The Emergent (or Emerging) Church.
"The emerging church (also known as the emerging church
or the emergent church movement) is a controversial
21st-century Christian movement whose participants
seek to engage postmodern people, especially the
unchurched and post-churched." -Wikipedia.org
Emergent. Church.
Sometimes I think we like the sound of those words together
just to make ourselves seem a little wiser and involved in
some sort of cutting edge movement that will make us
loser Christians feel hip and 'with it'.
There are many problems with churches everywhere. Let's
just accept that fact and move forward.
I think, though, that some of the main problems with
the ideal of the Emergent Church lie in its language.
We use words like Postmodernism.
De-construction.
Re-construction.
Post-churched.
Un-churched.
Relativism.
Epistemology.
Evangelism.
In a way, I think the Emerging Church movement lends
itself to a very philosophical and deep-thinking
audience. Some of the terminology is very thick and
only attracts a fairly educated following. Don't
get me wrong - education is great - but it can seem
like the Emerging Church speaks certain words to
certain people and those words can often be translated
into 'We only want smart people.'
Would I invite some of my friends who are tradespeople
to an Emergent Church? I don't think so. No offense
to Brian McLaren but our language speaks volumes about
who we are.
The problematic nature of this movement lies in
one major notion; The emergent or emerging church
relies upon postmodern thought in order to exist.
Now, I don't know if you've read the newspapers
(or maybe even a Douglas Coupland novel) but
Postmodernism is no cake walk. In fact, the idiot's
guide to postmodern thought would be only three words:
It doesn't exist. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
Postmodernism actually relies on the de-construction
and re-construction of...well...let's see...yeah,
pretty much everything.
So if I need to be involved in a church that is
about the de-construction and re-construction of
everything, that is gonna be one massive nightmare
of a church when it's time to vote on whether or
not the offering needs to go towards a leaky roof
in the sanctuary:
CONGREGATION: Yes but, we need a new roof. It's
leaking water on to everyone who enters the building.
POSTMODERN CHURCH LEADER: Yeah but this building...
this building is an establishment, man. It's just
gonna be torn down eventually, anyway.
This could go on forever - let me get to the point.
I firmly believe that in order for any sort of
teaching to be effective, the speaker/teacher
needs to relate some sort of personal experience
to make all of the head knowledge seem real to his
or her audience and community. So here is mine:
My wife and I haven't really had a thriving church
community for the 4 years we've lived in the Niagara
region. The one shining star of any semblance of a
good, Christ-like community we were involved with
was a homespun homechurch that met in 3 different
homes on 3 nights a month. The main people involved
were all interested in checking out this dude who
started a church around here (in the Greater
Toronto Area) named Bruxy Cavey. We all wanted to
check out this church but none of us lived in real
close proximity to one of the sites (all in local
movie theatres). That's where the benefit of the
internet came into play. We all started downloading
old sermons from his church website,
discussing them in our meetings and it grew from there.
At its apex, there were maybe only 8 or 9 people
involved but there was interaction between a variety
of personalities (some lifelong Christians and some
never setting foot in a narthex) and evident growth.
We ate together, we exchanged ideas, we gave each
other sweaters, we laughed, we cried but most of
all we dissected Bruxy's sermons, we read scriptures
and we prayed together.
Unfortunately, due to the homes being a good 40
to 50 minutes apart, the homechurch died out after
a year and a half. So what do I know about lasting
involvement? I didn't start Willow Creek, Saddleback
or Mars Hill - but I was involved in something real
and something that was centred around Jesus and his
teaching. I hope to duplicate that again someday
as my wife and I are most likely moving in a few
months and re-locating to a more permanent locale.
Sometimes, even in our most selfless and Godly
efforts, our language isolates us from others.
In our greatest desire to achieve good things for the
sake of God's kingdom and move forward, we need to
always remember our audience: Everyone...Everywhere.
26.3.08
The Elitist Diction of the Emergent Church
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"In our greatest desire to achieve good things for the
sake of God's kingdom and move forward, we need to
always remember our audience: Everyone...Everywhere."
~Imagine what would happen to the world if we all (as believers) lived this every day. wow.
The emergency church is where I go.
Elitist diction, condescending views of tradition (as opposed to seeing the heart and authenticity behind the act!) and general arrogance, could be the real boat anchor of what has the potential to be the continuance of reformation!
but at least we get to swear!
Considering how intellectuals have been derided and ignored by the Church since the Scopes monkey trial, I'd say speaking to them in their language isn't a bad idea.
When we call our phrases 'elitist', we're making a broad generalization across a pretty wide theological base. The Emergent Church is not a denomination. It consists of people who might be very theologically open and those who are still traditional.
The problem with criticizing the 'Emergent Church' is we're not actually criticizing a set institution. It's a transition from the modern church, which had a lot of problems and a few things right, into the postmodern church, which will have a lot of problems and a few things right.
I've met Brian McLaren on a couple of occasions, and I can tell you he's not some verbose professor-type. He's a thoughtful guy capable of talking about a wide-range of issues with anyone. I also have seen the fruit he produces, separate from his intellectual pursuiits, and it's good stuff.
I love your description of the homechurch, which I think is equally important to Mars Hill or Saddleback. The truth is, Christ died for everyone: smart people and morons; college professors and garbage men; rich people and poor.
While it's ideal to have a church encompassing that whole array, if the gospel is getting out there, then what's wrong?
This may have been your point, but finding common ground between a college professor and an auto-body repair guy isn't as difficult as it seems if a community is strong.
beautiful. to be honest, this "emergent" thing is all kind of crazy, and is growing a lot right now in America. especially the "postmodern" movement notion. it strikes up very interesting points, especially when Rob Bell is affiliated with the Emergent Church. i've been trying to learn more about this issue, but it seems cloudy... whoops, sorry for the rambling. my main thing: you did good writing this.
i understand the argument, and i agree with it to some extent...the key is to realize that everybody relates to God and the Church in very different ways--fellowship, worship, praise, study, etc. as a person who primarily relates to the spiritual through intellect, i desire/need something smart and challenging to move me, which i've partially found in the 'postmodern' idea of church, but not fully. the contemporary american church is surely very late to the postmodern movement, and--as jordan mentioned--still very much in transition. a great majority of the emergent churches i've been to seem to only be traditional, conservative churches draped in drag and spewing polysyllabic words that seem scripted and trite. but churches are mortal institutions merely, attempting to connect with and understand the divine. there will always be some fallacy and there will always be some truth and genuine heartlight. that being said, i don't think the problems of the emergent church lie in abstruse language. God gave us brains, let's use them.
Yeah, basically what Jordan said is where I'm coming from. What cracks me up about it is that for the most part, the term "Emergent Church" is used more negatively than positively. For every person that says "I identify with the Emergent Church Movement" there are 4 people saying "You know what i hate about the Emergent Church Movement?" (I'm not putting you in that group Matt). It's become a generic, easy target for everything you don't like about church.
For instance, I've read Don Miller's answers to questions where he says that he doesnt really consider himself one of the leaders of the Emergent Church Movement - seeing how he's not a pastor - and yet I get Google Alerts on Don all the time with people calling him that very thing.
Folks like Tony Jones are doing what they can to define the Emergent Church Movement for what it is, but it seems to me like it's an uphill battle.
I think it's kind of like what it must have been in Europe right when the reformation began. Luther didn't even want to leave Catholicism. There was no official protestant church. Later these movements took on names. I think that is what we are in now. Emergent is kind of in the same boat. Who knows what they'll call it. It'll probably affect many denominations in the process, not just one. One thing is for sure, the modernist AMerican church that is rooted in American culture and values, rather than Christ's values, HAS GOTTA DIE.
PS Larry and I have started a small group, headed up by a local church. We don't go to that church, not everyone in the group does. But we all like each other. I guess that's really the church: the people who know you. I hope you find a similar situation. I've moved around a lot, church and city. I envy those people who've had a long history with a small group of people.
Post a Comment