Posted by Helen on: 08.05.2006 /
More excellent questions from JG:
I think what is known as “Emerging church” has much to offer and the questions, issues and challenges it raises should be taken seriously.
But what concerns me (again this is a personal view, others will disagree) is that in the 1980’s we had “Signs and Wonders”, in the 1990’s we had “the Toronto blessing” and now in the 2000’s we have “Emerging church” - what will it be in the 2010’s? When I was at University, students tended to flock to the “in church” or “in churches” and what was viewed as the “in church” would change from time to time. Human nature craves “the latest thing”, “the trendy” etc etc. People will flock to whoever offers to satisfy this craving.
I don’t believe Jesus was trendy. He wasn’t politically correct. Indeed, the crowds ended up screaming for him to be crucified.
John the Baptist was described as a voice in the wilderness. For me a Christian does not join a lynch mob baying for blood, rather he or she stands alongside and speaks up for the target of the lynch mob’s hate.
- If being Christian is simply about changing the world, why did Jesus fail to do so?
- Were the centuries after his death a story of love and peace in the world?
- Were people in the world generally better people after Christ than before Christ?
- Why do we think we can achieve something that Jesus failed to do?
Comment by: Helen M.
1 08/5/06 4:12 AM | Comment Link |But…Jesus did change the world! I think the world is very different today because of Jesus.
No. But maybe Jesus encouraged us in the right direction and we’re simply not there yet because it takes time.
I think people have been gradually moving in the direction of treating each other better - I think this began before Jesus and has continued since them. Determining cause and effect can be complex but - I’m open to the possibility that Jesus facilitated - perhaps significantly - this move in the right direction.
I don’t know if we think we can achieve it; I think it’s reasonable to consider Jesus as having shown us the way (maybe Jesus did indeed make the way possible as Christians believe) and then asked us to continue what he started/moved along. Maybe it’s something we need to do - he couldn’t do it for us. It’s up to us, the people of the world, to do what it takes to get along with each other and make the world a better place for all of us.
Maybe Jesus has an ongoing central role in guiding/equipping/enabling us to do these things; but we still need to do them ourselves - if you see what I mean.
If you want your child to help other people by being a doctor - or whatever - you can encourage him/her in that (and maybe help in ways like assisting with tuition feesy) but he/she still has to study, take all the exams, do the residency etc. There are some things other people can’t do for us. It doesn’t mean they failed. It just means we have to do them for ourselves.
Comment by: NCxian
2 08/5/06 5:53 AM | Comment Link |JG, you wrote:
I am guessing from this sentence in your emerging church train of thought that what you object to is a negativity toward the established church. I too think we have to be very careful not to vilify folks with whom we disagree and turn them into “the other side”, or “a conversation” into “a debate”. I think it is a rhetorical mistake and is more destructive than creative. I suspect that some of the more strident folks you may have heard in the emerging “conversation” may have some wounds from trying to be heard within the old guard that cause them to react this way. But I don’t think it is the most productive thing. Just predictable and human nature.
As far as “fads” in the church, I am thinking that they are the nature of human growth, and to the extent that the church is a human institution, it grows like humans do. We have an idea, decide it is a good idea, focus on that idea, and find after a while that other important things fall by the wayside. So somebody says, yeah, this was a good idea, but what about this thing that we’ve been ignoring. . . . and you have the next “fad”. Perhaps it is a symptom of our human limitation to focus on everything all at once. So I guess what I think is that if we didn’t have “fads”, we would be stagnant. In the church, each wave of new thought informs our development as a people in connection with each other and God. And yeah, it’s kids who flock to the next thing and work it. Thank God! :)
The emerging church may be the “next big thing” as you suggest. Here is why I think it may be a little more important. In the pentecostal tradition, it is the next big thing after “Signs and Wonders” and “The Toronto Blessing”. In the mainlain protestant tradition, it is the next big thing after, maybe, “Evangelical Explosion” and “Spiritual Formation”. In my own independent congregation (where I can see more discrete little fads) I would say our evolution toward an emerging sensibility has bobbed back and forth through “seeker sensitivity”, “spiritual formation”, “outward not inward”, “contemplativeness”, to what we call “missionalness”, which I think is an element (at least a piece of the vocabulary!) of emerging thought. What I am trying to point out is that the emerging church “fad” is more diffuse than in just one Christian tradition. It seems to me to be pervading all of Protestant Christianity. I would be curious if anyone sees it happening in Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, etc.
In addition, and maybe because it is being experienced more broadly, “emergence” differs from place to place. Every little enclave of “emergence” seems to have bubbled up from its own particular environment. Which is how, incidentally, I think it got its name–it emerges from what has gone on before. So, it seems to me it is (or has the potential to be) diffuse and diverse and locally relevant. In my mind, this weighs against it being a short lived fad.
All that being said, the emerging church could be a passing fad like your other examples. Only time will tell. If it does soon fade, then the important question is, what sort of legacy will it leave behind as it goes?
About this–
I think you have forgotten the events of the whole week. One day, the crowds treated him like a king, a few days later he was crucified as a common criminal. I’d say that was pretty short-lived fad! (And if you consider that in three more days he was a living God . . . what a quick change of fortune!)
I guess the moral of that story could be, a fad is not necessarily bad!
Comment by: Rachel
3 08/5/06 7:27 AM | Comment Link |Yes, some of us are angry. That’s the truth and I won’t deny it. Some of us are deeply wounded and disillusioned and ashamed of things we participated in in the name of Christ and really angry at those we trusted completely and without question. We are devastated that our faith has been used as a justification for war and economic injustice and environmental destruction and hateful judgment. We are appalled that we were taught an understanding of prophecy that glorifies violence and cheers on war in the Middle East. We are crushed that the people we saw as heroes now call us heretics and won’t even listen to what we say.
Tony Campolo travels all over the country speaking to evangelical audiences. For many years, he has begun his talks with this statement: “Thirty thousand children died yesterday of starvation and preventable disease and you don’t give a shit. And the worst part is, you are more upset that I just said shit than you are that 30,000 children died.” Is Tony angry? Yes. Do his speeches make people angry? Yes. Making people mad is what prophets are supposed to do.
Comment by: Rachel
4 08/5/06 7:57 AM | Comment Link |In regard to my above post: Let me say that I really like everybody on this blog and I’m not unhappy with anybody or what they had to say. I’m just trying to be honest about how I feel. Because I am angry and that’s the truth. I’m deeply hurt and yes, I have critical things to say about the conservative evangelical community. And I think I have the right to say those things because that has been my world all my life and I’ve personally been a part of a lot of the stuff I don’t like. I feel that I was led astray and I’m pretty dang wounded by it. I really, really don’t want to cause any conflict of any kind on the blog. I’m just looking for a safe place to vent.
Comment by: Helen M.
5 08/5/06 9:01 AM | Comment Link |Hey Rachel,
Thanks for being honest about the hurt and the anger.
I expect you speak for many.
Comment by: Julie Marie
6 08/5/06 9:08 AM | Comment Link |Rachel,
I’m with you…I too am angry about the manipulation. I’m glad you are here and I am glad you are honest.
Comment by: Marty
7 08/5/06 9:15 AM | Comment Link |Rachel - well said. I think most (and maybe all) of us agree with most (and maybe all) of what you said. The power in your story is that you are sharing what you have experienced which for me is far more impactful than quoting something someone has read or heard from someone else. For me - you are direct without being offensive.
My sense is that the Atheists and moderate Christians on this board actually agree on more things than not. It took awhile for me to realize - but I have finally come to the realization that the Christians have nothing on the Atheists in living moral lives and helping make the world a better place.
Rather than those of us on this board really being in opposition to each other - the bigger question is - how can we collectively have an impact on the group that you accurately describe.
An idea just flashed (again) into my mind. I think that the radical right Christianity comes from a place of fear. Fear moves them into “absolute certainty” which then makes it impossible to have a dialogue with them. A couple of things that we might do is combine our our openness and trasparency with providing others a safe place to also be real and transparent.
Comment by: Helen M.
8 08/5/06 9:32 AM | Comment Link |Julie Marie and Marty, thanks for encouraging Rachel.
Marty, with all due respect, I’d rather not go here, where ‘here’ is, us talking about other Christians as ‘them’. I don’t want to have an ‘us’ and ‘them’ here.
I’d like to keep the focus on us talking about us and other people talking about themselves and we listen to each other.
If we start defining other groups then we won’t have a leg to stand on when they do it to us, will we?
Comment by: NCxian
9 08/5/06 11:32 AM | Comment Link |And, if Christianity is about saving souls for eternity, then why did Jesus come and fail to save EVERYBODY’S soul? Were the centuries after his death a story of each successive generation being brought in its entirety into a saving relationship with God? Were people in the world generally better aware of the availability of God’s grace after than before Christ? Why do we think we can achieve something that Jesus failed to do?
It seems to me that Jesus didn’t come to do the whole job. He came to inaugurate the job and begin building a project team. Some of us focus on God’s creative nature–the beauty, truth and wholeness of the world, including its people. Some of us focus on God’s salvific nature–recovering humanity from its separation from the holy. Some are feet, some are hands, some are eyes, . . .
Comment by: jim
10 08/5/06 1:13 PM | Comment Link |I have nothinh to add other than I am really impressed with all of your insight and kindness
Comment by: JG
11 08/5/06 1:19 PM | Comment Link |Responding to NCxian’s comment:
My original comment was:
It is generally better to try to avoid guessing or making assumptions about what someone else is seeking to say. My point is that I don’t see Jesus “going with the crowd” but rather meeting the crowd head on. In his time the objects of hate were probably most of all the tax collectors. Jesus didn’t lace into the tax collectors. Instead he risked the wrath of the crowd by befriending them. But his message of love was not a meaningless slogan. The result of his message was transformation.
We see the lynch mob mentality today outside court. The accused may have done something dreadful like the murder of a child but what I observe is a mob drunk with hate. They would lynch the accused given half a chance. Where would Jesus be? With the lynch mob or turning his gaze back on them - let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Where have I said that Christianity is about saving souls for eternity? Why the emphasis on “EVERYBODY’S soul”? Again, it is better not to make assumptions.
We all too easily put people into boxes and then interpret all that they do or so accordingly to the box we have put them in. Again this is where I see Jesus being so radically different. The sort of Christianity that attracts me is that which blows away the “boxes” and pigeon holes” we tend to construct and reaches out and embraces the real person.
Comment by: Helen M.
12 08/5/06 1:56 PM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
Great comments, JG.
I think it’s easy to slip into putting others in boxes if we’re not careful, even if we’ve been on the receiving end and hate it when people do it to us.
It’s not easy to discuss things which bring up feelings of hurt and anger.
Thanks for hanging in there, everyone.
Comment by: NCxian
13 08/5/06 3:08 PM | Comment Link |Sorry JG. I was trying to understand what you were saying. I apparently failed.
So what did the lynch mob have to do with the emerging church? My impression was that you were saying that the emerging church might be a fad, in the vein, in your view of “Signs and Wonders” and “The Toronto blessing”. (Which I was agreeing with). That Jesus was not a fad. That John the Baptist did not follow fads. . . . then maybe I lost your point after that (apparently I did, based on your response). I thought, as I said, that you objected to the way the emerging church was handling its critique.
On the other point, I wasn’t really saying anything about you. I was adding other questions I thought were equally valid. Spreading the query to other areas of Christian concern. And then trying to say, Christians vary in their views of what is most important, and that maybe that is a good thing. I actually was just pulling out the questions and talking about them. I didn’t think about them as a continuation of the rest of the discussion about the emerging church. Were they?
Comment by: JG
14 08/5/06 4:10 PM | Comment Link |I’m responding re emerging church at:
where my comments first appeared.
On the original question here: “is being christian simply about changing the world” different people will of course have different views on what it means to be a Christian. I am expressing the view that if we do restrict it to changing the world then to date Christianity has been a failure. It may well have had a major impact on the world but many would argue the impact has been negative rather than positive. Many of the ills of the world are blamed on Christianity.
I also feel strongly that it is not simply about “saving souls” - “say a prayer so you go to heaven when you die”
Human nature likes black and white. Its nice and secure. You are either in one camp or the other camp. Its either one thing or the other. I don’t want to live in black and white nor do I want to live in shades of grey. I want to live in colour.
For me Christianity is about the here and now AND about what happens after death.
Comment by: NCxian
15 08/5/06 4:30 PM | Comment Link |Cool.
Comment by: Rachel
16 08/5/06 7:14 PM | Comment Link |I totally agree, JG! Well said.
I’m still not quite understanding what you mean here, JG. Do you feel that it is the emerging church movement that is restricting their vision of Christianity? By “restrict it to changing the world” do you mean concern only with social justice issues, but not with individual spiritual transformation? I really do want to understand your concerns - thanks for being patient with me. :-)
Comment by: Rachel
17 08/6/06 12:32 PM | Comment Link |Here is an interesting article about a evangelical megachurch pastor who has rejected the Religious Right agenda, even though his stand angered many of his parishioners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/us/30pastor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Comment by: Helen M.
18 08/6/06 2:41 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for that link, Rachel.
Yes, that is an interesting article. In fact, it’s the one the Brian McLaren quote I wrote about recently came from! I didn’t have a good link for it.
Comment by: Bruce
19 08/6/06 6:10 PM | Comment Link |There’s an interesting statement in 1 Chronicles 12:32 to the effect that the people of Issachar “had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do.”
I think that if awareness of the culture and times enables wise and timely decisions, that is a good thing. On the other hand, if the times are only used to usher in a new fad, that is unfortunate.
I am a 59 year old church planter (starter), and my congregation Is made up of 20’s/30’s. I have first-hand, on-the-ground knowledge that a different strategy is necessary if we are to be relevant and make sense to this generation.
As with most things, there is a tension that must be kept. On one side of the tension is rigid allegiance to the past and how it is expressed in the present. On the other side is complete disregard for the past. An old proverb says, “Forget the past and lose an eye; dwell in the past and lose both eyes.”
I think that our obligation today is to respect the past and use it creatively to meet the demands of a changing present. That, I think, keeps us from being faddish.
Comment by: JG
20 08/7/06 5:54 AM | Comment Link |Rachel, apologies for delay in responding, went away at weekend.
From what I understand of Emerging church, you cannot attribute any one view to it, there are a whole range of different views and beliefs within the movement.
My comments about “changing the world” are not restricted to “Emerging church” but to church in general. My impression is that many within “Emerging church” would place the emphasis on the here and now rather than on anything beyond the here and now. This may well be a reaction to those who place all the emphasis on “the eternal” without any regard for the present.
I see Christianity as more about relationship than belief. Do people reject the idea of God because they genuinely and completely don’t believe there is a God? Or because they take the view that if there was a God then God would not be the sort of God they would want to know - eg why does he allow all the suffering in the world etc etc so they decide that they will live on the basis of there being no God. Either he doesn’t exist or if he does, they don’t want to know him.
I see Christianity as about reconciliation between individuals and God. But it goes beyond that because you are then called to be reconciled to each other. The two things go hand in hand. And I can’t think of anything that helps MTWABP more than reconciliation? Reconciliation works to heal the root causes of really all that is wrong in the world.
Such reconciliation has immediate effect and transforms the here and now. But - if Christianity is true, is of eternal value. So it is both present and future not one thing or the other.
The Bible records that Jesus proclaimed his manifesto as follows:
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners…
That’s the sort of Christianity that attracts me. The sort that can transform Peter from a discouraged failure to the Peter we see in Acts 2 on thereafter. Is this what we see and experience in church today? If not, why not?
And if Emerging church is different, do we or will we experience this sort of thing within Emerging church? My knowledge and experience to date is insufficient to enable me to answer this question. But what I have personally experienced here in the UK has not encouraged me in this regard, sadly, quite the opposite. I sincerely hope my experience is not representative.
Comment by: JG
21 08/7/06 8:32 AM | Comment Link |This is developing a new theme rather than in response to anything anyone has said on this site though I believe it is highly relevant to the issues being discussed. In comment 14 I said:
This is a quote from another (UK) site which encourages us to live in the grey areas:
I reject the notion of black and white AND the notion of grey. It is imagery but I believe God wants us to live in colour. There is absolute truth but instead as seeing it as black and white, we need to see it as lots of different truths which need embracing in their entirety and in the right balance. This still leaves us with the difficulty that people will disagree over what is truth but such disagreements are of less importance when they relate merely to one shade of colour in one small part of the tapestry rather than to whether the tapestry should be black or white.
Agreement and enhanced relationship are better achieved by finding common ground and respecting each other’s right to disagree over the things you do disagree on than by forcing “grey” on to everyone.
We need to be generous enough to give each other freedom to believe things absolutely even if this means allowing someone to absolutely and totally disagree with you and still being willing to embrace them and accept them as a friend!
Comment by: Rachel
22 08/7/06 8:57 AM | Comment Link |Well said, JG! I believe that reconciliation, both with God and with neighbor, is the central message of the Gospel.
Comment by: JG
23 08/7/06 9:09 AM | Comment Link |Bruce,
I particularly like your quote:
and fully agree with your comments generally.
Definitely!
This is the reality behind many apparent contradictions in the Bible. On the subject of the past, see for example Isaiah 43:18 and Isaiah 46:9.
Comment by: Helen
24 08/7/06 9:31 AM | Comment Link |JG wrote:
I think so too, JG. We need to give people room to be who they are, because if we try to force them into being someone else we will deprive them of the ability to do what they are passionate about whole-heartedly.