This entry was posted on Thursday, February 11th, 2010 at 9:22 am and is filed under Church Renewal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I have been a follower of the Emergent ethos on both sides of the theological spectrum from Vosper/Spong/Fox to MacLaren et al. The challenge for these movements is that they have reached where they can exist within the confines of their denoms. Yet what an amazing thing to embrace a missional movement for the church, it is quite a dream to get back to the idea of being within our own communities, of spiritual growth being the benchmark for growth not numbers or money, and of actually being able to create a change in the world.
Are we ready for a throwing off of old conventions and an embracing of new ways?
I wonder sometimes if “Emergent” is more of a style of ministry, where “Missional” is more of a value (I recognize this sounds simplistic). Missional ministry values a biblical outward focus that takes seriously the incarnation of Christ, where Emergent often refers to styles, culture, etc. (at least that’s my reading).
In spite of all that, wherever our terminology is insufficient, I think that’s the place where we need to trust the Spirit of God to be our sufficiency. Jesus is in the business of redemption and I’m excited to see what God’s up to here in our midst. Time to power up our theological imaginations and move the best, most Christ honoring ideas forward.
There is a good article: http://www.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway that attempts to shed some light on the emerging church and define some of the different facets, as well as give some details on two of the key leaders of the Emergent Village, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell.
The article is two years old so it is already somewhat out of date. (For example, I know Brian McLaren has defined much more of what he believes since then especially in his latest book “A New Kind of Christianity”.)
Being two years old however, makes the closing section of the article all the more interesting for me as I see evidence that affirms much of the author’s predictions.
The “Emergent” nature, in my opinion, speaks to the sense of “coming out” of what has been. Yes, the missional nature of the church is something that the “Emergent” groups have brought back into the life of the church. The church has for quite some time been so focused on its own survival and “othodoxy” that it has lost touch with much of life outside the doors.
A quote I saw the other day said, “If we see the Gospel the same way people did 2000 years ago we do the Gospel a disservice.” It spoke to the fact that we are a much different people and society than that which existed during the writing and compilation of the Bible. We know things now that the people of Scriptural times would have no clue about and so as we look to the writings of Scripture we must struggle with language. This is often where the act of “interpretation” and the discussions and conflicts it produces comes to the forefront.
Take a look at ThankGodforEvolution.com for a new look at faith and God through the eyes of science. Yes, I suppose that some “orthodox” persons will consider it heresy because it looks at things from the knowledge and understanding of today rather than that of 500, 1500 or even 2000 years ago. But opening ourselves up to what science and evolution can say in relation to the Bible and faith can open our eyes to a new way of seeing and still honoring God and Scripture.
We must still ask the “What if…” question and be willing to ask even “What if we got it wrong?” If we are so convinced as to the “rightness” of our own stance it will be impossible to grow (evolve) because any movement out of what is “right” will be seen as “unorthodox” and will be shunned.
“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)
Even 2000 years of our best thoughts as far as it comes to theology and interpretation will not be able to separate us from the fact that we are loved by God. We may have it all wrong, and yet we are embraced by God and given a share in the peace that passes all understanding.
It gives an up to date, insider look at the Emergent Church movement. I would recommend starting listening at the 2nd segment @ the 36 minute mark as it pertains most closely to this “What if” blog.
I like that there is validation for the line of questioning the emergent church starts from, the missional focus and engaging of the postmodern world we live in. I also like that it then gets into the teachings of some of the key leaders such as Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt and compares them to what the Bible teaches.
The 3rd segment of the interview (which starts @ 66 minute mark) might be of particular interest as it touches on some of the ideas with regards to “evolution”, innovation and seeing faith through different lenses.
I was reminded that I did make a mistake in my last response, it is Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt (not Rob Bell) that are key leaders of Emergent Village. The article has a lot to say on Rob Bell though and toward the end of the interview there is some discussion of him as well.
I think one of the reasons he speaks against “evolution” in his interview – if he accepts the scientific data that proves the universe is close to 14 billion years old, the Scriptural understanding of a 6000 year history is shown as false. Innovation for innovation sake is indeed not valuable, but we do need to come to some understanding between the worldview of the writers of scripture and the worldview that we have today and so some innovation and understanding of evolution is part of the world in which we live today
A simple reading of the Bible from In the beginning, to Amen at the end of Revelation I believe (and I’m okay with being wrong) is an evolving story of God with Her creation and His creation with God. It shows that a relationship evolves and changes as our understanding deepens, one thing that was raised recently at Brunch and Bible at my place is the thorn in the flesh Paul speaks of frequently, what if this thorn in the flesh was the inner turmoil of his faith evolving from the “orthodox” Pharisee to the “emergent” or “missional” (I love catchy churchisms) of The Way as I have heard the church termed back then. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul is trying to explain what exactly his job is to the church in Corinth.
Just some thoughts, as we struggle with Orthodox/traditional/emergent, perhaps it is God’s way at this part of the story to force all sides of the church to see through the other’s eyes and experience of God?
We're asking the big "What if...?" questions about the Synod of Alberta and the Territories in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. It's more than a conversation, we hope to be part of God's action!
PT
What if...? 
I have been a follower of the Emergent ethos on both sides of the theological spectrum from Vosper/Spong/Fox to MacLaren et al. The challenge for these movements is that they have reached where they can exist within the confines of their denoms. Yet what an amazing thing to embrace a missional movement for the church, it is quite a dream to get back to the idea of being within our own communities, of spiritual growth being the benchmark for growth not numbers or money, and of actually being able to create a change in the world.
Are we ready for a throwing off of old conventions and an embracing of new ways?
I wonder sometimes if “Emergent” is more of a style of ministry, where “Missional” is more of a value (I recognize this sounds simplistic). Missional ministry values a biblical outward focus that takes seriously the incarnation of Christ, where Emergent often refers to styles, culture, etc. (at least that’s my reading).
In spite of all that, wherever our terminology is insufficient, I think that’s the place where we need to trust the Spirit of God to be our sufficiency. Jesus is in the business of redemption and I’m excited to see what God’s up to here in our midst. Time to power up our theological imaginations and move the best, most Christ honoring ideas forward.
There is a good article: http://www.equip.org/articles/navigating-the-emerging-church-highway that attempts to shed some light on the emerging church and define some of the different facets, as well as give some details on two of the key leaders of the Emergent Village, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell.
The article is two years old so it is already somewhat out of date. (For example, I know Brian McLaren has defined much more of what he believes since then especially in his latest book “A New Kind of Christianity”.)
Being two years old however, makes the closing section of the article all the more interesting for me as I see evidence that affirms much of the author’s predictions.
The “Emergent” nature, in my opinion, speaks to the sense of “coming out” of what has been. Yes, the missional nature of the church is something that the “Emergent” groups have brought back into the life of the church. The church has for quite some time been so focused on its own survival and “othodoxy” that it has lost touch with much of life outside the doors.
A quote I saw the other day said, “If we see the Gospel the same way people did 2000 years ago we do the Gospel a disservice.” It spoke to the fact that we are a much different people and society than that which existed during the writing and compilation of the Bible. We know things now that the people of Scriptural times would have no clue about and so as we look to the writings of Scripture we must struggle with language. This is often where the act of “interpretation” and the discussions and conflicts it produces comes to the forefront.
Take a look at ThankGodforEvolution.com for a new look at faith and God through the eyes of science. Yes, I suppose that some “orthodox” persons will consider it heresy because it looks at things from the knowledge and understanding of today rather than that of 500, 1500 or even 2000 years ago. But opening ourselves up to what science and evolution can say in relation to the Bible and faith can open our eyes to a new way of seeing and still honoring God and Scripture.
We must still ask the “What if…” question and be willing to ask even “What if we got it wrong?” If we are so convinced as to the “rightness” of our own stance it will be impossible to grow (evolve) because any movement out of what is “right” will be seen as “unorthodox” and will be shunned.
“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)
Even 2000 years of our best thoughts as far as it comes to theology and interpretation will not be able to separate us from the fact that we are loved by God. We may have it all wrong, and yet we are embraced by God and given a share in the peace that passes all understanding.
Here is a a good interview from http://www.extremetheology.com/
It gives an up to date, insider look at the Emergent Church movement. I would recommend starting listening at the 2nd segment @ the 36 minute mark as it pertains most closely to this “What if” blog.
I like that there is validation for the line of questioning the emergent church starts from, the missional focus and engaging of the postmodern world we live in. I also like that it then gets into the teachings of some of the key leaders such as Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt and compares them to what the Bible teaches.
The 3rd segment of the interview (which starts @ 66 minute mark) might be of particular interest as it touches on some of the ideas with regards to “evolution”, innovation and seeing faith through different lenses.
I was reminded that I did make a mistake in my last response, it is Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt (not Rob Bell) that are key leaders of Emergent Village. The article has a lot to say on Rob Bell though and toward the end of the interview there is some discussion of him as well.
I tried to embed the interview in my last post but it didn’t work. Here is the direct link to the interview:
http://www.extremetheology.com/2010/02/defe.html
I think one of the reasons he speaks against “evolution” in his interview – if he accepts the scientific data that proves the universe is close to 14 billion years old, the Scriptural understanding of a 6000 year history is shown as false. Innovation for innovation sake is indeed not valuable, but we do need to come to some understanding between the worldview of the writers of scripture and the worldview that we have today and so some innovation and understanding of evolution is part of the world in which we live today
A simple reading of the Bible from In the beginning, to Amen at the end of Revelation I believe (and I’m okay with being wrong) is an evolving story of God with Her creation and His creation with God. It shows that a relationship evolves and changes as our understanding deepens, one thing that was raised recently at Brunch and Bible at my place is the thorn in the flesh Paul speaks of frequently, what if this thorn in the flesh was the inner turmoil of his faith evolving from the “orthodox” Pharisee to the “emergent” or “missional” (I love catchy churchisms) of The Way as I have heard the church termed back then. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul is trying to explain what exactly his job is to the church in Corinth.
Just some thoughts, as we struggle with Orthodox/traditional/emergent, perhaps it is God’s way at this part of the story to force all sides of the church to see through the other’s eyes and experience of God?