Although The Holy Observer article, Frightened Black Family Flees Pomo Church, is obviously a satire, like they mention on their site ["Satire is an appropriate way - and maybe one of the better ways - to comment on the state of Christianity as it is believed and practiced today."], there is obviously some truth to how the emerging/PoMo church movement is being viewed by others.
I attended the ‘03 Emergent Convention in San Diego, and was pretty new to the whole discussion and ideas concerning postmodern thought (I didn’t even know who Brian McLaren was….). As I sat through seminars, purchased books and talked with others, I resonated with many ideas and began just soaking everything up. I think I’ve read every emergentYS book since, been to all the right sites (The Ooze, Vintage Faith, Ginkworld, Relevant Magazine…) and I still have my goatee. However, I realize that many of us who are intrigued by and hoping for an “emerging” church are guilty of simply throwing around names, and using certain emerging buzz words, i.e. liquid, ooze, organic, alternative, missional, authentic, McLaren, journey, sojourning, etc. I noticed this as I sat with a group of people at a recent gathering of missionally-minded church planting types. It seemed as though all of our stories, while the details were different, were carbon-copies of each other: “Hi, my name is _____ and I’m emerging from a church I’m pissed at. I’m a missional sojourner: it’s not the destination that’s important, but the JOURNEY. I’m searching for an organic and authentic faith that resonates with my pomo-ness, something liquid.”
Recently in the blogworld, the emerging church movement and all-things-pomo have received much criticism from bloggers like The Evangelical Outpost and The Reformation. Are some of their critiques a bit harsh and spiced with a bit of a “This-is-how-it-is-so-there” flavor…yes (but so have posts I’ve written). But I suppose as any new movement grows (and puts on conventions, publishes books, etc.) there will be criticism and resistance, which is probably a good thing too.
I think we should not leave the criticism of this movement to others, but we should always be looking at where we are coming from, where we’re going. I think it’s important to make sure we’re not simply creating yet another denomination (sure you can call yourself a Non-Denominational church, but in doing so, you’ve simply created the Non-Denomination Denomination; do we really want the 1st Emerging Church or 2nd Church of the Postmodern). I think we need to ask ourselves why the EC movement tends to consist of a whole heck of a lot of white males [myself being one of them]. I know that Emergent has gotten more females speakers this year for the Emergent Convention [the lack of females was something many mentioned as a criticism of the last convention]. These are questions we must be asking ourselves.
If we truly are set on the idea of doing church in a new way that works for people today, in a postmodern age, then let’s do that. Let’s leave the old arguments and theological biases behind us (i.e. problem with women in ministry). Let’s have a little less angst - and a little more compassion (my, this is beginning to sound vaguely “Rodney King”ish). I think it’s time we all stepped back a bit and re/examined where we’re headed, what we’re against, what we’re for, but most importantly: who we’re following…
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I appreciate your thoughts.
The EC needs to apply the same critical analysis it has applied to the modern church to itself. If we don’t we may actually end up creating a church that is no further ahead.
nothing really succeeds, in a healthy way, that is only about what it is against…the ec can’t just be about reaction.
the point really is jesus…the one we are called to follow.
and we need to be about his kingdom…doing kingdom business rather than getting caught up in the conflicts, the latest buzz words/phrases, or just the latest coolest worship thing.
and if we don’t have love…we are just clanging gongs and noisy cymbals!
and like you said adam…what is really our purpose…our goal…being more like jesus and helping others along the journey. lily
The problem, Adam, is that some of the “theological biases” you want to do away with are considered to be “biblical truths” by many people. No matter how strongly you feel about your interpretation of scripture, you simply can’t expect other people to just up and change their doctrine because some kid got enlightenment.
I agree with doing church in different ways, but our focus must remain on God, not on culture. If you think theology and doctrine that has been around for a couple thousand years is wrong, that’s okay. But, that sort of change needs to be through study of the bible, not study of the culture. And that means if you want legitimacy, you need to be having conversations with those people who disagree and not just write them off as nut jobs.
Lilly, true true, we can’t just be “against” things. We can’t let that define us. I know many have said this before - but I think we’ve done a good job of deconstruction — time has come to actually build something though.
Kevin, where did you get the idea that my focus was solely on culture? I really don’t think that I mentioned anything about that - like culture vs Scripture. And I don’t think that I’ve reached the next level of theological enlightenment - I think we’re all going to have our pet issues, and we have to learn to love, enjoy fellowship with, and learn from those with whom we disagree.
Didn’t mean it that way, Adam. Never said your focus was 100% one way or that my focus was 100% any other way.
I’m all for doing church differently. But, I think a lot of the questions being posed at emergent churches are valid questions that we need to be answering - not because we have to give accountability to “the system” but because we are accountable to God. We need to be asking ourselves these questions and not just dismissing them as “old ways”.
Let me put it another way. Moving forward does not mean blowing off the questions. It means satisfactorily answering them. If that’s what you mean by moving forward, then we’re on the same page. :) If not, well, you’re still my brother. We just don’t agree. That’s okay, too.
What a conversation. New wine goes in new wine skin. I never read Jesus saying, throw out the old wine. We drink it. Appreciate it. Not condemn it. It was good for its time. New wine will be of the same relevence at the next harvest.
Keeping up with culture is a fickled life, but keeping up with what Jesus tells us is dynamic and maintains its truth in every culture. I like lillylewin - keep your heart on Jesus not the whims and the w(h)ines of the culture.
Cleave I think you bring valid points to the table. In our desire to deconstruct our eveangelical roots, which by the way are not untouchable, we have forgotten how to be constructive. I think we should listen to the criticism of all that would bring stuff to the table. I just don’t think that most, Colson, McDowell, evoutpost, etc. are not offering very valid criticism. They think that relativism is a valid crtique, it is not. I am not a relativist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I beleive that knowledge is contextual. The ahistorical, acultural view of most of our critics is problematic. Culture is a lens through which we read the scripture. We cannot come to our life, church, text without “bias” that is cool.
is there immaturity in the emergent movement yes! I am willing to grow with those of my sisters and brothers who see it as God’s job to change us not anyone elses. Those who see me as broken need not bring stuff to the table. Adam I think you are one of the thinkers that will bring us into that next level of growth.
Scott
Great post, Cleave! It’s an important topic. You were dead-on when you said:
I think that EC thought-leaders and pastors are seeing this now — and it’s popping up in a number of blogs and discussion boards. We must be willing to honestly assess ourselves. And on that note…I appreciated you stating:
This pattern has been knawing-away at me for over a year now. In fact, you might be interested in the discussion thread I started at TheOoze on this topic. I’d like to think that the EC in general is further along then they were a year ago and may be more ready to process this issue better.
btw — I don’t remember asking you if you plan on attending this year’s Emergent Convention???
Thank you Cleve — or Cleave —
The question of women in ministry is a topic that simply will not go away until the Reformed reactionaries square their exclusionary bias with what Jesus taught: to love others as yourself.
Excluding women from the ministry is operative only in a few “postmodern” churches. For the Big Five mainline Protestant traditions (Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian), which allow women in all their positions of ministry, this is old news. To us, it’s new, all because we have allowed a form of extreme Reformed Protestantism to be classed as “postmodern” and “emerging” when, in fact, it is antediluvian: bigoted and hypocritical.
If these postmodern tyrants wish to exploit women by abuse of power, there’s a place all set up for them, a place where ignorant tradition and willful abuse of authority take precedence over Jesus’ commandment to love each other as ourselves: the Roman Catholic Church.
I suppose I shall be accused of impolite language, but I truly cannot call those who usurp the power of the Holy Spirit and annoint to themselves special theological privileges—solely on the basis of their sex!—my “brothers.” They are not my brothers, and I’m sure that Jesus would not condone their slamming the door of theological leadership in the face of half the human population.
Cleave,
Great post! I think you bring up a lot of issues that has caused some misunderstanding for those of us who are “outside looking in.”
You may be right about the “This-is-how-it-is-so-there” flavor of some of my posts and if it comes off that way I apologize. My intention was to stir up some thought-provoking discussion but so far it has been generally one-sided. I can’t count the number of em churchers I’ve invited to participate in the debate. But so far no one seems to be intersted in discussing the concerns the rest of the church has (we are, when all is said and done, just one church).
Whether your evangelical, po-mo, or whatever your ideas have to stand up to scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas. I truly believe that the em church has a lot to offer but the movement has to progress beyond the “I’m pissed off at my church” stage before it can truly impact the world.
Keep up the good work. You’re an impressive writer and obviously a critical thinker. We could use more Christian bloggers like you.
One more thought about the women at EC. I remember hearing that men were walking out on the few women who did speak! Where was the leadership telling them to sit their ass down and show respect? Will the weak men walk out this year??? Just processing. This question is one for reflection in the Emergchurch. We know why our brothers in the modern church hold to a view that subjugates women will we be different?
Scott