see our own movement fitting into this new, exciting moving of the Spirit.
5 comments:
Lloyd,
First, I would like to correct a couple of fallacies (faults in logic/errors in belief) concerning the EC:
1. You state: “the "emerging church" movement that is sweeping across the English-speaking world”. The EC is not sweeping across anything. In fact, if it wasn’t for all the guardian-of-the-faith people (you know who they are) claiming the EC is heretical, most of the general church leadership might not have even heard of it. While it is true, everyone is talking about the EC and the issues they bring up. The EC has really only generated discussion about the issues they present, published a few books, and not mush else. True insiders are very rare and few in number.
2. You stated: “major shifts that are occuring [sic], largely because of the Emergent perspectives and actions impacting the church across virtually all denominations” I would like to point out the incorrect cause-effect relationship you assert. The EC is not the cause of these changes. The changes were occurring prior to the EC’s development. The EC was formed, as a conversation (their term), to understand and address these changes and how the church could minister to people in light of these changes. It is true the EC is offering alternative ideas about ministry and some churches/leaders are running with them. However, this is still just a very few. In the future, which is where we all live, things will be different. They would be different EVEN if the EC never formed.
I would also like to encourage you in your joining of the conversation. You astutely state: “A new movement of Jesus-followers is truly emerging out of the shambles of the modernistic church.” It is this the EC is truly questing after: Being true followers of Jesus, walking the earth, living out the Kingdom life in the here-and-now. It is really what the CHOG asserts as our goals. And we had them 120 years ago! The reason God is raising up a new group is the old group has failed in its calling. You said, “we are still trying to come to terms with our own sense of movement.” After 120 years, we should know WHO we are and WHAT we are called to do. It appears we are lost in introspection and not out there in the mission field in which God has placed us.
I love the question: “How open is the Church of God to the emerging church movement?” However, it is missing a crucial word (and therefore emphasis): CONCEPTS. The question should read, How open is the CHOG to the EC’s concepts. We will continue to be the CHOG. How will we address the changes in culture (including the culture in our churches and the culture of the CHOG!)? How can we give a fair hearing of the issues the EC presents? Who, acting with the discernment of the Holy Spirit, can call ‘light’ light and ‘dark’ dark? Is this even a CHOG-wide issue? Or possible, is this a church-by-church issue? I told you I loved the question. Great questions generate even more questions.
Lloyd,
It needs to be understood that opposition to EC will not come from the ChOG unless EC leaves sound biblical principles.
The Bible says that God sets the members in His body. That body is the church. It makes no difference how much a group attempts to disgiuse itself to appear "non-church-y," you can't change what God has already ordained.
The body is to operate by use of spiritual gifts - to be used in the context of some kind of worship setting. I'm not advocating that you can only have achurch in the four walls of a building that has the name "Church of God" over the door. Most effective ministry is done outside the four walls of thechurch. But I am saying that modern church models are in danger of going too far in shunning anything that remotely resembles "traditional," that they are not giving all spiritual gifts a chance to function the way God intended for them to function. 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 describes the use of the various as relating to what we would consider traditional "church services." Can all of those gifts be freely practiced in some of the non-traditional settings of today? Some, yes, but not all.
I have no desire to be a "watchdog of the Reformation Movement." But I do cringe when I see sound Bible teaching glossed over in some misguided attempt to trick non-Christians into thinking we're not what God says that we are.
Tracy Stephens
Lebanon, Ohio
Lloyd, you did it, you finally let her fly, and now we have to use our brains.
True, the church that is emerging(label as of this week) is only a speck on the map of Christianity, but so is the CHOG.
The church that is emerging is not so much a North American thang, as it has popped its head up in many different countries, and it's not so much a white man's pipe dream either.
I agree with Lloyd that this is more than another programming fad, I dare you to try and program something emergent anyways, where the heck would you start?
The church that is emerging is not where those of us who are pissed and tired of church end up, yet we are dissatisfied with much of modernism, since it doesn't do much for us anymore. This is more about "being" the church.
I would point everyone to the writings of Andrew Jones a.k.a. Tallskinnykiwi, who gives a great global perspective of the church the past 30 years.
The church that is emerging will be emerged and something else in the future, the Church of God who knows where it will, but we should realize the Reformation is over, we aren't going to destroy church buildings and works of art because we have a new revelation of what church should be.
tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com
"Our emerging models are taken as threats to the residual church, but they should not be. We want to preserve older models, not replace them. We want them to stay and remain healthy because we see ourselves as intrinsically linked to their heritage. We want our new models of church to nestle snuggly alongside the old models in a way that allows synergy and interdependence. Old wineskins allow for vintage wine and so do new wineskins. If Jesus likes them both, then we all should find room in our ecclesiology for the other."
that is where Andy's brain is as of tonite on this matter. Again thanks for the questions Lloyd, I will try to take a stab at this again.
Some great comments so far!
David, I agree, "sweeping" is an overstatement. However, the influence of the emerging church movement is much greater than it appears on the surface and is far-reaching. As with all true "movements" their effect is not visible in the tangible ways that we are usually looking for. The fact that (as you say) "everyone is talking about the EC and the issues they bring up" is evidence enough for me that it has having a ground-shaking influence. Even the presence of Reggie McNeal (who might not be labelled Emergent by many people but definitely thinks like one) at the NAC this summer, along with the buzz that it generated, is a sign of its impact in our own movement.
Also, David, in regards to your cause-and-effect point, I don't want to argue semantics. "EC" is nebulous. But, I still stand by my contention about it driving these changes. The beginning point of Emergent was not when it was labelled. As you point out, EC was formed as a conversation. It truly started when these discussions began. So in this way it's "perspective and actions [have been] impacting the church".
Tracy, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with your comments. You seem to be implying that EC is about "disguising" the church to be more palatable. (Correct me if I'm wrong). While some emerging churches may be doing this, I am not sure this is generally true. Especially in comparison with the Willow Creek / Saddleback models that have been so readily adopted by modernistic-thinking Evangelicals and even some Church of God congregations.
As Andy implied, emergent is more about "being" the church than glossing over those aspects we don't like.
After the GA in MI I think it looks a little more like sweeping, if your talking conversation. [Myself and a friend lead a disscussion on emerging churches. It went pretty well by the way and I'm sure I'll blog on it sooner or later at "the Thinktank" ]
"churchy" to me means, what we would call christian sub-culture stuff. I don't want anything to do with that anymore. That screems to me "Not influencing culture anymore!" We need to look like what we think of when we think of missionaries. We are no longer chaplains of the culture. Lets get in the water and save some lives.
Nebulus is right on. For as many communities there are in your state, there are/will be that many expressions of emergent in your neighborhood.
"Being" is right on too! Do do do!, think think think. believe these things and you're in. "Jesus did not come to bring a proposition. He came with a proposal. Will you love me? Will you let me love you?" [Len Sweet in Out of the Question, Into the Mystery] We forget about knowing Jesus. Truly knowing, not just lip service. When I am doing that and you're doing that. WE will rise up and go together. That is Church! [bed time!]
Post a Comment