What Are We Emerging To?

Jamie, over at emergentvoyageurs.blog.com, asks a really interesting set of questions at “Am I Really An Emerging Christian? – A Pre-Mature Conclusion“. He concludes the post with,

“All this to say that I believe we see things change in the emerging church in coming years. From the outside it will look like interest is waning, conversation breaking down- which some critics will wrongly interpret as the whole thing collapsing in on itself as they predicted. In truth, this is the pattern of change. From the idylic vision of community in Acts 4 to the heated debates of Act 15. In some ways, the emerging church as we know it will die (and is already doing so), but as it’s seeds are scattered and die, so too is new life being birth in the Church in places where the “conversation” had never been.”

Which begs the question, what are we emerging to?

I consider myself part of the emerging church movement because I know that the established church isn’t working. George Barna has been saying this for ages. Unchristian, which was just released reveals the cracks in the facade. Willow Creek’s new Reveal campaign, which I wrote about here, points to the deep underlying assumptions about how we “do church” doesn’t work.

Paul Mayer says in the comments section of Jamie’s post that,

“the emerging church is that they will have to move from conversation to institution to survive.”

Brother Maynard also stated

“That said, I fully agree that an institution is likely to ’emerge’ at some point. Many will depart from that institution and leave the ecm, but others will continue to build it. Len Hjalmarson and I have both written a fair bit on the traditional progression of a movement. I’ve described it as moment -> movement -> machine -> monument -> mausoleum. Yeah, I’m a bit dark about it! ;^) Some in the ecm will go there, others will not, preferring instead to fall into the ground and die.”

Is our only option an institution or to fall on the ground and die? Are we left with the options of returning to what we left or withering away in solitude. I don’t think so. There’s more going on here than just two options.

If the institutions that we now have don’t work, why would we return to the institutional model? In fact, isn’t this one of the central components of the modern church, a need for institutions? And isn’t one of the defining qualities of the postmodern/emerging church the lack of institutionalism. Tony Jones, who is one of the leaders in the Emergent Village leadership team got major flack for his original title, National Director, so much so that they changed his title to National Coordinator.

I do agree that if we separate ourselves form the fellowship of the believers we will die. We’re designed for community as people made in the image of God. We need fellowship. We need to see His reflection in those around us.

But why the need for credibility? Jesus wasn’t interested in credibility. He let people walk away. He didn’t answer their questions and spend time (with the exception of Nicodemus) working through their issues. If someone wasn’t interested in following he moved on. Could the need for institutions be founded in the need to validate the movement? It’s almost universal to want to know that what we are doing is right. And the more we see others doing what we’re doing, the more we feel validated in the process of what we are doing. I get this because I feel the pull too. Moving away from the institutional church feels strange. It’s moving against the established flow. You get called a heretic for it.

But Jesus did almost nothing to build a institutional model of church. He chose to move against the flow and he got called a heretic for it. Instead he built a system for followership. He created a holistic process for engaging God’s mission of restoration and reconciliation. Central control was not the issue. He assumed that God was already in control. Because in the end we don’t follow men, we follow the Holy Spirit’s leading. We want control because then we can dictate what will happen to us in the process. But it was this very control that Jesus was calling us to give up.

I would suggest that the emerging church is truly a revolution in that it is creating a full circle and coming back to the beginning. What will emerge is a more holistic discipleship process that looked much more like Jesus created. The reformation will be complete. It will look much less institutionalized and much more house church oriented. Will we lose the buildings? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how we need them to gather. The church in China is proving this out. It will not be institutionalized because we won’t need or want a central organization to tell us what and how to think. It will rely on real people to discover that we are all called to the priesthood, not pew sitters.

This type of model requires relying on the Holy Spirit to lead the church, which is what Jesus really did. Think about it. 40 days after his Resurrection, he just left. He could have stayed but he gave them the Holy Spirit to lead. He gave them everything they needed.

Will it be messy? Yes. Will some people get it wrong? Yes. But that’s already happening in the institutional model too. But it will be real. And the Chrysalis will reveal the beautiful butterfly that is His church made in His image, not our church made in ours.

Read Full Post »

Why We Need The Father

I had an amazing conversation with a friend the other day over some really great sushi. He is in the midst of one of the greatest challenges in his life and I wanted to let him know that he was worth fighting for. I wanted to communicate to him that he was loved. When I looked into his eyes, I knew that he knew he wanted to believe it but so much in his life has told him the opposite was true. And as he stood at the doorsteps of the what the future would mean, he needed hope.

The lunch gave way to a conversation about why people don’t fight for their own dignity. Why do they cast off as worthless what God has given us, even at great cost to themselves? Why couldn’t He see what God saw when he chose to send Jesus for our sake? Why couldn’t my friend seem to find the maturity to step into his own fight. The obvious answers included the enemy and the possibility that he just lazy. But something didn’t sit right in this case. My friend was deeply interested in his own restoration. He had obvious evidence to the fact. He just couldn’t seem to identify the obstacles in the way. He was stuck and I couldn’t seem to get him out.

And for a brief moment I began to put myself in his shoes. I imagined what it meant to live under a Father that was deeply broken in ways we can only imagine. I began to image the frightening reality of a Father that did terrible things to my friend. It was not good.

And then something hit me. What if my friend’s understanding of what it meant to grow into an adult looked like his earthly Father? What if he had somehow bought the lie that if he were to grow he would end up like the man who has produced so much pain and suffering? Why would he want to do that? And then I realized why reading the whole story in Scripture first hand is so important. We need something to replace those images that distort our picture of what we are meant to become. And if we’re really made in the image of God, we need a whole image of God the Father, the one that loves us more than we can imagine. We need a true image of the Father that is fighting for us, validating us and holding us, letting us know we are worth it. We need this image so we can begin to step out of the oppression and into what it means to grow.

And so I ask, what do your images of the Father look like?

Read Full Post »

Bono – Quote of the Day

This is Bono giving us an everyman’s defintion of joy.

“You make me feel like I can fly. So high. Elevation”

Love it.

Read Full Post »

What’s Your Defintion Caller?

Why do we need definitions? Makessha has an interesting conversation going on about how the emerging/emergent church defines certain issues. It’s a good read. But it’s something in the comment section that caught my attention.

Geoffrey, over at Swinging On The Vine, says,

“As for labels in general. . . I don’t like them. I call myself “liberal” and “post modern” because otherwise I am left boring people, spending hours trying to explain what I believe and why. Yet, by so doing, I pigeonhole myself, and am left being attacked, or ignored, precisely because of labels, rather than for any substance.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve read this. Just today Joe commented in one of my posts. He said,

“I’m not a tag kinda fellow (emergent, emerging, postmodern, missional, etc.); I tend to keep things real simple. I’m a follower of the Jesus Lord. Period. That means you are engaged, active and actively reaching into the world to the lost. There is no other option.”

To a great extent definitions save time. They help us cut to the chase to create an understanding of the person. They create comfort by helping us see what someone believes and how they will act based upon certain common expressions of the word.

The problem is as Geoffrey states. Definitions pigeonhole. They create fixed interpretations that are not always true or fair. They, in essence, create fixed images or stereotypes. And stereotypes are never the fullest expression of who we are. They may be in the ballpark but they are never spot on. And when someone presents a different image than us but is in the same stereotype, we suffer.

When Jesus called us not to judge, maybe he had this in mind. What if he was somehow trying to communicate that when we define someone, we may be limiting our own understanding of who the person is or can be? Because isn’t that what we want too, the real picture?

PS: I found this comic strip after I posted this.  It’s hilarious and to the point.

Read Full Post »

What is Missio Dei?

Over the last couple of years, the emerging church has begun to share the spotlight with the missional church. To me, missional is the natural progression from what is emerging. We’re beginning to ask the right questions about what it means to follow Jesus.

But the study from Willow Creek is troubling and and hopeful. Troubling because those who are supposed to be flourishing in their faith, which Willow calls centered, are the one’s most likely to leave. I know this feeling. It’s the natural response to the current model. At some point, we don’t need information. We need practice. Jesus didn’t model programs. He modeled a missional discipleship process, which most churches don’t have.

I am hopeful because the church is beginning to wake up. Missional discipleship is possible and its happening. It happened in my church. People are learning what it means to engage God’s mission of restoration and reconciliation. Hearts are being restored and we’re seeing some amazing fruit. Missional discipleship is not typically on people’s radar, mostly because it’s not provided. But what we found is that people do want it, and will engage it if given the opportunity.

If you are looking for help understanding what that looks like, I’ve posted a new page called Missio Dei. What does that journey of discipleship look like and what would it mean to engage it in today’s world?  I can say this. It’s not easy but it is definitely worth it.

Read Full Post »

My Friend the Pagan

For the September Syncroblog.

I have a friend who is a Pagan. It’s not something you really hear about much, at least in Sacramento, although it is growing. I really wouldn’t know he was pagan unless he told me, and that he has Wiccan book in his briefcase. To be honest I really am not an expert on paganism and how it plays out in his life. I know enough to be dangerously misrepresentative of it. So I don’t say much. If I were to say anything about my friend, it is that he is remarkably like me about ten years ago. He’s in wonder about the future, very broken in relationships, and desperately wondering if he can make anything out of this life.

And on the days we have met, as with any day, I am not reminded of what he believes but what I believe. And sitting across from him I want to see him the way Jesus would see him. I want to show him that he is worth it to God and that the cross was equally meant for him as well as me. Am I being love to him across the table. Am I speaking to his dignity or am I shaming him? And I’m asking myself questions in these conversations. Have I earned the right to be heard? Have I given him an experience with the Gospel, not just what is in it? Have I shows him he is worth it to God, not just told him so?

I have often sat across from the table and have been tempted to think that I can change his life. I have the answer to his problem. And something inside of me reminds me that what this is really saying is, “Look at me. See what I know.” I don’t want that anymore. Only my Father’s Spirit can change a life. And he gets that through Jesus. But I do want to be love. I want to be part of God’s process to restore his life, if this is what my friend wants. I recognize that in love, God is not interested in controlling my friend, indoctrinating him with a belief system that is reminiscent of religion. What he’s interested in is restoring my friend’s heart, so that he may be love to the world around him.

Others in the conversation

Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
Heathens and Pagans and Witches … oh my! at Calacirian
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike’s Musings
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution
Rejection, Redemption, and Roots at One Hand Clapping

Read Full Post »

Postcards From The Edge

Another set of random questions from the journey.

– Could the church’s common approach to someone who is homosexual (hateful bashing, protesting against, etc.), which is a expression of belief, be considered heresy?

– Assuming Jesus would vote as a way of taking part in civic actions, would he vote Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or other? Why?

– If someone were simply saved to get to heaven, after death what would be their first words when they encountered a God they never really knew?

Read Full Post »

Built-In, Shock Proof Crap Detectors

I was going through a section in Frost’s Exiles the other day and came across the great quote from Hemingway in his book. “Most new realists have what Hemingway once indelicately called a ‘built-in, shock proof crap detector.’ They see the reality behind the saccharine smiles of fake, patronizing Christians.” That’s harsh…but it’s true. But the problem, I believe is indicative of an underlying structural problem within the church. We engage programs and stuff assuming that it produces discipleship and spiritual growth. But it doesn’t. I used to think I was alone in this feeling.

But then I came across this video, which I wrote about it in Is Willow Creek Going Emerging? and I realized that the same problem exists in the larger church. It wasn’t just me. Programs don’t produce spiritual growth along the entire spiritual contiuum. They actually produce dissension. The higher up the ladder we go in our spiritual development, the more we realize that we need something decidedly more real, more authentic. Orthodoxy must give way to orthopraxy.  We can hear about faith, hope and love, but we need places to practice missional discipleship.  We need places and practices that make our faith deep, not just wide.

Hemingway’s quote took me aback to some extent. My first thought was, “Wouldn’t I want to know if my own faith was fake?”  And the study from Willow Creek showed that those within the church are beginning to exercise their own crap detectors.  To a great extent the postmodern movement and the emerging movement are one giant built-in, shock proof crap detector.

What say you?

Read Full Post »

Is Willow Creek Going Emerging?

(ht) This is huge. It is one of the most fascinating and I would say important video’s I have seen in a long time in regards to the church. And it begs the question, “Is Willow Creek Going Emerging?” Yes, I said that. But let me explain. First, what Willow is doing is very important here. If you can get past the fact that this is a McKinsey (read: business) type approach to church, the findings are stunning. And they’ve backed it up with the evidence. They studied over 20,000 people in 30 different churches.

See it here. Make sure you watch the long version.

Greg Hawkins is the Executive Pastor at Willow Creek. It’s safe to say that Willow is one THE most influential megachurches in America. Is there impact waining? Maybe. But people still listen. Attendance is close to 20,000 on average every Sunday. They have the Willow Creek Association which serves and supports over 12,000 churches. I personally have attended a Leadership Summit and loved the opportunities for conversation. They basically invented (or made it known) the seeker sensitive approach. People follow Willow primarily because Willow has chosen to establish itself in a leadership role. But they got it wrong, and these are not my words.

Their basic strategy for spiritual growth was based on the idea that participation equals growth, a fairly large assumption within the modern church and Christendom. Willow offered the usual: services, classes, small groups, care, and service opportunities. He even calls them “activities and programs”. “Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ.” The most ironic statement comes a statement or two later. He says, “I know it might sound crazy but that’s how we do it in churches. We measure levels of participation.”

But then he admits that it is not working. His direct quote is, “Increasing levels of participation in these sets of activities does NOT predict whether someone’s becoming more of a disciple of Christ. It does NOT predict whether they love God more or they love people more.” This is a huge statement. Here is one of the largest and highest profile, teaching churches in America admitting that their fundamental strategy for spiritual development was not working. I would argue that his statement is one of the primary tenets of the emerging church. But it gets better.

He goes on to identify five segments of people within the church based upon their intimacy with Christ: exploring, growing, close, centered, and stalled. The sad part is that those who identify themselves as centered, or the most intimate in their faith are the most likely to leave. He said, “The people who love God the most are the one’s most disappointed.” Mail call. Are you just now getting it? And he goes on to say, “it wasn’t just true at Willow but in all the other settings they looked at.” I have to laugh because those within the emerging/missional church have been getting kicked around for soooo long for saying just that.

He ends with one of the most intriguing statements. He says, “Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he’s asking us to transform this planet.” Nice. If I told you Brian McLaren said that, you’d believe me.

Hats off to you Willow for taking steps in the right direction. It take leadership to admit you got it wrong. Well done for realizing the cracks in the facade. You have always been interesting in leading. Let’s hope this leads somewhere productive.

PS: You can also watch Hybels response here. He reveals that we must teach people to “self-feed”. It’s called discipleship and the priesthood of all believers Bill.

Read Full Post »

The Other 97%

Here’s an interesting thought. I’m not really a math guy but I’ll do my best.

Let’s assume I’m the average church goer. I spend 3 hours on Sunday attending church and 2 more hours, midweek, attending some function or Bible study at the church. I realize that this doesn’t include all the people who serve on committees but go with me here. I’m looking for averages.

There are 24 hours in a day, and 365 days a year (24 x 365 = 8,760) for 8,760 hours in a year.

If the average church goer spend 3 hours on Sunday and 2 more hours during the week (3 + 2 = 5), that’s 5 hours per week they are “going to church”. 5 hours per month, for 52 weeks equals 260 hours. 260 hours divided by 8760 possible hours (260 / 8,760 = 2.9%). Let’s account for error by rounding up to 3%.

My question is this. Are we spending these 3% of our year learning how to “go to church” or even “do church”, which takes place primarily in the 3% timeframe? Or are we spending the 3% learning how to prepare for the other 97%?

Your thoughts are appreciated?

Read Full Post »

Jesus Had a Megachurch

Jesus had a megachurch. It’s true.

• In Matthew 5, Jesus preaches to a crowd.
• In Matthew 13, the crowd was so large that he had to get into a boat.
• In Matthew 14, Jesus attracts and feeds a crowd of 5,000 people.
• In Mark 3, he has a boat ready because of the crowds, which he does often
• In Mark 8, Jesus attracts and feeds a crowd of 4,000 people.
• When Jesus enters Jerusalem in Matthew 21, he is greeted with a very large crowd.

Over and over again, Jesus attracted a crowd. And what do we mean when we say “megachurch”? A large crowd. I’m sure by now you realize I’m being facetious to an extent but there’s a point. What do we do when a crowd gathers?

Jesus does something really interesting when a large crowd gathers. He makes them work for it. He speaks in parables or teachings that make people leave with their head scratching. He turns up the heat and tells them like it is. It’s like he wasn’t interested in being a rock star. He wasn’t interested in their praise. He knew the mission and wasn’t really interested in attracting a crowd for his own sake. He wanted to know who was with him. Who was going to engage in God’s mission of restoration?

All of which leads to one question. Are we following Jesus’ model when we attract a crowd? I have nothing against a large crowd, by the way, but when we walk into our present day megachurches are we lured into the rock star temptation? Are we there to see the spectacle? Is the purpose ultimately about “look at me”? Or is it about finding out who is interested in the mission and creating a platform for real discipleship.

It’s funny because all of the organizational research is pointing to what Jesus did as central to a healthy organization. The more we filter the better it is. But the inverse is true. The less we filter, which we can’t do if it is about us, the worse it is. But we can’t do that unless it is not about “me”.

What say you?

Read Full Post »

Why Does Bono Resonate?

I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a scholar (no joke) on U2. He knows every song, note, lyrics and meaning of every song. He knows the back stories, which song is on what album and in what order, and the year it was published. He knows release dates, personal stories of each band member and their families. He once joked he could write a dissertation and get an A. I actually believe him.

The conversation led us to why Bono resonates specifically with the emerging church. And I began to realize, after listening to a lot of the back stories he was providing, that U2 has always been a Christian band. They just don’t advertise it. They sing about redemption (Bad), and the mystery of love (Mysterious Ways), and speaking to people’s dignity (One, about ten other songs), the love of a father (Sometimes You Can’t Make It On Your Own, Kite) longing for more (Beautiful Day, Elevation, Saints Are Coming, I Still…). And these are themes that resonates with the emerging church. And they’ve been doing it for two decades. It’s just as easy to find a song that resonates on their first album as it is the last.

We want an expression of our faith that is holistic. We want an expression that brings positive change to the world. We want a poetry that reveals the beauty and the tension of the journey. It’s not easily displayed in a bullet point or chart, better left to a rhythm and rhyme. U2 has been singing about the Christian experience for EVER. It’s not always happy. It’s rarely pretty, but it is good and it is worth seeking out.

And now Bono is leading the way with One.org in a fight for world poverty. He’s helping us to see that we are one humanity. Each person is still God’s creation, no matter how broken and torn apart. He’s speaking to the justice of ending world poverty, because we can. And in doing so he’s reaching in a showing us what the best of each of us looks like. This is profound.

Read Full Post »

Interesting Stuff 2

This is old but very interesting perspective from Scott McKnight on the five streams of the Emerging Church. It is interesting that he says, “It has no central offices, and it is as varied as evangelicalism itself.” This de-centralization is one of the things I think bugs people. We don’t like what we can’t control. And yet this organic movement keeps humming.

————————————————————————————–

This is an engaging question to think about. John asks, “Why doesn’t God just prove He exists?” His thought provoking answer will leave your head spinning. I love it. (ht)

————————————————————————————–

One of the age groups that is seriously walking away from the church is the college age range. A good friend of mine, Chuck Bomar, is leading the way in creating resources in this area. Check out collegeleader.org.

Read Full Post »

Where Do You Find Yourself?

Jason Clark made a presentation to the EA UK Council entitled, “Emerging Church: Paradigm Shift or Passing Fad?” You can listen to the audio presentation a this site. Jason does a brilliant job of breaking down the Emerging church into four distinct categories. On a chart are two sides: Theological Engagement (Orthodoxy) and Sociological Engagement (Orthopraxy). This chart creates four quadrants. (I hope Jason I did justice to your presentation.)

A. Theology is fine but our cultural interaction needs significant change. “We have the story right but we need to impact culture with it.”

B. Significant theological and cultural interaction changes are needed. “Lets blow up the church and start over.”

C. Some theological reflection and some social interaction changes are needed. “The world has changed so lets ask good questions about how we need to change.

D. Lots of theological reflection but remain conservative socially. “We are where we are because of what we believe.”

My question is where do you find yourself?

Read Full Post »

A Response to an Emerging Church Definition

The following is a response to C. Michael Patton’s post, “Understanding the Postmodern and the Emerging church”

Note: I really don’t know Michael (I’m assuming you go by Michael). From what I can tell from his blog he is an intelligent and thoughtful. By his own account he finds himself somewhere in the middle of the modern and postmodern thoughts. This is not an attack on him in any way. He simply voiced a common belief about the emerging church, one I have heard many times. Regardless, I’m sure if I knew him I would like him if we met.

But I want to invite him and the readers of this and his blog to consider a different understanding of postmodernism and the emerging church.

In his post C. Michael Patton says, “According to the emerging Church, we don’t go to church to learn about God; we go to worship God. We don’t go so that we can better understand, articulate, and defend our faith; we go so that we can commune with fellow believers. Our goal is not to confirm our beliefs, but to deconstruct our “unfounded” beliefs so that we can truly worship God in mystery.”

I begin with this statement because it is the clearest interpretation of his image and sets the tone for his understanding of the emerging church. But I think his interpretation of the emerging church is grossly flawed. I don’t know anyone who holds these views exclusively. I have never read or heard these views as the dominant or even prominent emerging church mindset by any author. And I couldn’t help but respond because I believe his interpretation is the dominant understanding of the modern mindsets understanding of the emerging church.

The Nature of Cognition or “How I Experience The World”

(This may seem technical but it is the fundamental foundation on which the humanity operates.)

One of the overriding concerns of humanity is to understand and make sense of our own experience. We read the world through our senses. We use language to create a definition, or a certain interpretation of reality in words, which becomes something to point to. It’s like having a North on a compass. North helps us determine South. The more people agree to this definition, the more validity it holds. As long as North holds true, North means North. The fallacy is assuming postmoderns don’t seek definitions or even certainty to an extent. They do because of the way we are designed as human beings. Certainty provides stability. The postmodern approach is to seek definitions but holds them in tension that they may one day change based upon new information.

The problem is the nature of cognition or how we read the world. Human beings live in a pendulum between representationalism and solipsism. Representationalism lures us into thinking our specific interpretation is always reality. What we see in our experience is reality. Solipsism assumes that we can’t really know anything so why try. An example is a woman having a baby. Representationalism would have the man believe that his experience of pain during a tooth ache is the same as her pain during child birth. Solipsism would have him believe he can’t know her pain even though they both have something called pain.

At the same time our bodies are always seeking a natural equilibrium called homeostasis. We like stability. We don’t like being off balance. New information gets the pendulum moving again. It creates a dizziness that can challenge some of our deepest beliefs. And the first time we encounter this information it knocks us off balance. Others around us, who have encountered this information, have found their balance but we haven’t. It’s new for us.

So what do we do? Assume that our experience is reality? But what of our blind spots and human error. Or do we just simply give up assuming that we can’t know anything outside of our own experience? The problem is, as cognitive scholars Maturana and Varela stated, “The dizziness results from not having a fixed point of reference to which we can anchor our descriptions in order to affirm and defend their validity.” (Tree of Knowledge, p. 240). In other words, we seek out descriptions (definitions) to understand and validate our own experience. We look for certainty so we don’t feel like we’re always sitting in shifting sand. The authors do something interesting, which I would suggest that produces a better understanding of the postmodern mind and the emerging church. They call it living in the Razor’s Edge. “Thus we confront the problem of understanding how our experience – the praxis of our living – is coupled to the surrounding world which appears filled with regularities that that are at every instant the result of our biological and social histories.” And “Again, we must walk on the Razor’s Edge (between Representationalism and solipsism).” (p. 241) It is living in the tension and space between the fixed understanding and the non-understanding. We hold truth lightly, constantly moving forward in FAITH, and with care but understand that our own capacity to understand reality can get in the way of things.

We do seek to attempt to define it. We just don’t hold it as THE definition because new information may emerge that changes things. History has proven over and over again that we change the definition many times. The postmodern mindset has come to a place of living in that tension. Not perfectly, but with an EMERGING understanding of truth. And this tension is consistent with the notion of faith as well. Living in this tension becomes one of the defining attributes of the emerging church. We understand that we are fallible human.

Serious problems arise from if we stake our reputation on the definitions or forms, when new information emerges, we are more likely to defend the old information rather than change. Why, because our own identity is on the line. These are our traditions. Good traditions, mind you, but our traditions. But other’s lack of practice of your traditions doesn’t invalidate them. It just means they don’t speak to us. This is a problem of form.

We do hold central tenets of the faith. We do hold on, in faith, that Jesus was the Son of God, died a was resurrected. But we did start a deconstructionist faith. This conversation of critiquing our own views has been going for 2,000 years. And we have 30,000 denominations to prove it. Are central points up for discussion? Absolutely. Why? Because we need to have those conversations too. They are part of faith and working out our own salvation.

A Definition That Doesn’t Yet Exist

What if part of the problem is that we don’t yet have the language, or words, or definition yet to define the emerging church. And so we use old definitions to do so, or we use the opposite (modern/postmodern) to help us define it, even though it doesn’t quite work. I wrote on this idea in the past. We need words because language is a way of communicating our experience. But this still leaves us with a definition of what something is in partial form or by what it is not. In fact the lack of language or words reveals the nature of the tension. We want to know.

I would suggest that the emerging church is not “apophatic” because the underlining assumptions supporting that definition are simply not true. We’re not simply postmodern either because the nature of our faith invites us into taking steps of trust with a God of the universe. This relational element allows us to experience reality at its finest, or the fruit of the Spirit.

I would suggest that Michael’s definition from above misses one of the defining qualities of the emerging church: Both/And. It is possible that the emerging church can do both. Is it possible we go to church to learn about God AND we go to worship God. We go so that we can better understand, articulate, and defend our faith AND we go so that we can commune with fellow believers. Our goal IS to confirm our beliefs AND to deconstruct our “unfounded” beliefs so that we can truly worship God in mystery. I would suggest that the emerging church is interested in answering questions, and defining experiences and truth. We do go to church to learn about God, and have reasoned dialogs about our faith. We even argue at times, but not at the expense of relationship. Why, because God’s Kingdom is always inviting us towards community, not away from it.

And we’re deconstructing the forms of the faith as much as looking at the foundations of the nature of belief that we’ve been taught. And why should you worry if you are right. We’ll eventually discover that too. But we invite you to consider the cost of misunderstanding. What is the cost of having an incorrect view of something or someone and holding onto it?

We don’t answer everything with, “Love Christ.” (This paints more of a portrait of an automaton or a four-year-old brainwashed child than anything.) But love informs absolutely everything we do. This is why we have a conversation and the modern mind typically is interested in an argument. We don’t need to defend truth. Truth is truth whether we like it or not. We just realize that we don’t have a corner on it at any given moment. But we can have faith that our experience of God is real. We can seek to follow him to validate that experience over time and discover a living God in relationship.

We choose to live in the tension (Razor’s Edge) between our capacity to know the truth completely and giving up altogether. We want to know truth. But we also know the church has serious cracks in the forms facade. Yet we know that is still valuable because we’ve experienced a living God, our Father. We’re living in the tension. Paul called this, “see(ing) through a glass darkly”, which Michael brought up. We don’t get to know everything in this life. Michael gets this as well but his approach is not consistent with his above statements or definition. This living in the tension is more consistent with the emerging church than a modern one.

Michael states that the emerging church has fewer convictions. What? It doesn’t have fewer convictions. It has different convictions. Ones like respect for dignity, simplicity, mission, sacrifice and love. These are the things that have always transformed culture and made people stand up aware that God was present in their midst. We don’t need to prove we’re right. We embrace the idea that God’s mission is Both/And. It is both inward, a restoration of the heart, mind and soul, and outward, a call to missional living that restores all of God’s creation, beginning with my neighbor.

Michael does bring up an interesting point of what can and does happen within the emerging church. People compromise simply to get people to like them. I’ve seen people do this. But to lump this approach into the emerging church is simply a gross over-characterization. Are there people within that do that? Absolutely. Is everyone or even a large majority? Absolutely not.

Another concern is the common criticism of “almost.” He says, “The soft postmodernism of the emerging church is continually on the brink of compromise.” He follows the comment with a thoroughly modern response. “Where does one draw the line of certainty?” Why do we need a line? So we can validate our own experience. Is it possible that God’s methodology of using faith as the invitation pulls us past this? And is the line we’ve drawn in the sand in Christianity really so unclear? The problem is also that it is always “almost”. I get stating the obvious but at what point do we have to let this go. This is invites fear into the conversation, appropriately so in some respects, but aren’t we under grace to explore the intimacies of our faith. Dan Kimball is famous for getting hacked with this. Is it possible that our exploration reveals the underlining problems within the modern church?

Definitions, although possible and helpful, lure us into pigeon holing our understanding as THE definition, read: certainty. I get certainty. It feels good and allows me to sleep at night. But history has proven that the church got some things wrong. It’s always been about trust. And the postmodern world doesn’t trust anymore, for very good reason. The church has to a large extent lost the trust of the people.

And to be fair, I think the emerging church is larger than the way I see it. There’s both brokenness and beauty. I tend to see the best of what she can be. I do know that there are some who have explored elements that would be considered heretical. But I also hold that this is part of exploration. We need to answer the tough questions people are afraid of so that we can have intelligent conversations with those who are wrestling with them without giving them the concern that they are “out” just because they wrestle with them.

A New (But Actually Really Old) Church

It is fair to say that Christendom ruled for about 1700 years. The emerging church is the response to centuries of oppression within the church and the ultimate turning away from that oppression. Has the church been all wrong? No. Has the church gotten it all right? No. Christendom as a whole did almost nothing to empower the ordinary person towards God’s mission of restoration and stepping into his role as minister to the people. It centralized power in hierarchical form and made a mockery of the Gospel at certain times. It forced Christianity on people and in the process lost a large part of its soul. To a great extent, it is this legacy that we rebel against. Is it in the past? Yes, but it is still found in the current FORMS of church. It’s not just about getting into heaven. It’s much more holistic than that. I am not meant to be a bystander.

The emerging church is interested in finding that purest expression of the Gospel, not in Christendom and its desire for power. Will it look much like the current forms of church. I doubt it. It will probably look more like the first century church, (common in China now) through house churches, where people engaged the priesthood of all believers and can create communities that restore people to wholeness and maturity through discipleship. We don’t need large monuments for the assembling of the saints. But we will use large buildings when we need them.

Old forms of power will eventually (likely centuries) fade away because the emerging church will be more interested in God’s mission of restoration. It will empower EVERYONE to be priests, rather than amusement park attendees. It will start with discipleship because it just works better. It will always take place in community, sometimes over a meal, or at the pub. But it will always include love, because that is the fullest expression of who we are created to be.

I, and a lot of my friends, long for the day when the emerging church blooms. My hope is the a church that restores people to wholeness and love, to courage and maturity, to faith and mercy. I recognize that the journey we are taking will require us to take hits from those who live in a different path. But our path doesn’t invalidate their’s. It’s just our path. We’re not going away.

I actually have to thank you Michael because your post helped me really identify what has bugged me about the critique of the emerging church. But I understand your definition is a misunderstanding, a product of the things you’ve read, heard, or learned. But it doesn’t define me so it is up to you to consider if it is in your best interest to re-evaluate your viewpoint. Could it be wrong? I’ll leave that up to you.

Read Full Post »

What Do You Really Want?

What is the cost of restoring a heart?

I had a conversation this morning with someone who shares my interest in Missio Dei and engaging God’s mission of restoration and reconciliation. She was recounting the cost of missional discipleship and the cost of staying within the mission. To engage someone in the heart means we have to deal with all the junk and the pain. In certain cases we fight for people even when they don’t want to fight for themselves. And the person we’re fighting for turns on us because they somehow misunderstood us. And we even know that they are blind to what they are doing. We know they can’t see the lashing out and running away, or the apathy is their own well established defense mechanisms at work. But we can see it. We can see the cost all of the drama is having on those around them, and within us.

And the wounds we encounter in discipleship can sometimes bring out the worst in us. We somehow lose our capacity to respond from a place of love, rather a place of dodging the B.S. Rumors fly and the gossip mill gets running at full speed. People we thought we knew well begin to wonder with a tilt of their head and a furrow in their brow, all from the grandstands.  We have to spend the time picking up the broken pieces left by those who left, never allowing us the space to reconcile, much less defend ourselves. And our own hearts begin to wonder if it is all really worth it.

At certain points we encounter those moments when it would just be so much easier to just stop fighting for people’s hearts and let them go.  And in a lot of cases it means letting people completely go, out into the world and out of relationship. We experience the messiness of our wounds and junk and sometimes just want to give up. This is the temptation within the mission, that the cost is just too high, the enemy inviting us into the comfortable places of the sideline.  And mind you, these are all people within the body of Christ, working out the winter chill of confrontation.

And in this space, I begin to wonder if it is easier to restore someone’s front yard than it is to restore a heart? Is it easier to serve as an usher and pass the plate? Is it easier to simply sit in the pew and listen, never speaking anything more than the company line. Because there is a right answer that allows us to hide. There is a right answer that allows us to live in the safe confines of our plastic self, never experiencing any fear or pain. We’ve had enough of that, haven’t we? We can spend lifetimes listening to the Gospel and never really experiencing the Gospel.

And the more I follow Jesus, the more I realize that He is inviting me into a painful journey. My mentor often says, “Its like surgery.” But in the mystery of the Gospel, the pain is restoring my soul. It’s inviting me into facing my fears so they don’t define me. It’s removing the junk that keeps me locked in isolation and loneliness. It’s removing those things that keep me from being the beautiful reflection of my Heavenly Father. And He did it because I’m worth it to Him. But in that very principle, he calls me to see my neighbor, good friend, even my broken enemy as worth it. My restoration is then intimately tied to restoring those around me. The more I step into who I really am, validating the dignity of those around me, the more I validate my own.

I’ve been following Jesus for a long time, and the longer I do, the more I begin to see that the cost of restoring a heart is worth it, which is why I need community. I need people around me on the journey reminding me why I do this. I need people who can help me when I fall, and restore me to wholeness and how He sees me.

And then I am reminded of why I do all of this. I want to know. I want to know what it means to love deeply, and not from a place of co-dependence or searching for validation, but of restoration. I want to know the love of the Father that would allow me to go to the cross freely in trust, to give up what He is asking me for. I want to see me as He sees me, His beloved child. I want to live my life, not defined by what Adam did, but by what Jesus did. I want to know the wisdom of what it means to take up my cross and follow him. I want to be part of something bigger than just me. I want to see the look on my friends faces the moment they allow a simple truth to penetrate their hearts, that God really, really, really does love them more than they can imagine.

So, I ask, what do you really want?

Read Full Post »

U2’s Bad – Song of Redemption

This is quickly becoming one of my favorite songs. It is one of those songs that marks a certain chapter in my life. I have liked U2 for a long time. But as I listen to their music with fresh ears I am reminded that they got it a long time ago. This is a song of redemption.  Thanks for helping me see this again Chad.

If you twist and turn away
If you tear yourself in two again
If I could, yes I would
If I could, I would
Let it go
Surrender
Dislocate

If I could throw this
Lifeless lifeline to the wind
Leave this heart of clay
See you walk, walk away
Into the night
And through the rain
Into the half-light
And through the flame

If I could through myself
Set your spirit free
I’d lead your heart away
See you break, break away
Into the light
And to the day

To let it go
And so to fade away
To let it go
And so fade away

Im wide awake
Im wide awake
Wide awake
Im not sleeping
Oh, no, no, no

If you should ask then maybe theyd
Tell you what I would say
True colors fly in blue and black
Bruised silken sky and burning flag
Colors crash, collide in blood shot eyes

If I could, you know I would
If I could, I would
Let it go…

This desperation
Dislocation
Separation
Condemnation
Revelation
In temptation
Isolation
Desolation
Let it go

And so fade away
To let it go
And so fade away
To let it go
And so to fade away

Im wide awake
Im wide awake
Wide awake
Im not sleeping
Oh, no, no, no

Read Full Post »

Interesting Stuff

What would you do if you had one year to do some kind of discipleship training? Listen to one group of guys responses.

—————————————————————————————–

If we could create the perfect pastor, here is what he would he look like?

—————————————————————————————–

I love comics. This one is resonates because it is so true in a stereotypical way.

—————————————————————————————–

This is a spoof of e-harmony. It’s funny in a silly way. Gives new meaning to love your neighbor.

Read Full Post »

You Are Worth It

Tonight was a hard night. I am part of a group of men that are engaged in a missional discipleship program. And tonight we faced some serious issues that are part of all of our past. It centered around our question of worth. Are we worth it in God’s eyes. Is what Jesus called us into really real, or is it just all a bunch of B.S.? Because for my friend it was not real. It was virtually impossible for him to step out of his own oppression and engage restoration. Nothing in his being told him that there was peace, or hope, or even joy.

Because he thought he wasn’t worth it.

It was honestly one of those night that allowed me to see how deep the conflict is in the spiritual world. The enemy was doing his very best to keep him locked in his own prison and he just wouldn’t fight for himself, nor would he surrender. His own little prison was simply acceptable, no matter how bad the pain he had learned to ignore. It was painful seeing my good friend get really honest and say that his faith was dead. At least this was his experience so far. The night ended with very little changed. My friend took little tiny steps towards his own restoration. He began the process of restoring his own heart.

But driving home I kept seeing it in my head. “You are worth it.” Tell them that. And for some reason you chose to read my blog today. I don’t want you to leave without me saying it. You are worth it. Know that you are worth every painful moment on the cross, the beatings, the ridicule. You are worth it. Know that every step along the way is for your good, because you are worth it. Know that He would do it all again, and again and again, because you are worth it. He loves you because you are worth it.

Read Full Post »

The Churches R&D Department

In the famous School House Rock commercial “Conjunction Junction” the voice sings, “Conjunction junction, what’s your function?” The conjunction responds clearly, “Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.” He simply knows why he is there. So I began to ask, what is the purpose of the Emerging Church? What is it really doing?

If you read enough of my blog, you’ll eventually realize that I consider myself part of the emerging church. There are many reasons for this and a lot of good people I can thank who invited me into that space. I think to a great extent it is also the natural progression of the person I am and the larger era I find myself in. I have always been a risk taker and entrepreneurial. I like art and seeing new expressions that show the beauty of life.

We are in a time of great change and exploration. Some would call this the “liminal period”, or time in which everything is being scrutinized, prodded, and looked at. Liminal periods are rare in history because as human beings we like stability. Our bodies crave homeostasis. We don’t like change if we don’t have to.

It is my judgment, but fairly obvious, that this liminal period was created by the explosion of information age, much in the way the printing press did centuries ago. Our catalyst was the unprecedented access to constant streams of information through the Internet. This explosion has allowed our world to begin to reevaluate what we have been historically fed. For much of the last 1700 years, the church essentially controlled what people digested. You see, as little as twenty years ago, there was no Information Age, no world-wide-web, and no email. It’s funny to think that ten years ago there was no Google, Flickr, MySpace, or Youtube and yet these are now staples in our lives. In order to really critique the message we had to go down to the library to do our research. This was ridiculously prohibitive in terms of capacity (microfiche anyone) and the cost of doing so. This limited critical review to the scholars who critiqued for a living, who we had no choice but to trust. This lack of access helped support control of the message. There is value in controlling the message but this control is almost impossible now.

The Internet changed all of that. Email gave us ways to connect over long distances in almost instantaneous ways. The web essentially became our library as a depository of information. Sites like Wikipedia meant we no longer had to shell out a $1000 for a set of books that was outdated the moment the ink hit the page. Critical review was now possible for the masses. But it was the creation of blogs that I believe was the “tipping point” for the emerging church, allowing it to becomes a mass conversation. Blogs became depositories for that critical review. Suddenly everyone could comment on their own journey and experience and others could share or critique that view. And because of the nature of the web, anyone with access could join the conversation and provide a different point of view. This dialog, I believe, is one of the healthiest things to happen to the church. Suddenly people began to have ways of connecting to like minds in communities of dissent from the norm. There is something powerful in knowing that we’re not alone and that others feel like we do. But it is hard to do when we are dealing with the church.

We also have to thank The Leadership Network for starting the movement. They had the insight to recognize that emerging generations no longer resonated with old forms of church. They had the wisdom to gather new leaders together and look for new ideas and thoughts. But blogs allowed us to take part in that conversation as well. We weren’t interested in simply deconstructing the message, which never really changed. We were interested in looking at new forms that would communicate in context, that would reach those who felt they could never step inside of the traditional church structure. We were interested in fresh perspectives that unleashed the Gospel from its historic shackles.

But some misunderstood this as the changing the message. It was not. It was exploring the message and asking questions about deeply held beliefs that even the church could not agree on. This questioning was an attempt to be honest about what we were experiencing in our faith. Brian McLaren’s book, “A New Kind of Christian” could be considered one the beginning dialogs on being honest about some of the issues people wanted to talk about. Donald Miller’s, “Blue Like Jazz” could probably be considered the second. Dan Kimball’s, “The Emerging Church” was the third. There are probably other’s you’d add but these books resonated on a level that is rarely seen. They took an honest look at the spiritual experience and asked hard questions. And this honesty released people to say, “I agree. There are cracks in the facade. Maybe we should take a look at what’s wrong.” I commend Brian, Don, and Dan for taking these risks, for which they have come under severe scrutiny.

Will some people get it wrong? Sure. But what if we get it right? What if this process produces something the world had been crying out for over the ages? What if the church discovers being the church takes place over a seven day week, not just on Sunday morning? What if we discover our identity as children of the Living God, ministers designed to bring love to the hurting? What if we discover our capacity to transform the world around us? What if we discover a message and a form that reaches into the spaces of each context in a way that speaks life? We’ve been content with good for so long that we’ve forgotten what great looks like.

To a great extent a liminal period can appear like an attack. Well meaning people, who really do love Jesus and want to see His kingdom be made real to people, have created forms that are their expressions (read: denominations/school of thought). Over time these expressions become traditions that have rich meaning and serve a great purpose. For a certain group of people they really do connect people to God in a way that is potentially the fullest realization of their faith. But the problem comes when these forms no longer fit the context for other people and those who created or espouse these forms assume the critique is a personal attack. I get this. Critique can often feel really harsh even when it is true. And when the form is a validation for the person who invented it or even espouses it, then it really gets confrontational. When these forms have existed for generations, even centuries, they becomes virtually impossible to tear down. To do so would be to call them into question.

And therein lies the rub. Progress sometimes looks like regress to some people, which is why I believe the Emerging Church is so valuable. We need people who are willing to take steps into the wilderness and look for what will speak to the emerging generations. We’re aware that the world has shifted to a global perspective. We’re aware that trust is a big issue and that authenticity is demanded. Pretty packages and emphasis on “show” only reveal a lack of belief in the message. We just don’t have time for phonies anymore. We can spot him six miles away and have a critical response in three minutes work on Google. Don’t expect us to simply fall in line because we now know we don’t have to. We live in an age where freedom of expression is expected. And these expressions exist because we’re each wired differently. Our expressions of faith don’t invalidate yours. It reveals the beauty of diversity. God created us differently. We have the thumb print to prove it. This is our creativity.

We’re informed about other religions for the sake of communicating with our neighbors who are Buddhist and Islamic or even atheists. We no longer connect to our grandparents belief that this is a Christian nation. It really doesn’t have to be because we know that God is bigger than our president or who ever else is in power. We know that His Kingdom is more powerful than anything we can create or legislate because His kingdom is built on love and redemption.

And central to all of this lab work is that we know our function. To engage God’s mission of restoration to all of creation. The emerging church, from my perspective, is serving much like a company’s R&D department. (This is a metaphor people, so don’t go postal on me about bringing business ideas into the church.) We’re in the lab looking for the forms that reveal our function and connect to our generation. We not afraid to explore the fringes of our faith because we’ve completely bought into the idea that we’re forgiven and living in grace. And this forgiveness allows us to live in the world but not be of it. It allows us to explore what it means to love our neighbor without worrying that he’s going to corrupt us. We’re more likely to restore him because we recognize how important he is in God’s creation. We’re not afraid that we’re going to fail because we know that is part of the process. But our mission defines the development. We’re looking for forms that communicate redemption and restoration. And central to the message is and always will be Christ birth, death and resurrection.

But we’re also going to succeed. We’re going to find the essence AND form in context of what it means to Love God and love our neighbor as we engage God’s mission of restoration. We’re going to be part of something bigger than ourselves as we bring love to a hurting world. We’re interested in restoring ALL of creation; our brothers in Africa and the people next door who are homosexual, or goth, or just like you and me. How we do this is still in development. But why we do this is never up for debate; because He chose to first love. He is bent on restoring what He started. And that is something I want to be part of.

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

Read Full Post »