Carol is spot on – Emergent Church ™ is primordial soup because the moment you try to can and commercial the spirit, it turns into God goo – as evidenced by the one man emergent rock star tours that keep touring around the US (please, God, make it stop cause it makes Jesus cry). Enough with the pomo pandering and let’s try to just “be the church” for each other — all of this Emergent product is good for the head but doesn’t fed the soul.
Oh – Read Phyllis Tickle’s book “The Great Emergence” – she goes beyond EC to give us some signposts moving forward – Andrew Jones and other bloggers are spot on when they label these terms as passe – Emergent/Emerging to me is akin to disco in the ’80s – once Saturday Night Fever came out in ‘79, the innovators declared disco dead and moved on to what now became hip-hop – same dynamic happening here.
I agree with schmikey, I hope thats the old one going down rather than the new one coming up!
Lets go for rather more like the soup it comes from than the current version does; which is more like a raspberry pavlova – you just won’t find one of those in a soup.
Maybe it will be a subtle flavoring a bit like coriander…..I do hope it never gets to being the croutons or before long it will look too much like its predecessor.
I find the whole emerging / emergent / reformed / reforming church thing annoying.
Why do we have to label stuff?
Why can the church not be what God planned it to be, His people on the mission He called them to?
One church that may have emerged over the last couple of years is Mars Hill in Seattle. It was part of the ‘emerging’ church a couple of years ago but now seams to have emerged out of that.
Comment by beatthedrum — November 14, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
I went to Mars Hill in Seattle – I don’t want to get into a Mark Driscoll debate (See Jon’s Song of Songs cartoon for that) but let’s just say he was never emerging … what I saw was classic evangelical service served in a very testosterone driven package. He even has bodyguards and doesn’t interact with his congregation.
The church in Seattle that rocks is Church of the Apostles – Karen Ward is the US pioneer in bringing the UK stream of Anglican emerging (or whatever we call it) to the US – she gets it. Most emergent/emerging people in the US don’t – they’re too busy playing with their theology to get down and be the church for the people.
By the time it emerges it’s probably not going to be anything I want to be a part of, and if I do, then the movement has really taught me nothing. If it were to ever “get” anywhere, the spirit has surely continued on…
Becky- I liked the “one man emergent rock star tours” picture, so easy to visualize.
Once EC becomes a product to be bought and sold, I think God excuses himself to go searching the earth again to strengthen those not tied down to their church idols.
Comment by The Millers — November 14, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
#9 beatthedrum –
“I find the whole emerging/emergent/reformed/reforming church thing annoying.” ME TOO!
“Why do we have to label stuff?” BECAUSE WE LOVE TO LABEL EACH OTHER AND THEN WASTE OUR TIME SQUABBLING OVER TRIVIALITIES AND FEELING SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF OTHER LABELS THAN OURS.
“Why can the church not be what God planned it to be, His people on the mission He called them to?” PERHAPS IT COULD, IF WE’D POINT OUR EYES IN HIS DIRECTION INSTEAD OF EACH OTHERS.
I feel better now and have taken the caps lock off!
hey my wonderful friend just bought me phyllis trickle’s book – how funny, i’d never heard of it before. looks good tho.
i agree with the emergent church comments, although brian mclaren formed and still forms a lot of what i am thinking myself. we’re all just in a conversation.
besides give me rob bell over mark driscoll any day – i kno we weren’t gonna get into the mark driscoll thing, but y’know………
From what i saw, the folks who did allot of the interesting stuff that would become emerging church (like your good self Jon) are probably the real innovators but who never really cared what people said and called it and stayed quiet enough just to keep doing what was important to and leave the tags for folks who made enough noise to create a scene and a backlash.
These Scencesters will soon move onto some other underground activity to hype up and create and kill as a scene.
The ironic thing is watching these guys then link and point folks back to the real innovators as if they’re giving a chin up to some newbies
I don’t even know what the emerging church is, but ‘emerging’ can only be an excuse, surely? As in “sorry this is meaningless, we haven’t finished emerging yet!”.
the trouble I have with emergent is that it’s a quality, an attribute
it’s a thing that’s like ‘that’, it’s emergent and is consistently so, (otherwise we wouldn’t be able to recognise it)
but if we are emerging, becoming, on our way towards…
being like Jesus
then we’ll always defy description and adjectives…
we’ll be a little chaotic and messy, contradictory around the edges, “resolutely confused” as we say in the Northumbria Community.
Comment by Caroline Too — November 14, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
14. Jody – Brian McLaren no longer labels himself as “emergent” – he calls himself an author/activist. In lieu of promoting himself as a “rock star,” he chose to design an Everything Must Change Tour – two women are his co-leaders and he had an amazing woman as his worship leader. Also, at each stop, he involved the local community so people could highlight their grassroots groups. Also, Brian is incredibly generous in passing the mic.
Shane Claiborne and Rob Bell refused to be identified as emergent – they just do their thing.
I call what’s happening “the global spirit” and I just try to catch the wave and body surf – but when i talk to Episcopal audiences, I use the term “emerging” aka Fresh Expressions because I want them to link up to what’s happening in the UK – we’re about 15 years behind the curve here. And I’d like them to hook up with communities like Grace (London) and see what happens when a community is led by the spirit over the long term.
What I’m referencing as US Emergent Church ™ is led by postevangelical male author/speakers but this wing of the movement has turned into soup. Even US publishers have backed off the word – the only two publishers here who use the word “emergent” are those who are still doing book tours:
Becky, having just read the article you posted i’m suddenly filled with a sense of dread.
I have become increasingly intrigued almost to the point of perpetual excitement about what Christianity could become, how as (to steal from Mclaren) we could become New Christianity, leading the people out of their modern rut…
the trouble is i’ve heard talk like this before, gorwing up as a ‘christian youth’ i was constantly told how i was part of “The Generation” that will change the world. i’m only 26 but i’m already hearing the same thing to young teens who i consider a different generation to me, and when i read old books or watch videos i see that the same thing was said to them.
my point is that i’m sick of hype being blown when maybe Jon is right, maybe what is emerging is in fact the same old same old.
Don’t be filled with a sense of dread – I’m old enough to be your mother almost and for the first time in years, I see glimmers of genuine hope on the horizon.
As a religious satirist, I sound the warning bells because it’s the role of the satirist to deconstruct anything and anyone who keeps us away from the kingdom of God — hence my ongoing slams of the emergent church ™. But but after you engage in idol smashing, then the glimpses of God can shine through the cracks. (Think Jesus doing the temple turning over dealie – now is the time to stop the money changers.)
The author of this article did an excellent job of surveying the US scene – yes there are a few things happening that’s disturbing but there’s also some developments that give me hope – e.g., like my current publisher (Zondervan) refuses to label any of us emergent. They are publishing some amazing cutting edge stuff – Rob Bell and Shane Claiborne for starters.
For what it’s worth, your generation is MUCH more committed to public service than my generation ever was – that gives me hope. Don’t despair – just buy yourself a very good BS detector – engage in critical thinking and learn to sniff out what’s holy and what’s hooey – e.g., people who act like holy hipsters are pomo posers. If you’re cool, subversive, etc. you don’t need to talk about it – you just are.
At the risk of embarrassing Jon, I take hope in the fact that Andrew Jones, Jonny Baker and Jon Birch are in the top 10 of UK blogs. These three guys are amazing at sniffing out the BS from the real deal. Also, check out Naked Pastor – he’s for real. Asbo Jesus is a good place for you to play.
As someone in the middle of it, I have many questions that were emphasised at greenbelt this year.
We emerge
we emerge we emerge……
[well we're young]
We have kids. We need child care
[we are older]
We ask people to do it and to provide some kind of ‘childrens provision’ whilst they are at it – in fact, lets call it – ooo, I don’t know ……… how about ……. erm ………… “Sunday School”………
Hang on a minute!!!
Hold your horses….
isn’t there a logical conclusion?
Isn’t this called………… erm……… “church”?
What if when we have finished emerging it isn’t a revolutionary moment? What if it is just like all the other litugical reforms. What if we like all those before us are just saying “hang on, church is a bit shit… lets do it different”.
Reformation – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Tractarians – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Chrismatic movement – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Emrging church – “it’s shit lets do something else”
What if we find ourselves opening the kinder suprise to find the *&^%^&ing church inside? What is the point!!??!!
Sorry – really I am. These are real concerns I have about what I am doing as someone embroiled in the emerging church movement. What if the primordial soup is a sea of shit and the final thing is another spire? What is the point?
[I could spend much longer argueing against my darkest fears so don't worry. Also, appologies for the language. I talk in 'pit talk' a lot of the time]
‘there ain’t nothin’ new under the sun’… to approximate a passage that may well never have been intended to be used out of it’s context.
re. labelling… according to the bible god started it, naming the stuff he’d made and then naming adam and eve. labeling animals was a command given to adam which people still do today, every time they find a new insect or disease. so for humanity, the biblical position seems to be that labelling is good… it helps us to recognise things and helps us know our place in the greater scheme etc. etc. HOWEVER… like many human things, the process of labeling stuff is often broken. labeling someone is wrong if the label serves to destroy them… or labeling yourself in a way that suggests ‘you’ are better than ‘them’ etc. BUT it’s difficult sometimes… when you are upset by, or your life and cares run opposite to those who identify themselves by the label ‘christian’. for example, if i lived in nigeria i would definitely not want to be labeled along with those who abuse children in the name of their ’so-called’ christian faith… i would not want to be identified with the kkk brand of hatred christianity in parts of the southern states… i would not want to identify myself with fake healing ministries and sticking my hand in a bucket of snakes… AND SADLY it is these things and many more mundane things that people often think christianity is. they’re wrong to fall for it in my view. they ignore the wealth of good stuff that christianity did and does in the world. but we cannot ignore this ugly face of the faith. i repeat, i don’t want to be identified with any of this and a lot of other behaviour.
so… i need a label that says… YES, i follow christ… NO, i don’t believe what they believe. thing is, if people don’t label themselves, others do. i don’t want the same label as people who i consider to be on the opposite side to me. i want a label that best describes who i am. the best label i’ve come up with so far is the one my mum and dad gave me… ‘JON’… says what i really need to say about myself, has only three letters and is easy to remember. if people want to find out more about what it means to be a ‘JON’ i’m happy to tell them.
man… i hope that all made sense… thinking out loud is a dangerous game.
btw. i’m liking the passion on the subject. no apologies please.
lol robb, love the reformation, tractarians etc explanation. half tempted to type it up and put it on my classroom wall when i go back!
you’re hilarious
btw… ‘christian’ was a label given to the followers of the way. not a label they chose. a way of identifying a particular strand of danger (as they saw it) to the roman empire. but ‘christian is not a label i own… JON is.
btw… if your first name really is ‘christian’, i wonder if this makes this particular dilemma easier or harder.
hey dadube… i lay in bed for hours not sleeping, so i got up again. jippy stomach… bit buggy. i’m going back to bed in a couple of minutes to try again. thanks for the care.
Early Christians were also called atheists because they didn’t worship the Roman Gods.
Jon – the KKK brand of hate isn’t limited to the southern states – I can site numerous places north of the Mason Dixon line where racism runs rampant. But that’s another post.
The problem is when the labeling gets packaged, marketed and sold – here’s the Q when one gets a bit of fame, do they use it to build up the kingdom (Brian and Shane come to mind) or do they use it to enhance their own street cred?
Rob – as a writer, I hear you. I struggle with the need for me to make a living at my craft without selling out. What helps me here is I have a group of friends who keep me grounded and honest. The people I see becoming “emergent rock stars” don’t have an honest group of peers – they have fawning fans — even the members of their own community tend to put them on a pedestal. Not healthy in the least.
The church has been emerging since the time of Acts – we’re now all figuring out how to “be church” in a post-Christian society (to that end, those of you in the UK are gaining on us like crazy as we’re just now entering our first generation where a large percentage of people have been raised in a secular household) – in another 50 years, people will be debating something else while we’re all in heaving having fun.
If it turns out to be church… why is that bad? Isn’t that what we’re meant to be?
This movement always has been the church – its always been part of the body of Christ. Its never been about plucking something new out of nothing, its always been about rediscovering and re-applying existing wisdom. Tweaking the format so the original principles of being church and following Jesus can be understood and acted on in our particular time and society. It is our generation taking what has been passed down to us and applying it – its never been some whole new idea, has it?
So why are you surprised when it turns out to have some church-like tendancies – why’s that your darkest fear? There is nothing new under the sun, people haven’t changed, nor has the human lifecycle – a creche is not a sign of failure, its a sign of growth. literally!
That’s a good thing.
Traditional does not necessarily mean wrong, bad or irrelevant. We need to stand in the tradition, on the shoulders of giants, to have any hope of making sense of whats happening now in our lives, what happened in palestine 2000 years ago, what’s happening in God’s mind right now.
Robb’s an Anglican, for f@%k’s sake, i don’t need to tell him this – get to the point!
Personally, i am all for it turning out to be the church: a genuine, diverse, cross-generational, cross-class, multi-cultural, community! That is doing all the same old shit, but in a vibrant, culturally relevant, deep and vital way, learning what we can from all that’s gone before and actually acting on it rather than just talking about it. That sounds fantastic to me.
I think you are too, Robb, aren’t you? Surely that’s better than the alternative – some new flashy thing designed to titillate a bunch of young professionals so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about how cutting edge they are.
Jon i like your thoughts on labels. “Linus” is a label i have given myself. I quite like it. “christian” was originally a derogatory term, wasn’t it? still is, sometimes, i guess.
gilly, 34. but isn’t emergent is different from a regloss of old ideas. we are entering a post post-modern episode where what i’m hearing from the likes of Bell and Mclaren is a rethink of our very foundation.
It’s not redressing the building but readdressing the very foundation.
I m starting to wonder is this whole emergent, alternative, pioneering, whatever you wanna call it, just a culture/style thing. Is it new or is it all make-up. I remember Jonny B on stage in Eastbourne about 11 years ago, saying the words “alternative” and I was wondering is it just an alternative or would it be something completely different? In Jonny’s case it was different and it was home grown (authentic) but in othercase’s would it just be another clone of something I saw or liked.
In our mission here I have always tried to keep it authentic and things were built upon where “we” were at and where “we” wanted to be, sounds a bit selfish but in order for us to identify with God we needed to feel comfortable in our surroundings.
I am going to ask a question, and its only a question so dont jump down my throat.
Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?
“Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?” that is a very valid question indeed dennis.
gilly… not too opinionated at all. the thoughts of the likes of you, dennis, linus, becky, robb, schmikey, carole, caroline too, dadube et al are an important part of the process i think. god forbid that we ever become unthinking automatons.
Here is my paranoia coming through, Gilly (39) are you cross! with me or do you mean our comments crossed. If you are I am truly sorry for making you angry. den
Never mind the labels… the genuine change that might be
happening now is a shift in focus from doing/being church
as getting together, within chruch building walls at a particular
time, to do OUR thing
towards
working together, so as to build each other up, and encourage each
other to find new ways of share Jesus’ love to world that no
longer seems to do words
sadly, I fear that emerging, alternative worship and fresh
expressions is just that a new (perhaps?) trendy way of doing OUR thing…
and then we wonder why, when we do OUR thing, the rest of the world thinks that we’re a little odd (hence cartoon 588)
Comment by Caroline Too — November 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
‘christian’ was a label given to the followers of the way.
I heard a quite compelling argument about how moving from the journeying descripion of “the way” to “christianity” created a fixedness and buildings and structure etc etc… Pauls following of “the way” led him on “missionary journeys”. It is intersting that Israel always got itself into trouble with God when it settled down. When they were moving they were at their most faithful.
Becky – I hear you. I think I identify with Brian McClarren when he says that the problem is that people say they belong to a “reformed” church rather than a “reforming” church. I guess that also fits with the journey theme…
Linus If it turns out to be church… why is that bad?
Its not bad…. just seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise
Traditional does not necessarily mean wrong, bad or irrelevant.
Good, when I put on my cassock in the morning and go to benediction in the evening I will bear that in mind As you point out, I am Anglican.
I guess the hard part is being in a church that is institutional and politicised. Making space for the emergent and fighting the case that it is church when people can get the wrong end of the stick and see it as a stepping stone into the institutional. But then also having to fight the case you have just made that the institutional also has its place. And then hearing someone on a panel at Greenbelt say “the emerging church will kill of the institutional church and that’s a good thing”…. and then trying to hold it all together without exploding.
Personally, i am all for it turning out to be the church: a genuine, diverse, cross-generational, cross-class, multi-cultural, community! That is doing all the same old shit, but in a vibrant, culturally relevant, deep and vital way, learning what we can from all that’s gone before and actually acting on it rather than just talking about it. That sounds fantastic to me.
I think you are too, Robb, aren’t you? Surely that’s better than the alternative – some new flashy thing designed to titillate a bunch of young professionals so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about how cutting edge they are.
How very succinctly and wonderfully put. This is my ideal utopia. Linus for king!!
we are entering a post post-modern episode where what i’m hearing from the likes of Bell and Mclaren is a rethink of our very foundation.
Schmikey – I would assume that the reformers thought exactly the same things. I suspect that “we’re going to get it right this time” is the very essence of the ideology of everything that has gone before.
Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?
I would assume that the role of the church is to attend to God and to attend to the people. It is the mission of the church to engage the two together. I think that the term “re-package” is a very modern western consumerist way of describing the need to facilitate this process in ways in which different communities can do that.
Caroline Too – italics, bold and capitals. You must really mean it
I take your point completely. I guess this is where the emerging church really is trying to “come back to the heart of worship*”. I guess it is an attempt to have “a rethink of our very foundation”. I think what I find most exciting about the emergent is that it often starts with those who have little experience of the institution and asks the question “what would this look like?”
A methodist friend of mine coined the term “extreme discipleship”. I think what he was trying to express was a much older concept called “discipleship” What does it look like when we start to follow Jesus? This is a much different question to “what does it look like when we go to church?”
**slinks off to my not emergent enough, not anglican enough, not institutional enough, not evangelical enough, not liberal enough, not catholic enough but labled up by everyone else rather than me box**
*do you all see what I did there everyone? Did you did you??
**slinks off to my not emergent enough, not anglican enough, not institutional enough, not evangelical enough, not liberal enough, not catholic enough but labled up by everyone else rather than me box**
This too links to Jonny Baker’s recent post about the gift of not fitting in.
My pastor once described me as being outside the box that the box is in. I guess all of us out here would agree tht whereas we’re not in anyone else’s box, at least everyone else is in ours.
Comment by Steve Lancaster — November 15, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Rob – whoever at the panel said that emerging church is going to kill the institutional church deserves a spiritual spanking – this is a HUGE issue in the United States. We have a pomo posse of postevangelical dudes who keep publishing this line that “the institutional church is DOA and WE are creating the church of the 21st century.” They’re a bunch of holy hipsters who are trying to be too cool for school – don’t buy into this line of biblical bunk. Easier said than done, I know – it’s hard to deal with such fraternity boy pranks and posturing (I can elaborate on this phrase if it doesn’t translate across the pond) when it’s in your face. But it’s all hot air – NONE of these Emergent Church ™ branded books are selling all that well – this too will die down.
Their generative gatherings to me resemble an artists collective or a theological BS session – edifying for the head yes, and at times touches the heart but I don’t see the pastoral piece that says “church” to me – who will marry and bury us, tend to us when we’re sick both physically and spiritually and other pastoral needs? That to me is the church – as an Episcopalian, I also need the rhythm of the sacraments to infuse my life. Without that, I’m dead spiritually speaking.
Read Phyllis Tickle’s book – she makes the point VERY clearly that during the reformation, the Catholic church didn’t die – rather it reconfigured. She points out that this is a phenomenon that happens about every 500 years or so in that the institution becomes so calcified that it cracks and then comes together in a new more vibrant form. Such changes infuse religion, politics, technology, science, and the culture at large – We’re in the cracking phase now though as I noted, the UK is much further along than the US.
We’re also forgetting the faith fist fights that happened during the Reformation – difference was they didn’t have the Internet so followers of Calvin, Luther, Cranmer, Knox and Zwingli didn’t have blogs so they would go gonzo on each other instantaneously like what’s happening today. But if you re-read some of their writings, some stuff was said back then that was about as nasty and vicious as what we’re hearing today.
how cool to read all your comments, and realise I’m not alone in my mixed feelings about ‘emergency’,
- one thing I’m aware of is there amount of effort involved in making emergent stuff happen, and wonder if this takes away from involvement in traditional activities that benefit the wider community – i.e., is emergent church even more for the indulgence of the faithful, and less for the lost and hurting?
and yet I know one of the aspects of the vision of emergent church was to create a space for hope and healing, free from the ‘clutter’ of trad church
I’ve just come home from a day conference on “Mental Health and Spirituality”, were they were looking at studies highlighting the benefits of ‘graditudalness’, were by Christians have traditionally seen life as revealing gifts from God, as well as looking at the way trad church has colluded with the stigmatisation and exclusion of those suffering mental distress.
now I’m left wondering in what ways ‘emergent’ church is able to offer something that trad church has struggled to give? or, is the deconstruction of church in our culture, one more breaking of the links of support, for those who really need it?
I see in COTA (Seattle) and some UK Anglican plants the opportunity to reach those who would never grace the doors of a “traditional church,” while providing the pastoral and sacramental support. Also, Andrew Jones points me to churches around the world, who are doing likewise. That’s where I’m putting my hope.
Becky – I agree. Fortunately the rest of the panel disagreed with him quite strongly. I often think that it misses the point of EC massively. If the whole point is to take people out of churches and into emerging churched then there is no point. If the point is to allow people who are unable to engage with God through the institution then there is a huge point to it all!
I think the best way of describing this is the way Jonny Baker did at a conference on Fresh Expressions with the methodist church. He fielded a question that went something like “so are you telling us that we aren’t allowed to meet on Sundays and sing Wesley hymns?” His response was something like “no, not at all. For some people it is working and it needs to keep working. There is nothing wrong with having a worshipping community who meet on Sundays. Fresh Expressions are about engaging people with God for whom that type of service doesn’t allow them to worship, the people who don’t do Sunday morning worship”.
[oh dear, I hope he doesn't read this and think I have misrepresented what he said - this is what I remember and it had quite a big impact upon me at the time]
BTW Jon – this is my one day off and I have now spent most of it discussing this with Dr Ruth. My day off is supposed to be a day of A-team and Dukes of Hazard…
I have to get back to my book or it won’t get done – but Rob you are spot on. I want to encourage you. Take comfort in the fact that the rest of the panel disagreed strongly with this dude – I think such outside critique of the church is vital (i am a religious satirist after all). But for me, the point of the satirist/court jester isn’t to destroy those in power but to hold them accountable when they serve themselves and not the people.
My late dad was an Episcopal priest, who did his sociology PhD dissertation on SDS groups and also worked with the Jesus people movements – he found that even in the most anarchy laden structures, a kind of totalitarianism began to emerge with one person or a very small group emerging as the de facto leaders despite fact that the group established itself to oppose the institution. I read his abstract for the book I’m writing and it put a lot of these emergent boys “Lord of the Flies” behavior into a much needed perspective.
Jesus had the disciples travel in teams of twos because he knew of the need to have some kind of an accountability structure in place. Whenever one of them got too big for their britches, there was always someone there to bring them back to earth (well most of the time .) This is what’s sorely lacking in a lot of these holy hipster beyond God type postmodern plants where their followers seem to be more fawning fans than genuine companions on the journey. And it’s tragic because I know some of these people and they have good hearts and good intentions – but one of Satan (Wormwoods) biggest temptations is the lure us with the promise of power, which is but a mirage. My efforts to try and counsel a few folks have failed so miserably that I’m giving up but watching them implode is painful because I see so many signs that the US emergent church model is passe.
The challenge is for me is forgiving them for letting power get to them and then being willing to be their afterwards to help them pick up the pieces. The 9 o’clock service is the most glaring example of this kind of an implosion I can think of but I see other signs of smaller but similar eruptions on the horizon that happen when the cult of personality runs roughshod over the gospel.
am just asking if you know of anyway to protect groups from becoming a destructive place, – there was something in the conference today about ‘rigidity and perfectionism’ – but how do you tell if a group is healthy and life giving, from inside it?
First, let us remember that we’re all imperfect vessels so there is no perfect community.
I am not an cult expert and this is a very murky area – some people involved in the field are anti-religion in general, so they would probably consider most if not all religious gatherings to be cult-like. Having said that, here’s a list of warning signs that one is involved with an unhealthy group from someone, who is very well respected in the field …
If you see these dynamics start to creep into a group, it’s time to leave. Yes, I have seen some of these traits present in certain emergent groups – and that’s all I think I better say about that in a public forum. I don’t have any advice if you see a leader or a member of a group engaged in said behaviors because as noted, my efforts at intervention failed miserably.
Becky – thanks. The Lord of the Flies metaphore rings very true in this case. The biggest demand was that we sacrifice those faithful pray-ers to emergence…….
hey jf… in many ways i have no problem with ’stop worrying and enjoy life’… after all, it is very nearly a complete crib from the bible. it is just that as a standalone phrase, with no reference to, or complete absence of anything other than ourselves enjoying life, is pretty nihilistic to say the least.
for example… the kids in nigeria who are being beaten, abused and killed… who will care for them if we simply stop worrying and enjoy life?
just some additional thoughts.
55. I predict the The Lord of the Flies emergent boys club (mostly US dudes though I see at least one UK boy has joined the bunch) is about to die down – there’s a limit to how long one can rage against the machine while also hitting up said machine fund one’s speaking tours, buy one’s books, etc. The best way to combat this is to not buy into the hype and engage in critical thinking when booking speakers, buying books, etc. and to use whatever influence one has to encourage dioceses, festivals, etc. to do likewise.
57. Jon-I knew I hit a major nerve when I started using Emergent church ™ – see the comments from a major (snicker) US leader when I responded to Andrew’s post about his decision to dump the term:
you know you love it Robb. Hope you had fun this morning playing star wars =P
When Linus is king, i will be first against the wall! But thanks for the compliment.
I hope that Bell and Mclaren and co are not rethinking our foundations but are rather re-examining them. Maybe even getting a few metaphorical walls and roofs and things to line up on top of them for a change.
i don’t think the intention is to form a new belief system – we don’t need new foundations, Jesus is the corner stone. We do need a better understanding of our foundations and how to build on top of them tho. And how to build something that makes sense to the people around us. Like Robb brilliantly says – engaging the people with God.
But this is something that the church should always be doing. Lets not see any one of these people in isolation, or as some kind of messiah figure (that role is already taken), but as part of the ongoing story* of the whole church. Then the whole church can grow in love and unity and diversity. yey!
“What does it look like when we start to follow Jesus?” – there’s your next cartoon, Jon!
it is interesting to look at the labels that have lasted the course: “church” and “Jesus” are the two that spring to mind for me.
*As Robb alluded to, the original followers of Jesus self-identified as “followers of the way”. So in answer to gilly’s question – i think what we build should be very, very, startlingly visible. But not rigid. We are on a journey. We are following the way home.
Note – Rob Bell has never identified himself as emergent and Brian has moved beyond emergent.
The Emergent Church US dudes are definitely rethinking the belief systems, you betcha. Problem is, it’s like building a house of straw – the wolves huffed and puffed and blew it on down. Reminds me a bit of the Death of God and other cool, hip movements – they died out once the fad is other.
thanks for the rick ross list Becky, it’s sometimes hard to understand why a group is not a good place to be
perhaps the most useful is the list of the 10 signs of a safe group – if we and committed to doing things well, we can make sure these things are in place
one thing thats apparent in these lists, is the openness to feedback and critisism, this is not an easy thing to cope with, so am wondering if anyone has any experience of inviting feedback, or dealing with negative feedback?
grew up in the Seattle area and heard a lot about Mars Hill and other “Acts 29″ churches as they “reimagine” the church. Always had a problem with the lack of multiple generations involved…
anyway… most of my friends from early youth group days are not involved in at least one of these “emerging” churches and they’re for the most part good people with decent theology. I’ve also know a couple of pastors and leaders who are part of Acts 29 (Mars Hill’s denomination) and they seem to get most stuff right.
so it seems to me that they EC fad is a little like the Reformation, just not so important. These folks see some stuff in the American evangelical church and they’re trying to fix it. In the process they’re messing up some other stuff (wasn’t Luther a bit racist? I think I remember reading some nasty stuff about Jews in his writings — correct me if i’m wrong).
I’m just glad Jesus cares about his church enough to keep sending reformers to fix what the previous reformers got wrong…
did that come out meaner than I meant it? i just think it will take something bigger than the Emerging Church movement to perfect or destroy the church…
I suspect that there is nothing capable of doing that. Since the reformation the church has been increasingly diversifying. Since the creation of the internet there is little in the way of major trends in anything as people are able to carve out their own niche.
You want to be into metal? Fine, no problem.
You want to be into techno? Fine, no problem.
We are living in a consumerist culture that is very difficult to dictate to because of ebay and downloading. I suspect that whilst the means are different, the attitude is dominant throughout church culture because of the widespread use of cars and the liturgical diversity.
Even in the North of England where there are relatively small numbers of charismatic congregations, if I wanted to go to one, there are some out there within driving distance. Ths would even be the case if I was on the North Yorkshire Moors.
I suspect that the Emerging Church will take its place within rather than dominate or replace.
Rob – I think that’s already happening with the dumping of the term by the majority – the exception being of course those emergent rock stars who try to make their living as emergent church ™ speakers/authors. What’s good about this will endure and what’s a lot of pomo posturing is already starting to fade into the background.
Becky – I think it goes with the territory. Every movement always has those who seek a platform for themsleves through it. As with anything church related we need to keep humble [humus - ground - grounded] and avoid the lure of jet aeroplanes…
I had coffee with my new bishop a few months ago, a very hip guy. And what he told me is that the Church always breaks its new toys. I think that’s the thing here. The new emergence isn’t going to fix every problem, although many desperate churches will pursue it pragmatically expecting it to do just that. It emphatically is not a one-size-fits all paradigm, but a Way, as Brian Mc talks about it in Recovering the Ancient Practices (and Diana Butler Bass in Christianity for the Rest of Us). For some that “new” Way will lead to some radically different things; for some it’ll shift some things. Others may get together on Sunday and sing Wesley hymns. And the emergent church ™ gurus will ride it hard until the toy is broken.
80. Robb – agreed. That’s why one needs to have an accountability group and other safeguards to keep one grounded should one find oneself in the spotlight. Along with staying humble, we need to engage in critical thinking and prayer and not buy into something just because it’s too cool for school and you want to be with the “in” crowd.
81. Greg – I suspect the toy is broken though some seem to have fun playing with the broken shiny bits until one cuts oneself.
82. Rosalie – I find labels can be a very good point of reference. What i object to is when people take the label, turn it into their own designer brand and market the product.
I’m encouraged to hear so many make the point that the new forms of community that are rising up are not intended to attempt to replace anything.
That’s not the impression I get from other conversations. The tone often seems to be quite assertive, even arrogant, suggesting, at least to me, quite a bit of antagonism towards the institutional church.
I want to be part of this conversation. But, I want to be able to participate without having to apologize for being an Anglo-Catholic and a representative of the institutional church. I’m not convinced that is possible.
Are some of the new innovative communities really interested in partnering with the existing institutions to work together for the glory of God? Forgive me for being blunt, but the answer I hear, either blatantly or inferred, is no.
I find that very sad. But, the movement of God continues, regardless of where we perceive that movement.
I can see God moving among those who are exploring new expressions of faithfulness. And I give thanks for that. But, God is doing a new thing within the institutions as well. I wish some would be willing to open their eyes to that movement as well.
#84 and #85, I am so “low church” I’m just about subterranean and, Robb, I would rather die than wear a cassock. However, my dad, who’s also a minister, and various of our friends always wear one (always in church anyway, not literally always!) and it makes me really sad to think, Terry, that anyone would make you feel that you should apologise for being anglo-catholic or pro the institution. I’ve witnessed the arrogance you speak of though.
I’m in danger of going back to my point/rant at #12 but quite honestly Terry’s desire to see the best within the institutional church, and the desire of others outside it to see fruit from the questioning of the e c movement, would be SO much better served by us all seeing each other as being in the same team.
Btw, I do thoroughly recommend a fortnight or so in prison chaplaincy to liberate one completely – ironic to be liberated by being in jail! – from all one’s ecclesiological baggage.
terry… may i recommend jonny baker’s blog linked on the side. he is not arrogant working with institutional church and new forms of church within and without the institution is a big part of his professional and personal remit. i agee with annedroid. let’s be on the same team. thank you for your honest comment.
86. Anne – i agree with you 100% – the problem is when the other team takes the ball and then throws it at you. I, for one, don’t want to play with a bully – so I find it best to leave that biblical ballfield. That’s what makes ABSO Jesus so much fun – Jon created a fun place to play.
I second the Jonny Baker recommendation – also Andrew Jones is one of the most generous souls you can ever meet.
One part of this discussion of emerging/emergent that has ben missing is if there really is a new message as much as a new way to be communities (i.e. churches) in the post modern world. In the US, the emerging church is radically becoming different than the more conservative wing of Christianity here.
A radical unconditionally loving, gracious God being introduced to people who would never set foot into any traditional church (mainline, catholic, evangelical, or charismatic) seem to be what it is about. I know this has been a small part of the church in the past, but it has not been that much in the US lately. This is what emerging means to me and why I for one see it as really important and actually different and lasting.
Comment by bob Pearson — November 21, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Bob,
I’ve encountered some emerging churches who are like that. It also seems characteristic of the seeker church movement and churches like Willow Creek and Saddleback.
I have to be cautious though, whenever anyone suggests a “new message.” I believe that the good stuff about the EC is it’s embracing of a very old message that may have gotten sidelined at times by the overdominance of Modernity. The fact that God is loving, kind and gracious are not a new idea, nor is the idea that the story of God is important to any discussion of theology. The idea that the church is meant to be an intentional community, and that faith should be experiential as well as intellectual are not new… just at times forgotten.
As long as churches are rediscovering the way that Jesus meant us to live, then things are going to be pretty good. When a church attempts to INVENT a new christianity that appeals to more people… that’s when I get pretty freaked out.
So, that’s probably not what you meant by “new”…
But I thought it an important part of the discussion.
I was baptist….
(well I came to faith in a baptist church and then attended there but I guess I have never been a baptist. There are those from the same church (who are about to shout at me) who would probably say the same about a large preportion of the congregation – you attend this baptist church but you aren’t “Baptist”)
Whilst there (no, hold the front page, whilst almost everywhere) I have been a guitarist who plays in church. Some would call me charismatic… I would possibly call me charismatic but I am a thinking mans charismatic. I don’t raise my hand or fall on the floor… oh pants….. or do anything charismatic really… erm….
The done thing was shit and tie. If you weren’t “ordained” you wore the uniform. Brown shoes, blue jeans with a checked shirt tucked into it…. or you didn’t fit in. If you looked like you were about to say “why so serious” there were real issues…
Dr Ruth was loved*…. me not so much….
From there a conservative evangelical anglican church with “we don’t wear robes – robes”. IE cassock and surplice.
I have never been to such a friendly church!!
I disagreed with them all the time. But I could stand my ground and make a case (from scripture of course!! (play the hand you’re dealt)……
They sent me to theological college (well the bish bash bosh did but that’s where I come from…….)
2 years of low church college and now a third of UBERhighness…
My only question is “does it get the job done” (how very methodist of me!!). For me, I wont be wearing a cassock other than in services once I get out of here. I wont be walking around the parish in it! But I have really good friends who will – and they will be making openings with it.
For me it does nothing on a day to day basis. I don’t wear it because God loves me more when I do. I wear it because when you look like this you can chuck an alb on and no one says “Why did your t-shirt have a big scorpion on it today?” (like yesterday) or “what does that skull mean?”. People aren’t focussed upon me (and how I have offended them) whilst I lead, they are focussed upon God (or daydreaming about whatever).
I also think that vestments (not stuffy ond curtain type ones[Look at these instead]) have a great deal to add to worship. We get so stuck into a (and now you see where my conservative evangelical background comes into this) written word and spoken word form of worship. If you can’t so that then you [the worshipper] are screwed [excluded]!
We need the visual and the kinaesthetic (sp?) and the touchy feely and the participatory and the….. crap…. anything…..
That is why – having said all of these things in favour of the institution – I am predominantly emergent! I see God operating everywhere and when we sense it it is fandabedose… but that doesn’t mean God isn’t operating in the institution!
[And as a low church charismatic heavy metal guitarist with 13 facial piercings, I have to have something to make me palatable - but my training parish is probably as low as you go without hitting rock bottom ]
*It is much easier to be ‘alternative’** if you are a girl!!
Joe – the guy who said that the EC would kill the Institutional Church made a very goo point about how francis had a message for the whole church and yet it became sidelined as “franciscan – go and do that over there”.
I would love to continue to offer my reflections and commentary to this vital discussion – however, I am starting to get slammed off line for criticizing emergent church ™ even though I have yet to name a particular group or author by name except for Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Shane – all three men that I praise as being exceptions to this commercialized discussion.
I’m not sure why you are describing one message from me (sent to you directly via Facebook so that we could have an offline discussion) is now being described here as “getting slammed.” I think you’re misleading people here with these kinds of statements.
I think you’re misleading people by saying Brian McLaren has now moved “beyond emergent.” He’s still a key member of the board of Emergent Village, the 501(c)(3) organization, just FYI.
Ultimately I think lobbing these criticisms at emergent™ is unhelpful and frankly hurtful to many of us who are associated with Emergent Village at the grassroots level, organizing cohorts and planting churches and finding hope and strength in our connection with the network of friendships that is Emergent. I realize you are focusing specifically on the publishing aspect of this whole thing, and that is an important part of Emergent’s contribution to fostering the conversation, which I’m personally glad will be continuing. But publishing is just one aspect of what Emergent is/does. There is much more going on outside of that, and I think your criticisms here disregard and diminish that many contributions of many, many other people (men AND women) who are not “emergent rock stars.” I, personally, feel no need to bring those guys down in order to feel good about who I am and what I’m doing in this conversation. And I’d just challenge you to check your motives in making these statements here in this public forum.
I have gotten other comments that I don’t feel like discussing.
Every time I critique Emergent Church ™, it seems at least one person thinks I’m referring to EV when in fact, I am talking about the commercialization of a global spirit – I applaud what Emergent Village does that is good – most notably help some in the US recover from bad fundamentalist theology. I see how this works for some people but then there’s this strand that insists emergent will be the church of the 21st century and that’s the piece where Anglicans like me find ourselves for in tune with what’s happening with the UK Anglican stream than US Emergent.
I stand by all of my comments here – read the Publishers Weekly article for how they describe Brian. I don’t see “beyond emergent” as a bad thing – what it says to me is that someone is taking a discussion and moving it forward. If emergent church were truly working as a phrase, then why are most publishers running away from this branding?
Steve – my motives are pretty clear – it is the job of the religious satirist to engage in idol smashing – the idol is whatever keeps people away from the love of God. Once the idol is smashed, then the glimpses of God can shine through. When you smash someone’s sacred cow, they tend to moo very loudly.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here – which is my ultimate stance – you state your views, I state mine and then we go out for a glass of wine (or grape juice if you’re a Baptist).
Robb @ #92. You say “The done thing was SHIT and tie” – ugh! No wonder they preferred Dr Ruth and no wonder you’ve gone for the vestments. Lol.
I’m struck by “It is much easier to be ‘alternative’(i.e. normal) if you are a girl”. That’s interesting. You could well be right. I don’t really do dressed up at all (my one appearance in a dress was to get married), and yet I have never been challenged in any way about what I wear in spite of preaching in many quite conservative churches who would have had something to say about what male clergy wore. Sometimes I even wear my sweatshirt which says “Chaplain” above a silhouette of a Harley Davidson, or my cheesy “Trust me I’m a chaplain” teeshirt.
Although I don’t get it AT ALL with the vestments thing, even after you’ve kindly taken the time to explain a bit, and they still give me the heebie jeebies, I do like the notion of the 13-facial piercings-robes combo. I also, btw, like (loud) heavy metal a lot, to the great relief (funnily enough) of a Christian prisoner we have at the moment who’s into thrash metal in a big way and who expected me to give him a row about it!
I caught most of the emerging church panel, if that was what is being discussed, and can’t remember anyone saying the emerging church will kill the institutional church. Although if I had to guess and say it was anyone who said something like that it would have been Pete Rollins (cos he generally said something in contrary to everyone else on the panel)
Best bit was Laura outing the emerging church as bunch of young to middle aged trendy middle class men with macs.
I do know that Pete talked allot about worrying that the emerging church would end up co-opted into the institutional church. he was worried about this as he saw the emerging church in once sense as a critique of the institutional church both modern and traditional and worried what a mixed economy of church for those who have the role of cynics (in classic use of the term)
I welcome deconstructive critics such as Pete’s voice – as a satirist, we share much in common in that regard. Cynics and satirists will always be needed as fringe voices to keep the church in check – though anyone who ever calls us “church leaders” needs a good thunk on the head.
My constant harping is when certain church leaders become “stars” because then there’s a tendency to follow a leader Pied Piper style when we all should be following the star of Bethlehem. BTW-A sign to me I am starting to go down this path is when I find myself talking about a book I read, a service I attended, a speaker I heard to the point where I don’t make the connection back to what I experienced to my walk with Christ. So if I am critical of this “religious rock star,” it’s because I was a groupie in my twenties (I was a definite Charismatic/Cursillo addict for a while) and I see how much damage it did both to me and others.
The comments that I have heard re: the emergent church rising as the church of the 21st century and that the mainline church is DOA have been in US emergent contexts. This view tends to pit say – evangelical vs. mainliners, church plants vs. established churches in a way that tends to create divisions that aren’t helpful moving us forward.
What’s encouraging is how many people care enough about church to give a damn.
Anne – sorry to hear that. Send me your email address to bgthedoor@aol.com and I can send you the uncorrrected PDFs of whichever books you wanted with the proviso that you don’t circulate them and contact me before quoting from them.
At the risk of sounding like a self-promotional jerk, I think my talks from Greenbelt 2007 are still available and I gather the money from the sales there go to help put on future Greenbelts.
I do think a lot of this frustration (at least on my end) is that there’s such potential to be the body of Christ and we all (myself included without a doubt) tend to get in the way and muck it all up.
nothing wrong with a bit of self promotion becky. i’ve still to read much of your stuff… but then i’ve still to read much of loads of stuff. i don’t read enough… too many books to choose from.
The danger of doing deconstruction is that it’s very easy to go gonzo and engage in temple smashing to the point everything is demolished. Where I’ve gotten myself into primordial soup (back to Jon’s cartoon) is when I’ve let my snarky side rule to the point where I went form satirizing a subject to slamming someone’s soul. This is why I find having an accountability group to be critical when I do my work – i just re-wrote a chapter tonight because a few folks felt I went too far.
To be honest it was funny cos it just show’s how impossible it really is to pin down what is going on at the moment.
I struggled a fair bit with how Pete talked about the emerging church at greenbelt, but i’m not at the point of dismissing what he had to say yet I think it’s probably an important thing to hold in contention with other voices.
Matybigfro – I am struggling with the fact that it is my firt encounter with him and I was quite shocked by what he had to say. However, I know many who think that he is a resounding voice of the emergent generation. If I did not know this I would have written him off. I guess my community is who I am listening to rather than my experience……..
[sorry, now that I have pressed send there is something bubbling over]
He seemed to talk about a lot of ancient concepts like it was new and radical thinking. He kept quoting ancient philosophers. At one point he talked about reading Nietzsche instead of the bible like Nietzsche was cutting edge and out there…..
…..erm no. Not going to cut it in the mining communites of Yorkshire. And not particularly cutting edge. And probably not going to kill anything off.
[sorry, just re read that. Looks like I am saying that he hates the bible, that wasn't the case. What I am saying is that he was advocating ancient philosophies. He was keen to point out (when asked) that he liked the bible]
Sometimes a bit of pushing can be fruitful – I find some of my most helpful and fruitful dialogues are with thoughtful atheists – by pushing my buttons about why I believe what I do, they help me refine my faith by forcing me to rethink my faith with new eyes. A number of atheists and humanists that I’ve met have a greater respect for Jesus and the Bible than some Christians do (at least as evidenced by their actions) – they just don’t buy into the divinity biz.
Some of the groups in the US that call themselves “emergent communities” seem to take on more of the character of an academic guild or an artists collective than a body of believers that gather for worship and offer a pastoral care component. This is why I sense that many people tire of the conversation – intellectual discourse can be quite edifying but if you’re sweating bullets over this economy, dealing with a dying relative, divorce and the like, then you need a hug not some academic diatribe about what it means to be the church of the 21st century. Where is the person of Christ in this whole discussion of are we emerging or not? After all, isn’t the point to create communities where we implement the Kingdom of God here on earth today?
This is what attracted me to Jonny Baker’s work years ago and then the larger UK Anglican emerging stream – they were creating places that welcome those for whom church doesn’t work. (And for those whom the traditional church works for them – God bless them.)
Becky – my mother keeps telling me off for using the word “sucks”. I guess I am part of the “Friends” generation….
My biggest concern about the UK emerging church is that it is very intellectual. My previous example is only a small part of it. We seem to embrace and levitate the artist and the poet… but I don’t see them in the working mens* clubs. I don’t see my dad** going to the Tate Modern. I can’t envisage a point where he will pick up a paint brush.
As with much of the church it seems to be centred upon a middle class cosmopolitan outlook. It can seem very south east centric (but that is the UK and most forms of British church all over really). You only have to look at where the theological colleges in the institutional church are based to find that Scotland is completely out of the picture and the North is out on a limb. Durham is considered far enough north…
Heck, Spring Harvest in “The North” is in the south…
I wish I had more answers. We are here trying to do it and I wonder what ex mining community shaped church looks like.
On another thread someone mentioned “why men don’t go to church”. That book doesn’t really get what it means to be part of a working class northern UK community. It tries to assert a nice middle class form of male control without really grasping nettle of patriarchal northern council estate families.
Again I reassert my “don’t know, wish I did”ness.
Can someone help me out here?
[having proof read, I am inclined to point out that my 'institutional' colleague was talking about Pusey over dinner last night like it is the life changing force that will change the world. I doubt it is. I suspect it wont. I wonder if there is a real answer that will actually change the world. I suspect it is Jesus and the things he said - most of which scare the pants off me and I wish I was more like him! I wish I was less small...]
BTW – It is clearly evident by my constant posting two/three times in a row that even when i do proof I get it wrong and have a second/fourth attempt at using the English language. My arguement for being so bad at greek is that I am already at a disadvantage because of my illiteracy…….
Robb I can see where you’re coming from here – and it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. As an academic (well, an embryonic one at any rate ), I know how easy it is to slip into language and reference points that can immediately put distance and barriers in the way of meaningful exchange.
I try, I really do try, to make sure that my academic endeavours don’t just exist as an intellectual conceit – that they feed back into my everyday living in a meaningful and connected way. And I try to communicate those ideas in ways appropriate to context – whether that be through writing, conversation, whatever. I don’t think (judging by feedback from assorted family members!) that I’m always very succesful in that …so I guess it’s me who should be asking ‘can someone help me out here?’
Rob as long as you stick to suck and not another filthy term that rhymes with suck, you’re OK in my book.
You are touching on a main theme in the book I’m writing – here in the US emergent gatherings tend to be full of white, male, postevangelical progressives. Some progressive gatherings might be a bit more ethnically diverse with a few more female faces but I’d venture to say that 98% of those gathered have a college degree or more.
In my quest for gatherings that look more like Jesus ‘n’ his crew, I have found a few places – including yes, an Episcopal Church in the East Village that attracts professors and prostitutes – go there any Sunday and it’s like the UN is present. The congregation is small as they are in-between priests but worship leader there has a global spirit where she seeks to serve God – she has NO formal connection to the US Emergent Church but what she does embodies the spirit that’s for sure.
119. Pat – I would love to give a shout out to academics here – there’s a vital place for the work of the academy. I go to academic conferences once in a blue moon, so I can get borderline up-to-date on the latest scholarship. I CANNOT pen my stuff without having this work to inform my thinking. It is a VERY rare person who can pen a range of material that can be read by both those with PhDs and the general public – N.T. Wright is about the only person I can think of who makes this bridge.
The problem is in US emergent church the academic has been given center stage and the practioner shoved off to the sidelines – I have a dual Masters and I’ve been at emergent events where I felt like a total moron because I don’t do academic-speak. Then again, after I did a bit of reading in postmodern theology and philosophy, I began to wise up here – a lot of times people engage in pomo pontificating because they want to appear cool and with it – but if you dissect what they’re saying it’s sheer rubbish.
“but if you dissect what they’re saying it’s sheer rubbish”
The frustration cuts both ways though doesn’t it? I agree that academic gobbledegook and posturing is a complete pain – and means that stuff which could potentially be really useful/helpful doesn’t get translated across into the ‘lived experience’ sphere. On the other hand though, reading material/hearing speakers from the practitioner side can also be a frustrating experience sometimes, because the way they express things (even if they are right!) leaves them wide open to challenge and dismissal; or, even more frustratingly, simplifies things to the point of emptying them of most of their power as illuminating concepts. I’m currently having a variation of this experience – reading a book by an academic in the emerging church movement which, although in some ways I’m really enjoying, in other respects has me boiling with frustration because I just don’t think it gets that balance right.
My non-academic writing is usually in the form of assorted liturgical material rather than explanatory treatises . Which maybe offers a different way of trying to bridge that gap between academy and practice which I’m trying to live out myself.
Becky – I too love Henri’s writings, but I’ve never read any of Walter’s books. Having just visited his website, I think that’s an omission I need to rectify asap…
I had a similar discussion in the pub last night with some colleagues. We know people who advocate “bigging up” the language* and don’t want to dumb it down for the plebs (like me). We mostly spent the evening saying that it was pointless use of big words that make people feel unable to know God. I guess I count as an academic (albeit an academic with leteracy issues). If the learning doesn’t help me be a better communicator on all levels then there is zero point in it. May as well go back to bed!!
I hate it when people think that knowing stuff gives you the right to laud it over others.
Actually, perhaps going back to bed is a good idea. Perhaps I can go and dream about my coeternal consubstantial God….
God help us if it looks anything like that!
Comment by Schmikey — November 14, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
unless of course:
http://www.focusedperformance.com/iceberg.jpg
Comment by Schmikey — November 14, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
I kind of feel it’s more about the journey than the destination…
Comment by Carole — November 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
i kind of feel i agree with you.
Comment by jonbirch — November 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Carol is spot on – Emergent Church ™ is primordial soup because the moment you try to can and commercial the spirit, it turns into God goo – as evidenced by the one man emergent rock star tours that keep touring around the US (please, God, make it stop cause it makes Jesus cry). Enough with the pomo pandering and let’s try to just “be the church” for each other — all of this Emergent product is good for the head but doesn’t fed the soul.
End of mini rant.
Comment by Becky — November 14, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Oh – Read Phyllis Tickle’s book “The Great Emergence” – she goes beyond EC to give us some signposts moving forward – Andrew Jones and other bloggers are spot on when they label these terms as passe – Emergent/Emerging to me is akin to disco in the ’80s – once Saturday Night Fever came out in ‘79, the innovators declared disco dead and moved on to what now became hip-hop – same dynamic happening here.
Comment by Becky — November 14, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
I agree with schmikey, I hope thats the old one going down rather than the new one coming up!
Lets go for rather more like the soup it comes from than the current version does; which is more like a raspberry pavlova – you just won’t find one of those in a soup.
Maybe it will be a subtle flavoring a bit like coriander…..I do hope it never gets to being the croutons or before long it will look too much like its predecessor.
Sorry bit of a soup moment there… I apologise.
Comment by drew — November 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
hmm if it looks like that it looks pretty much like every and any other type of church? at least on the outset. When is it emerging anyway?
Comment by Mimou — November 14, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
I find the whole emerging / emergent / reformed / reforming church thing annoying.
Why do we have to label stuff?
Why can the church not be what God planned it to be, His people on the mission He called them to?
One church that may have emerged over the last couple of years is Mars Hill in Seattle. It was part of the ‘emerging’ church a couple of years ago but now seams to have emerged out of that.
http://www.beatthedrum.wordpress.com
Comment by beatthedrum — November 14, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
I went to Mars Hill in Seattle – I don’t want to get into a Mark Driscoll debate (See Jon’s Song of Songs cartoon for that) but let’s just say he was never emerging … what I saw was classic evangelical service served in a very testosterone driven package. He even has bodyguards and doesn’t interact with his congregation.
The church in Seattle that rocks is Church of the Apostles – Karen Ward is the US pioneer in bringing the UK stream of Anglican emerging (or whatever we call it) to the US – she gets it. Most emergent/emerging people in the US don’t – they’re too busy playing with their theology to get down and be the church for the people.
Comment by Becky — November 14, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
By the time it emerges it’s probably not going to be anything I want to be a part of, and if I do, then the movement has really taught me nothing. If it were to ever “get” anywhere, the spirit has surely continued on…
Becky- I liked the “one man emergent rock star tours” picture, so easy to visualize.
Once EC becomes a product to be bought and sold, I think God excuses himself to go searching the earth again to strengthen those not tied down to their church idols.
Comment by The Millers — November 14, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
#9 beatthedrum –
“I find the whole emerging/emergent/reformed/reforming church thing annoying.” ME TOO!
“Why do we have to label stuff?” BECAUSE WE LOVE TO LABEL EACH OTHER AND THEN WASTE OUR TIME SQUABBLING OVER TRIVIALITIES AND FEELING SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF OTHER LABELS THAN OURS.
“Why can the church not be what God planned it to be, His people on the mission He called them to?” PERHAPS IT COULD, IF WE’D POINT OUR EYES IN HIS DIRECTION INSTEAD OF EACH OTHERS.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 14, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
that soup looks grim to me – i’d wanna emerge from it pretty quick
Comment by Kim — November 14, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
hey my wonderful friend just bought me phyllis trickle’s book – how funny, i’d never heard of it before. looks good tho.
i agree with the emergent church comments, although brian mclaren formed and still forms a lot of what i am thinking myself. we’re all just in a conversation.
besides give me rob bell over mark driscoll any day – i kno we weren’t gonna get into the mark driscoll thing, but y’know………
Comment by jody — November 14, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
From what i saw, the folks who did allot of the interesting stuff that would become emerging church (like your good self Jon) are probably the real innovators but who never really cared what people said and called it and stayed quiet enough just to keep doing what was important to and leave the tags for folks who made enough noise to create a scene and a backlash.
These Scencesters will soon move onto some other underground activity to hype up and create and kill as a scene.
The ironic thing is watching these guys then link and point folks back to the real innovators as if they’re giving a chin up to some newbies
Comment by matybigfro — November 14, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
I don’t even know what the emerging church is, but ‘emerging’ can only be an excuse, surely? As in “sorry this is meaningless, we haven’t finished emerging yet!”.
How long have they been emerging?
Rolf Harris: “Can you see what it is yet?”
Comment by JF — November 14, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
the trouble I have with emergent is that it’s a quality, an attribute
it’s a thing that’s like ‘that’, it’s emergent and is consistently so, (otherwise we wouldn’t be able to recognise it)
but if we are emerging, becoming, on our way towards…
being like Jesus
then we’ll always defy description and adjectives…
we’ll be a little chaotic and messy, contradictory around the edges, “resolutely confused” as we say in the Northumbria Community.
Comment by Caroline Too — November 14, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
14. Jody – Brian McLaren no longer labels himself as “emergent” – he calls himself an author/activist. In lieu of promoting himself as a “rock star,” he chose to design an Everything Must Change Tour – two women are his co-leaders and he had an amazing woman as his worship leader. Also, at each stop, he involved the local community so people could highlight their grassroots groups. Also, Brian is incredibly generous in passing the mic.
Shane Claiborne and Rob Bell refused to be identified as emergent – they just do their thing.
I call what’s happening “the global spirit” and I just try to catch the wave and body surf – but when i talk to Episcopal audiences, I use the term “emerging” aka Fresh Expressions because I want them to link up to what’s happening in the UK – we’re about 15 years behind the curve here. And I’d like them to hook up with communities like Grace (London) and see what happens when a community is led by the spirit over the long term.
What I’m referencing as US Emergent Church ™ is led by postevangelical male author/speakers but this wing of the movement has turned into soup. Even US publishers have backed off the word – the only two publishers here who use the word “emergent” are those who are still doing book tours:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6590681.html
Comment by Becky — November 14, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Can I trademark the term “post-emergent”?
Comment by ED... — November 15, 2008 @ 12:10 am
(Because you just know the term “emerged” isn’t going to get used…)
Comment by ED... — November 15, 2008 @ 12:10 am
Becky, having just read the article you posted i’m suddenly filled with a sense of dread.
I have become increasingly intrigued almost to the point of perpetual excitement about what Christianity could become, how as (to steal from Mclaren) we could become New Christianity, leading the people out of their modern rut…
the trouble is i’ve heard talk like this before, gorwing up as a ‘christian youth’ i was constantly told how i was part of “The Generation” that will change the world. i’m only 26 but i’m already hearing the same thing to young teens who i consider a different generation to me, and when i read old books or watch videos i see that the same thing was said to them.
my point is that i’m sick of hype being blown when maybe Jon is right, maybe what is emerging is in fact the same old same old.
Comment by Schmikey — November 15, 2008 @ 12:31 am
Don’t be filled with a sense of dread – I’m old enough to be your mother almost and for the first time in years, I see glimmers of genuine hope on the horizon.
As a religious satirist, I sound the warning bells because it’s the role of the satirist to deconstruct anything and anyone who keeps us away from the kingdom of God — hence my ongoing slams of the emergent church ™. But but after you engage in idol smashing, then the glimpses of God can shine through the cracks. (Think Jesus doing the temple turning over dealie – now is the time to stop the money changers.)
The author of this article did an excellent job of surveying the US scene – yes there are a few things happening that’s disturbing but there’s also some developments that give me hope – e.g., like my current publisher (Zondervan) refuses to label any of us emergent. They are publishing some amazing cutting edge stuff – Rob Bell and Shane Claiborne for starters.
For what it’s worth, your generation is MUCH more committed to public service than my generation ever was – that gives me hope. Don’t despair – just buy yourself a very good BS detector – engage in critical thinking and learn to sniff out what’s holy and what’s hooey – e.g., people who act like holy hipsters are pomo posers. If you’re cool, subversive, etc. you don’t need to talk about it – you just are.
At the risk of embarrassing Jon, I take hope in the fact that Andrew Jones, Jonny Baker and Jon Birch are in the top 10 of UK blogs. These three guys are amazing at sniffing out the BS from the real deal. Also, check out Naked Pastor – he’s for real. Asbo Jesus is a good place for you to play.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 12:55 am
Why do we have to label stuff?
Why not. I don’t think labeling is bad. I even think it’s a good thing.
Nothing is bad in itself, it’s just how people use it. It is the good things that are abusable.
Comment by zefi — November 15, 2008 @ 2:38 am
As someone in the middle of it, I have many questions that were emphasised at greenbelt this year.
We emerge
we emerge we emerge……
[well we're young]
We have kids. We need child care
[we are older]
We ask people to do it and to provide some kind of ‘childrens provision’ whilst they are at it – in fact, lets call it – ooo, I don’t know ……… how about ……. erm ………… “Sunday School”………
Hang on a minute!!!
Hold your horses….
isn’t there a logical conclusion?
Isn’t this called………… erm……… “church”?
What if when we have finished emerging it isn’t a revolutionary moment? What if it is just like all the other litugical reforms. What if we like all those before us are just saying “hang on, church is a bit shit… lets do it different”.
Reformation – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Tractarians – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Chrismatic movement – “it’s shit lets do something else”
Emrging church – “it’s shit lets do something else”
What if we find ourselves opening the kinder suprise to find the *&^%^&ing church inside? What is the point!!??!!
Sorry – really I am. These are real concerns I have about what I am doing as someone embroiled in the emerging church movement. What if the primordial soup is a sea of shit and the final thing is another spire? What is the point?
[I could spend much longer argueing against my darkest fears so don't worry. Also, appologies for the language. I talk in 'pit talk' a lot of the time]
Comment by Robb — November 15, 2008 @ 3:00 am
‘there ain’t nothin’ new under the sun’… to approximate a passage that may well never have been intended to be used out of it’s context.
re. labelling… according to the bible god started it, naming the stuff he’d made and then naming adam and eve. labeling animals was a command given to adam which people still do today, every time they find a new insect or disease. so for humanity, the biblical position seems to be that labelling is good… it helps us to recognise things and helps us know our place in the greater scheme etc. etc. HOWEVER… like many human things, the process of labeling stuff is often broken. labeling someone is wrong if the label serves to destroy them… or labeling yourself in a way that suggests ‘you’ are better than ‘them’ etc. BUT it’s difficult sometimes… when you are upset by, or your life and cares run opposite to those who identify themselves by the label ‘christian’. for example, if i lived in nigeria i would definitely not want to be labeled along with those who abuse children in the name of their ’so-called’ christian faith… i would not want to be identified with the kkk brand of hatred christianity in parts of the southern states… i would not want to identify myself with fake healing ministries and sticking my hand in a bucket of snakes… AND SADLY it is these things and many more mundane things that people often think christianity is. they’re wrong to fall for it in my view. they ignore the wealth of good stuff that christianity did and does in the world. but we cannot ignore this ugly face of the faith. i repeat, i don’t want to be identified with any of this and a lot of other behaviour.
so… i need a label that says… YES, i follow christ… NO, i don’t believe what they believe. thing is, if people don’t label themselves, others do. i don’t want the same label as people who i consider to be on the opposite side to me. i want a label that best describes who i am. the best label i’ve come up with so far is the one my mum and dad gave me… ‘JON’… says what i really need to say about myself, has only three letters and is easy to remember. if people want to find out more about what it means to be a ‘JON’ i’m happy to tell them.
man… i hope that all made sense… thinking out loud is a dangerous game.
btw. i’m liking the passion on the subject. no apologies please.
Comment by jonbirch — November 15, 2008 @ 4:15 am
lol robb, love the reformation, tractarians etc explanation. half tempted to type it up and put it on my classroom wall when i go back!
you’re hilarious
Comment by dadube — November 15, 2008 @ 4:18 am
jon birch – surely you need at least some beauty sleep darling…..get to bed xxx
Comment by dadube — November 15, 2008 @ 4:20 am
btw… ‘christian’ was a label given to the followers of the way. not a label they chose. a way of identifying a particular strand of danger (as they saw it) to the roman empire. but ‘christian is not a label i own… JON is.
btw… if your first name really is ‘christian’, i wonder if this makes this particular dilemma easier or harder.
Comment by jonbirch — November 15, 2008 @ 4:21 am
hey dadube… i lay in bed for hours not sleeping, so i got up again. jippy stomach… bit buggy. i’m going back to bed in a couple of minutes to try again. thanks for the care.
Comment by jonbirch — November 15, 2008 @ 4:24 am
Awwwww (((((jon)))))
Comment by dadube — November 15, 2008 @ 4:26 am
Early Christians were also called atheists because they didn’t worship the Roman Gods.
Jon – the KKK brand of hate isn’t limited to the southern states – I can site numerous places north of the Mason Dixon line where racism runs rampant. But that’s another post.
The problem is when the labeling gets packaged, marketed and sold – here’s the Q when one gets a bit of fame, do they use it to build up the kingdom (Brian and Shane come to mind) or do they use it to enhance their own street cred?
Rob – as a writer, I hear you. I struggle with the need for me to make a living at my craft without selling out. What helps me here is I have a group of friends who keep me grounded and honest. The people I see becoming “emergent rock stars” don’t have an honest group of peers – they have fawning fans — even the members of their own community tend to put them on a pedestal. Not healthy in the least.
The church has been emerging since the time of Acts – we’re now all figuring out how to “be church” in a post-Christian society (to that end, those of you in the UK are gaining on us like crazy as we’re just now entering our first generation where a large percentage of people have been raised in a secular household) – in another 50 years, people will be debating something else while we’re all in heaving having fun.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 4:44 am
If it turns out to be church… why is that bad? Isn’t that what we’re meant to be?
This movement always has been the church – its always been part of the body of Christ. Its never been about plucking something new out of nothing, its always been about rediscovering and re-applying existing wisdom. Tweaking the format so the original principles of being church and following Jesus can be understood and acted on in our particular time and society. It is our generation taking what has been passed down to us and applying it – its never been some whole new idea, has it?
So why are you surprised when it turns out to have some church-like tendancies – why’s that your darkest fear? There is nothing new under the sun, people haven’t changed, nor has the human lifecycle – a creche is not a sign of failure, its a sign of growth. literally!
That’s a good thing.
Traditional does not necessarily mean wrong, bad or irrelevant. We need to stand in the tradition, on the shoulders of giants, to have any hope of making sense of whats happening now in our lives, what happened in palestine 2000 years ago, what’s happening in God’s mind right now.
Robb’s an Anglican, for f@%k’s sake, i don’t need to tell him this – get to the point!
Personally, i am all for it turning out to be the church: a genuine, diverse, cross-generational, cross-class, multi-cultural, community! That is doing all the same old shit, but in a vibrant, culturally relevant, deep and vital way, learning what we can from all that’s gone before and actually acting on it rather than just talking about it. That sounds fantastic to me.
I think you are too, Robb, aren’t you? Surely that’s better than the alternative – some new flashy thing designed to titillate a bunch of young professionals so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about how cutting edge they are.
Am i missing something here?
Comment by Linus — November 15, 2008 @ 6:25 am
sorry – cross posted with, like, everyone.
Jon i like your thoughts on labels. “Linus” is a label i have given myself. I quite like it. “christian” was originally a derogatory term, wasn’t it? still is, sometimes, i guess.
Comment by Linus — November 15, 2008 @ 6:42 am
Doesn’t this have to happen every.. oh 25 yrs or so? Robb#24 hints maybe so.
The young come through
are uncomfortable with the old
and we all go round again and again
& hey i think maybe it’s Not bad.
Only I have a request, could This Time Round, we not believe that what we’re doing will last forever?
Coz it won’t.
Could This time round we not leave broken and empty buildings for the next generation to demolish?
Appalling evangelism: “Come to God and it’ll all be gone in your lifetime”
( apologies, too opinionated, tiptoeing out quietly….)
Comment by gilly — November 15, 2008 @ 9:42 am
[...] Anticipating emergence … November 15, 2008 From ASBO Jesus: [...]
Pingback by Anticipating emergence … | The Daily Scroll — November 15, 2008 @ 9:44 am
gilly, 34. but isn’t emergent is different from a regloss of old ideas. we are entering a post post-modern episode where what i’m hearing from the likes of Bell and Mclaren is a rethink of our very foundation.
It’s not redressing the building but readdressing the very foundation.
(and yes i deliberatly put two ‘post’s there.
(Becky, 22: thanks!
)
Comment by Schmikey — November 15, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I m starting to wonder is this whole emergent, alternative, pioneering, whatever you wanna call it, just a culture/style thing. Is it new or is it all make-up. I remember Jonny B on stage in Eastbourne about 11 years ago, saying the words “alternative” and I was wondering is it just an alternative or would it be something completely different? In Jonny’s case it was different and it was home grown (authentic) but in othercase’s would it just be another clone of something I saw or liked.
In our mission here I have always tried to keep it authentic and things were built upon where “we” were at and where “we” wanted to be, sounds a bit selfish but in order for us to identify with God we needed to feel comfortable in our surroundings.
I am going to ask a question, and its only a question so dont jump down my throat.
Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?
Comment by dennis — November 15, 2008 @ 11:14 am
but will there still be (any)very visible foundations of brick left behind?
tell me “no”.
tell me “it’s all in relationship”
and my ire at crumbling chapels is abated!
i’m not ( for a nano second ) assuming any re-glossing
i’m just wondering aloud, if what we build is even meant to last
and if so, in what way
Comment by gilly — November 15, 2008 @ 11:16 am
crossed with Dennis sorry
Comment by gilly — November 15, 2008 @ 11:18 am
man… great stuff here. thanks all.
“Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?” that is a very valid question indeed dennis.
gilly… not too opinionated at all. the thoughts of the likes of you, dennis, linus, becky, robb, schmikey, carole, caroline too, dadube et al are an important part of the process i think. god forbid that we ever become unthinking automatons.
Comment by jonbirch — November 15, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Here is my paranoia coming through, Gilly (39) are you cross! with me or do you mean our comments crossed. If you are I am truly sorry for making you angry. den
Comment by dennis — November 15, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Yeah, and you can do much more with labeling.
It helps you to know who to shoot, for example, complementarians.
And it helps you to know who not to join, like the “racists,” “intolerants,” and “imperfect and annoying Christians.”
Comment by zefi — November 15, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Never mind the labels… the genuine change that might be
happening now is a shift in focus from doing/being church
as getting together, within chruch building walls at a particular
time, to do OUR thing
towards
working together, so as to build each other up, and encourage each
other to find new ways of share Jesus’ love to world that no
longer seems to do words
sadly, I fear that emerging, alternative worship and fresh
expressions is just that a new (perhaps?) trendy way of doing OUR thing…
and then we wonder why, when we do OUR thing, the rest of the world thinks that we’re a little odd (hence cartoon 588)
Comment by Caroline Too — November 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
‘christian’ was a label given to the followers of the way.
I heard a quite compelling argument about how moving from the journeying descripion of “the way” to “christianity” created a fixedness and buildings and structure etc etc… Pauls following of “the way” led him on “missionary journeys”. It is intersting that Israel always got itself into trouble with God when it settled down. When they were moving they were at their most faithful.
Becky – I hear you. I think I identify with Brian McClarren when he says that the problem is that people say they belong to a “reformed” church rather than a “reforming” church. I guess that also fits with the journey theme…
Linus If it turns out to be church… why is that bad?
Its not bad…. just seems to be a bit of a pointless exercise
Traditional does not necessarily mean wrong, bad or irrelevant.
Good, when I put on my cassock in the morning and go to benediction in the evening I will bear that in mind
As you point out, I am Anglican.
I guess the hard part is being in a church that is institutional and politicised. Making space for the emergent and fighting the case that it is church when people can get the wrong end of the stick and see it as a stepping stone into the institutional. But then also having to fight the case you have just made that the institutional also has its place. And then hearing someone on a panel at Greenbelt say “the emerging church will kill of the institutional church and that’s a good thing”…. and then trying to hold it all together without exploding.
Personally, i am all for it turning out to be the church: a genuine, diverse, cross-generational, cross-class, multi-cultural, community! That is doing all the same old shit, but in a vibrant, culturally relevant, deep and vital way, learning what we can from all that’s gone before and actually acting on it rather than just talking about it. That sounds fantastic to me.
I think you are too, Robb, aren’t you? Surely that’s better than the alternative – some new flashy thing designed to titillate a bunch of young professionals so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about how cutting edge they are.
How very succinctly and wonderfully put. This is my ideal utopia. Linus for king!!
we are entering a post post-modern episode where what i’m hearing from the likes of Bell and Mclaren is a rethink of our very foundation.
Schmikey – I would assume that the reformers thought exactly the same things. I suspect that “we’re going to get it right this time” is the very essence of the ideology of everything that has gone before.
Q.Is it (the church) all just the same thing re-packaged just to suit peoples needs?
I would assume that the role of the church is to attend to God and to attend to the people. It is the mission of the church to engage the two together. I think that the term “re-package” is a very modern western consumerist way of describing the need to facilitate this process in ways in which different communities can do that.
Caroline Too – italics, bold and capitals. You must really mean it
I take your point completely. I guess this is where the emerging church really is trying to “come back to the heart of worship*”. I guess it is an attempt to have “a rethink of our very foundation”. I think what I find most exciting about the emergent is that it often starts with those who have little experience of the institution and asks the question “what would this look like?”
A methodist friend of mine coined the term “extreme discipleship”. I think what he was trying to express was a much older concept called “discipleship”
What does it look like when we start to follow Jesus? This is a much different question to “what does it look like when we go to church?”
**slinks off to my not emergent enough, not anglican enough, not institutional enough, not evangelical enough, not liberal enough, not catholic enough but labled up by everyone else rather than me box**
*do you all see what I did there everyone? Did you did you??
Comment by Robb — November 15, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
**slinks off to my not emergent enough, not anglican enough, not institutional enough, not evangelical enough, not liberal enough, not catholic enough but labled up by everyone else rather than me box**
This too links to Jonny Baker’s recent post about the gift of not fitting in.
My pastor once described me as being outside the box that the box is in. I guess all of us out here would agree tht whereas we’re not in anyone else’s box, at least everyone else is in ours.
Comment by Steve Lancaster — November 15, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Rob – whoever at the panel said that emerging church is going to kill the institutional church deserves a spiritual spanking – this is a HUGE issue in the United States. We have a pomo posse of postevangelical dudes who keep publishing this line that “the institutional church is DOA and WE are creating the church of the 21st century.” They’re a bunch of holy hipsters who are trying to be too cool for school – don’t buy into this line of biblical bunk. Easier said than done, I know – it’s hard to deal with such fraternity boy pranks and posturing (I can elaborate on this phrase if it doesn’t translate across the pond) when it’s in your face. But it’s all hot air – NONE of these Emergent Church ™ branded books are selling all that well – this too will die down.
Their generative gatherings to me resemble an artists collective or a theological BS session – edifying for the head yes, and at times touches the heart but I don’t see the pastoral piece that says “church” to me – who will marry and bury us, tend to us when we’re sick both physically and spiritually and other pastoral needs? That to me is the church – as an Episcopalian, I also need the rhythm of the sacraments to infuse my life. Without that, I’m dead spiritually speaking.
Read Phyllis Tickle’s book – she makes the point VERY clearly that during the reformation, the Catholic church didn’t die – rather it reconfigured. She points out that this is a phenomenon that happens about every 500 years or so in that the institution becomes so calcified that it cracks and then comes together in a new more vibrant form. Such changes infuse religion, politics, technology, science, and the culture at large – We’re in the cracking phase now though as I noted, the UK is much further along than the US.
We’re also forgetting the faith fist fights that happened during the Reformation – difference was they didn’t have the Internet so followers of Calvin, Luther, Cranmer, Knox and Zwingli didn’t have blogs so they would go gonzo on each other instantaneously like what’s happening today. But if you re-read some of their writings, some stuff was said back then that was about as nasty and vicious as what we’re hearing today.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
how cool to read all your comments, and realise I’m not alone in my mixed feelings about ‘emergency’,
- one thing I’m aware of is there amount of effort involved in making emergent stuff happen, and wonder if this takes away from involvement in traditional activities that benefit the wider community – i.e., is emergent church even more for the indulgence of the faithful, and less for the lost and hurting?
and yet I know one of the aspects of the vision of emergent church was to create a space for hope and healing, free from the ‘clutter’ of trad church
I’ve just come home from a day conference on “Mental Health and Spirituality”, were they were looking at studies highlighting the benefits of ‘graditudalness’, were by Christians have traditionally seen life as revealing gifts from God, as well as looking at the way trad church has colluded with the stigmatisation and exclusion of those suffering mental distress.
now I’m left wondering in what ways ‘emergent’ church is able to offer something that trad church has struggled to give? or, is the deconstruction of church in our culture, one more breaking of the links of support, for those who really need it?
Comment by subo — November 15, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
I see in COTA (Seattle) and some UK Anglican plants the opportunity to reach those who would never grace the doors of a “traditional church,” while providing the pastoral and sacramental support. Also, Andrew Jones points me to churches around the world, who are doing likewise. That’s where I’m putting my hope.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Becky – I agree. Fortunately the rest of the panel disagreed with him quite strongly. I often think that it misses the point of EC massively. If the whole point is to take people out of churches and into emerging churched then there is no point. If the point is to allow people who are unable to engage with God through the institution then there is a huge point to it all!
I think the best way of describing this is the way Jonny Baker did at a conference on Fresh Expressions with the methodist church. He fielded a question that went something like “so are you telling us that we aren’t allowed to meet on Sundays and sing Wesley hymns?” His response was something like “no, not at all. For some people it is working and it needs to keep working. There is nothing wrong with having a worshipping community who meet on Sundays. Fresh Expressions are about engaging people with God for whom that type of service doesn’t allow them to worship, the people who don’t do Sunday morning worship”.
[oh dear, I hope he doesn't read this and think I have misrepresented what he said - this is what I remember and it had quite a big impact upon me at the time]
BTW Jon – this is my one day off and I have now spent most of it discussing this with Dr Ruth. My day off is supposed to be a day of A-team and Dukes of Hazard…
Comment by Robb — November 15, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
I have to get back to my book or it won’t get done – but Rob you are spot on. I want to encourage you. Take comfort in the fact that the rest of the panel disagreed strongly with this dude – I think such outside critique of the church is vital (i am a religious satirist after all). But for me, the point of the satirist/court jester isn’t to destroy those in power but to hold them accountable when they serve themselves and not the people.
My late dad was an Episcopal priest, who did his sociology PhD dissertation on SDS groups and also worked with the Jesus people movements – he found that even in the most anarchy laden structures, a kind of totalitarianism began to emerge with one person or a very small group emerging as the de facto leaders despite fact that the group established itself to oppose the institution. I read his abstract for the book I’m writing and it put a lot of these emergent boys “Lord of the Flies” behavior into a much needed perspective.
Jesus had the disciples travel in teams of twos because he knew of the need to have some kind of an accountability structure in place. Whenever one of them got too big for their britches, there was always someone there to bring them back to earth (well most of the time .) This is what’s sorely lacking in a lot of these holy hipster beyond God type postmodern plants where their followers seem to be more fawning fans than genuine companions on the journey. And it’s tragic because I know some of these people and they have good hearts and good intentions – but one of Satan (Wormwoods) biggest temptations is the lure us with the promise of power, which is but a mirage. My efforts to try and counsel a few folks have failed so miserably that I’m giving up but watching them implode is painful because I see so many signs that the US emergent church model is passe.
The challenge is for me is forgiving them for letting power get to them and then being willing to be their afterwards to help them pick up the pieces. The 9 o’clock service is the most glaring example of this kind of an implosion I can think of but I see other signs of smaller but similar eruptions on the horizon that happen when the cult of personality runs roughshod over the gospel.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Hi Becky
am just asking if you know of anyway to protect groups from becoming a destructive place, – there was something in the conference today about ‘rigidity and perfectionism’ – but how do you tell if a group is healthy and life giving, from inside it?
Comment by subo — November 15, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
Suddenly the phrase “…now stop worrying and enjoy your life” makes sense!
Comment by JF — November 15, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
First, let us remember that we’re all imperfect vessels so there is no perfect community.
I am not an cult expert and this is a very murky area – some people involved in the field are anti-religion in general, so they would probably consider most if not all religious gatherings to be cult-like. Having said that, here’s a list of warning signs that one is involved with an unhealthy group from someone, who is very well respected in the field …
http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html
If you see these dynamics start to creep into a group, it’s time to leave. Yes, I have seen some of these traits present in certain emergent groups – and that’s all I think I better say about that in a public forum. I don’t have any advice if you see a leader or a member of a group engaged in said behaviors because as noted, my efforts at intervention failed miserably.
Comment by Becky — November 15, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
[ tangent:
#41 Dennis- i cross posted...or however the heck one says that this. no.not cross. not at all. just can't write properly today...]
Comment by gilly — November 15, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Becky – thanks. The Lord of the Flies metaphore rings very true in this case. The biggest demand was that we sacrifice those faithful pray-ers to emergence…….
no
thank you
Thank you for your encouragement!!
Comment by Robb — November 16, 2008 @ 2:39 am
hey jf… in many ways i have no problem with ’stop worrying and enjoy life’… after all, it is very nearly a complete crib from the bible. it is just that as a standalone phrase, with no reference to, or complete absence of anything other than ourselves enjoying life, is pretty nihilistic to say the least.
for example… the kids in nigeria who are being beaten, abused and killed… who will care for them if we simply stop worrying and enjoy life?
just some additional thoughts.
Comment by jonbirch — November 16, 2008 @ 3:13 am
btw becky… i love the trademark symbol you use when suggesting a brand of emerging church. it cuts out the need for long explanations… v. clever.
Comment by jonbirch — November 16, 2008 @ 3:18 am
oh and robb… nice to hear that you and the good dr. have been talking to each other. but i do hope i haven’t ruined your day off!
Comment by jonbirch — November 16, 2008 @ 3:19 am
We’re talking but only because we have to – lets face it, the bruises od fridays “I’m going to kick your ass” still show………
Comment by Robb — November 16, 2008 @ 3:27 am
55. I predict the The Lord of the Flies emergent boys club (mostly US dudes though I see at least one UK boy has joined the bunch) is about to die down – there’s a limit to how long one can rage against the machine while also hitting up said machine fund one’s speaking tours, buy one’s books, etc. The best way to combat this is to not buy into the hype and engage in critical thinking when booking speakers, buying books, etc. and to use whatever influence one has to encourage dioceses, festivals, etc. to do likewise.
57. Jon-I knew I hit a major nerve when I started using Emergent church ™ – see the comments from a major (snicker) US leader when I responded to Andrew’s post about his decision to dump the term:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/09/emerging-chur-1.html
Comment by Becky — November 16, 2008 @ 4:38 am
you know you love it Robb. Hope you had fun this morning playing star wars =P
When Linus is king, i will be first against the wall! But thanks for the compliment.
I hope that Bell and Mclaren and co are not rethinking our foundations but are rather re-examining them. Maybe even getting a few metaphorical walls and roofs and things to line up on top of them for a change.
i don’t think the intention is to form a new belief system – we don’t need new foundations, Jesus is the corner stone. We do need a better understanding of our foundations and how to build on top of them tho. And how to build something that makes sense to the people around us. Like Robb brilliantly says – engaging the people with God.
But this is something that the church should always be doing. Lets not see any one of these people in isolation, or as some kind of messiah figure (that role is already taken), but as part of the ongoing story* of the whole church. Then the whole church can grow in love and unity and diversity. yey!
“What does it look like when we start to follow Jesus?” – there’s your next cartoon, Jon!
it is interesting to look at the labels that have lasted the course: “church” and “Jesus” are the two that spring to mind for me.
*As Robb alluded to, the original followers of Jesus self-identified as “followers of the way”. So in answer to gilly’s question – i think what we build should be very, very, startlingly visible. But not rigid. We are on a journey. We are following the way home.
Comment by Linus — November 16, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Note – Rob Bell has never identified himself as emergent and Brian has moved beyond emergent.
The Emergent Church US dudes are definitely rethinking the belief systems, you betcha. Problem is, it’s like building a house of straw – the wolves huffed and puffed and blew it on down. Reminds me a bit of the Death of God and other cool, hip movements – they died out once the fad is other.
Comment by Becky — November 16, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
thanks for the rick ross list Becky, it’s sometimes hard to understand why a group is not a good place to be
perhaps the most useful is the list of the 10 signs of a safe group – if we and committed to doing things well, we can make sure these things are in place
one thing thats apparent in these lists, is the openness to feedback and critisism, this is not an easy thing to cope with, so am wondering if anyone has any experience of inviting feedback, or dealing with negative feedback?
Comment by subo — November 16, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
I can’t help but say I just loved AnneDroid’s ‘caps lock’ comment. Somehow it seems like much of what else is said just confirms…
Comment by Ben — November 16, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
cheers, ben – look no capitals at all…
Comment by AnneDroid — November 16, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
hahaha! … i too enjoyed the caps
i do appreciate a good rant! 
lock comment annedroid!
Comment by jonbirch — November 16, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
jumping in late to this conversation…
grew up in the Seattle area and heard a lot about Mars Hill and other “Acts 29″ churches as they “reimagine” the church. Always had a problem with the lack of multiple generations involved…
anyway… most of my friends from early youth group days are not involved in at least one of these “emerging” churches and they’re for the most part good people with decent theology. I’ve also know a couple of pastors and leaders who are part of Acts 29 (Mars Hill’s denomination) and they seem to get most stuff right.
so it seems to me that they EC fad is a little like the Reformation, just not so important. These folks see some stuff in the American evangelical church and they’re trying to fix it. In the process they’re messing up some other stuff (wasn’t Luther a bit racist? I think I remember reading some nasty stuff about Jews in his writings — correct me if i’m wrong).
I’m just glad Jesus cares about his church enough to keep sending reformers to fix what the previous reformers got wrong…
Comment by Joe — November 18, 2008 @ 1:27 am
Ouch – a fad and not so important.
Comment by Robb — November 18, 2008 @ 1:32 am
did that come out meaner than I meant it? i just think it will take something bigger than the Emerging Church movement to perfect or destroy the church…
Comment by Joe — November 19, 2008 @ 1:44 am
I suspect that there is nothing capable of doing that. Since the reformation the church has been increasingly diversifying. Since the creation of the internet there is little in the way of major trends in anything as people are able to carve out their own niche.
You want to be into metal? Fine, no problem.
You want to be into techno? Fine, no problem.
We are living in a consumerist culture that is very difficult to dictate to because of ebay and downloading. I suspect that whilst the means are different, the attitude is dominant throughout church culture because of the widespread use of cars and the liturgical diversity.
Even in the North of England where there are relatively small numbers of charismatic congregations, if I wanted to go to one, there are some out there within driving distance. Ths would even be the case if I was on the North Yorkshire Moors.
I suspect that the Emerging Church will take its place within rather than dominate or replace.
Comment by Robb — November 19, 2008 @ 1:54 am
BTW Joe, I knew that it wasn’t meant to be harsh. Blessings.
Comment by Robb — November 19, 2008 @ 1:54 am
Rob – I think that’s already happening with the dumping of the term by the majority – the exception being of course those emergent rock stars who try to make their living as emergent church ™ speakers/authors. What’s good about this will endure and what’s a lot of pomo posturing is already starting to fade into the background.
Comment by Becky — November 19, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
“What’s good about this will endure and what’s a lot of pomo posturing is already starting to fade into the background.”
Praise God for that!
So does that mean that the church in the picture is actually sinking back into the primordial ooze?
Comment by Joe — November 19, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Absolutely brilliant. I have to show this to my cell group (we’ve been learning about the EC). Cool blog.
Comment by Pippa — November 19, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Joe – either sinking or fighting the pomo posse.
Comment by Becky — November 20, 2008 @ 7:47 am
Just thinking I haven’t made soup for ages. I think I’ll make a pot of primordial soup this weekend.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 20, 2008 @ 8:13 am
thanks pippa and welcome!
annedroid… hmmmm, it might be a bit rich and it takes years to make. i should just go for potato and leak.
Comment by jonbirch — November 20, 2008 @ 9:37 am
My guess is said soup would give one the religious runs so to speak …
Comment by Becky — November 20, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
which is worse, religious runs or spiritual constipation?
Comment by Joe — November 20, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
Becky – I think it goes with the territory. Every movement always has those who seek a platform for themsleves through it. As with anything church related we need to keep humble [humus - ground - grounded] and avoid the lure of jet aeroplanes…
Comment by Robb — November 21, 2008 @ 12:08 am
I had coffee with my new bishop a few months ago, a very hip guy. And what he told me is that the Church always breaks its new toys. I think that’s the thing here. The new emergence isn’t going to fix every problem, although many desperate churches will pursue it pragmatically expecting it to do just that. It emphatically is not a one-size-fits all paradigm, but a Way, as Brian Mc talks about it in Recovering the Ancient Practices (and Diana Butler Bass in Christianity for the Rest of Us). For some that “new” Way will lead to some radically different things; for some it’ll shift some things. Others may get together on Sunday and sing Wesley hymns. And the emergent church ™ gurus will ride it hard until the toy is broken.
Comment by Greg Garrett — November 21, 2008 @ 2:48 am
Becky,
As to labels? Like swords, wear them as long as you can. There is so much yet to do. Walls seem more permeable all the time. Churches too?
Comment by Rosalie — November 21, 2008 @ 2:56 am
80. Robb – agreed. That’s why one needs to have an accountability group and other safeguards to keep one grounded should one find oneself in the spotlight. Along with staying humble, we need to engage in critical thinking and prayer and not buy into something just because it’s too cool for school and you want to be with the “in” crowd.
81. Greg – I suspect the toy is broken though some seem to have fun playing with the broken shiny bits until one cuts oneself.
82. Rosalie – I find labels can be a very good point of reference. What i object to is when people take the label, turn it into their own designer brand and market the product.
Comment by Becky — November 21, 2008 @ 4:30 am
This conversation has been helpful. Thanks.
I’m encouraged to hear so many make the point that the new forms of community that are rising up are not intended to attempt to replace anything.
That’s not the impression I get from other conversations. The tone often seems to be quite assertive, even arrogant, suggesting, at least to me, quite a bit of antagonism towards the institutional church.
I want to be part of this conversation. But, I want to be able to participate without having to apologize for being an Anglo-Catholic and a representative of the institutional church. I’m not convinced that is possible.
Are some of the new innovative communities really interested in partnering with the existing institutions to work together for the glory of God? Forgive me for being blunt, but the answer I hear, either blatantly or inferred, is no.
I find that very sad. But, the movement of God continues, regardless of where we perceive that movement.
I can see God moving among those who are exploring new expressions of faithfulness. And I give thanks for that. But, God is doing a new thing within the institutions as well. I wish some would be willing to open their eyes to that movement as well.
Comment by Terry — November 21, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Terry – I am about to don a cassock and head to evensong in an Anglo-Catholic monestary. Don’t appologise for it, embrace it
If I didn’t have to do that quick smart I’d say more. I probably will tomorrow morning!!
Comment by Robb — November 21, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
#84 and #85, I am so “low church” I’m just about subterranean and, Robb, I would rather die than wear a cassock. However, my dad, who’s also a minister, and various of our friends always wear one (always in church anyway, not literally always!) and it makes me really sad to think, Terry, that anyone would make you feel that you should apologise for being anglo-catholic or pro the institution. I’ve witnessed the arrogance you speak of though.
I’m in danger of going back to my point/rant at #12 but quite honestly Terry’s desire to see the best within the institutional church, and the desire of others outside it to see fruit from the questioning of the e c movement, would be SO much better served by us all seeing each other as being in the same team.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 21, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Btw, I do thoroughly recommend a fortnight or so in prison chaplaincy to liberate one completely – ironic to be liberated by being in jail! – from all one’s ecclesiological baggage.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 21, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
terry… may i recommend jonny baker’s blog linked on the side. he is not arrogant working with institutional church and new forms of church within and without the institution is a big part of his professional and personal remit. i agee with annedroid. let’s be on the same team. thank you for your honest comment.
btw. thank you for all the helpful comments.
Comment by jonbirch — November 21, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
86. Anne – i agree with you 100% – the problem is when the other team takes the ball and then throws it at you. I, for one, don’t want to play with a bully – so I find it best to leave that biblical ballfield. That’s what makes ABSO Jesus so much fun – Jon created a fun place to play.
I second the Jonny Baker recommendation – also Andrew Jones is one of the most generous souls you can ever meet.
Comment by Becky — November 21, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
One part of this discussion of emerging/emergent that has ben missing is if there really is a new message as much as a new way to be communities (i.e. churches) in the post modern world. In the US, the emerging church is radically becoming different than the more conservative wing of Christianity here.
A radical unconditionally loving, gracious God being introduced to people who would never set foot into any traditional church (mainline, catholic, evangelical, or charismatic) seem to be what it is about. I know this has been a small part of the church in the past, but it has not been that much in the US lately. This is what emerging means to me and why I for one see it as really important and actually different and lasting.
Comment by bob Pearson — November 21, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Bob,
I’ve encountered some emerging churches who are like that. It also seems characteristic of the seeker church movement and churches like Willow Creek and Saddleback.
I have to be cautious though, whenever anyone suggests a “new message.” I believe that the good stuff about the EC is it’s embracing of a very old message that may have gotten sidelined at times by the overdominance of Modernity. The fact that God is loving, kind and gracious are not a new idea, nor is the idea that the story of God is important to any discussion of theology. The idea that the church is meant to be an intentional community, and that faith should be experiential as well as intellectual are not new… just at times forgotten.
As long as churches are rediscovering the way that Jesus meant us to live, then things are going to be pretty good. When a church attempts to INVENT a new christianity that appeals to more people… that’s when I get pretty freaked out.
So, that’s probably not what you meant by “new”…
But I thought it an important part of the discussion.
Comment by Joe — November 21, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
Annedroid – hmmm…….
I was baptist….
(well I came to faith in a baptist church and then attended there but I guess I have never been a baptist. There are those from the same church (who are about to shout at me) who would probably say the same about a large preportion of the congregation – you attend this baptist church but you aren’t “Baptist”)
Whilst there (no, hold the front page, whilst almost everywhere) I have been a guitarist who plays in church. Some would call me charismatic… I would possibly call me charismatic but I am a thinking mans charismatic. I don’t raise my hand or fall on the floor… oh pants….. or do anything charismatic really… erm….
The done thing was shit and tie. If you weren’t “ordained” you wore the uniform. Brown shoes, blue jeans with a checked shirt tucked into it…. or you didn’t fit in. If you looked like you were about to say “why so serious” there were real issues…
Dr Ruth was loved*…. me not so much….
From there a conservative evangelical anglican church with “we don’t wear robes – robes”. IE cassock and surplice.
I have never been to such a friendly church!!
I disagreed with them all the time. But I could stand my ground and make a case (from scripture of course!! (play the hand you’re dealt)……
They sent me to theological college (well the bish bash bosh did but that’s where I come from…….)
2 years of low church college and now a third of UBERhighness…
My only question is “does it get the job done” (how very methodist of me!!). For me, I wont be wearing a cassock other than in services once I get out of here. I wont be walking around the parish in it! But I have really good friends who will – and they will be making openings with it.
For me it does nothing on a day to day basis. I don’t wear it because God loves me more when I do. I wear it because when you look like this you can chuck an alb on and no one says “Why did your t-shirt have a big scorpion on it today?” (like yesterday) or “what does that skull mean?”. People aren’t focussed upon me (and how I have offended them) whilst I lead, they are focussed upon God (or daydreaming about whatever).
I also think that vestments (not stuffy ond curtain type ones[Look at these instead]) have a great deal to add to worship. We get so stuck into a (and now you see where my conservative evangelical background comes into this) written word and spoken word form of worship. If you can’t so that then you [the worshipper] are screwed [excluded]!
We need the visual and the kinaesthetic (sp?) and the touchy feely and the participatory and the….. crap…. anything…..
That is why – having said all of these things in favour of the institution – I am predominantly emergent! I see God operating everywhere and when we sense it it is fandabedose… but that doesn’t mean God isn’t operating in the institution!
[And as a low church charismatic heavy metal guitarist with 13 facial piercings, I have to have something to make me palatable - but my training parish is probably as low as you go without hitting rock bottom
]
*It is much easier to be ‘alternative’** if you are a girl!!
**ie normal
Comment by Robb — November 22, 2008 @ 2:44 am
Joe – the guy who said that the EC would kill the Institutional Church made a very goo point about how francis had a message for the whole church and yet it became sidelined as “franciscan – go and do that over there”.
The EC is all about rediscovery!
Comment by Robb — November 22, 2008 @ 2:49 am
I would love to continue to offer my reflections and commentary to this vital discussion – however, I am starting to get slammed off line for criticizing emergent church ™ even though I have yet to name a particular group or author by name except for Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Shane – all three men that I praise as being exceptions to this commercialized discussion.
Comment by Becky — November 22, 2008 @ 7:33 am
Becky – do you mean here or somewhere else?
Comment by Robb — November 22, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Sorry – I just re read what you wrote and noticed the words “off line”. Dur me……..
Tell us more!
[BTW - three great authors!]
Comment by Robb — November 22, 2008 @ 9:29 am
[it's early on the one day off of the week!]
Comment by Robb — November 22, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Becky,
I’m not sure why you are describing one message from me (sent to you directly via Facebook so that we could have an offline discussion) is now being described here as “getting slammed.” I think you’re misleading people here with these kinds of statements.
I think you’re misleading people by saying Brian McLaren has now moved “beyond emergent.” He’s still a key member of the board of Emergent Village, the 501(c)(3) organization, just FYI.
Ultimately I think lobbing these criticisms at emergent™ is unhelpful and frankly hurtful to many of us who are associated with Emergent Village at the grassroots level, organizing cohorts and planting churches and finding hope and strength in our connection with the network of friendships that is Emergent. I realize you are focusing specifically on the publishing aspect of this whole thing, and that is an important part of Emergent’s contribution to fostering the conversation, which I’m personally glad will be continuing. But publishing is just one aspect of what Emergent is/does. There is much more going on outside of that, and I think your criticisms here disregard and diminish that many contributions of many, many other people (men AND women) who are not “emergent rock stars.” I, personally, feel no need to bring those guys down in order to feel good about who I am and what I’m doing in this conversation. And I’d just challenge you to check your motives in making these statements here in this public forum.
Comment by Steve K. — November 22, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
I have gotten other comments that I don’t feel like discussing.
Every time I critique Emergent Church ™, it seems at least one person thinks I’m referring to EV when in fact, I am talking about the commercialization of a global spirit – I applaud what Emergent Village does that is good – most notably help some in the US recover from bad fundamentalist theology. I see how this works for some people but then there’s this strand that insists emergent will be the church of the 21st century and that’s the piece where Anglicans like me find ourselves for in tune with what’s happening with the UK Anglican stream than US Emergent.
I see evidence of this commercialization in numerous places and not just the Emersion publishing line. As noted on this blog, bits of this even pop up at Greenbelt. Here is my response the last time this came up:
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/09/emerging-chur-1.html
I stand by all of my comments here – read the Publishers Weekly article for how they describe Brian. I don’t see “beyond emergent” as a bad thing – what it says to me is that someone is taking a discussion and moving it forward. If emergent church were truly working as a phrase, then why are most publishers running away from this branding?
Steve – my motives are pretty clear – it is the job of the religious satirist to engage in idol smashing – the idol is whatever keeps people away from the love of God. Once the idol is smashed, then the glimpses of God can shine through. When you smash someone’s sacred cow, they tend to moo very loudly.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here – which is my ultimate stance – you state your views, I state mine and then we go out for a glass of wine (or grape juice if you’re a Baptist).
Comment by Becky — November 22, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Robb @ #92. You say “The done thing was SHIT and tie” – ugh! No wonder they preferred Dr Ruth and no wonder you’ve gone for the vestments. Lol.
I’m struck by “It is much easier to be ‘alternative’(i.e. normal) if you are a girl”. That’s interesting. You could well be right. I don’t really do dressed up at all (my one appearance in a dress was to get married), and yet I have never been challenged in any way about what I wear in spite of preaching in many quite conservative churches who would have had something to say about what male clergy wore. Sometimes I even wear my sweatshirt which says “Chaplain” above a silhouette of a Harley Davidson, or my cheesy “Trust me I’m a chaplain” teeshirt.
Although I don’t get it AT ALL with the vestments thing, even after you’ve kindly taken the time to explain a bit, and they still give me the heebie jeebies, I do like the notion of the 13-facial piercings-robes combo. I also, btw, like (loud) heavy metal a lot, to the great relief (funnily enough) of a Christian prisoner we have at the moment who’s into thrash metal in a big way and who expected me to give him a row about it!
Comment by AnneDroid — November 22, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Back to that Greenbelt clanger
I caught most of the emerging church panel, if that was what is being discussed, and can’t remember anyone saying the emerging church will kill the institutional church. Although if I had to guess and say it was anyone who said something like that it would have been Pete Rollins (cos he generally said something in contrary to everyone else on the panel)
Best bit was Laura outing the emerging church as bunch of young to middle aged trendy middle class men with macs.
I do know that Pete talked allot about worrying that the emerging church would end up co-opted into the institutional church. he was worried about this as he saw the emerging church in once sense as a critique of the institutional church both modern and traditional and worried what a mixed economy of church for those who have the role of cynics (in classic use of the term)
Comment by matybigfro — November 22, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Becky, I was going to order not one but two of your books from Amazon but was told they wouldn’t ship to my address. I feel rejected. Lol.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 22, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Robb, I think I should dedicate today’s post on my blog to you! (see 22/11/08) – I can’t post links for some reason.
Comment by AnneDroid — November 22, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
I welcome deconstructive critics such as Pete’s voice – as a satirist, we share much in common in that regard. Cynics and satirists will always be needed as fringe voices to keep the church in check – though anyone who ever calls us “church leaders” needs a good thunk on the head.
My constant harping is when certain church leaders become “stars” because then there’s a tendency to follow a leader Pied Piper style when we all should be following the star of Bethlehem. BTW-A sign to me I am starting to go down this path is when I find myself talking about a book I read, a service I attended, a speaker I heard to the point where I don’t make the connection back to what I experienced to my walk with Christ. So if I am critical of this “religious rock star,” it’s because I was a groupie in my twenties (I was a definite Charismatic/Cursillo addict for a while) and I see how much damage it did both to me and others.
The comments that I have heard re: the emergent church rising as the church of the 21st century and that the mainline church is DOA have been in US emergent contexts. This view tends to pit say – evangelical vs. mainliners, church plants vs. established churches in a way that tends to create divisions that aren’t helpful moving us forward.
What’s encouraging is how many people care enough about church to give a damn.
Comment by Becky — November 22, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
Anne – sorry to hear that. Send me your email address to bgthedoor@aol.com and I can send you the uncorrrected PDFs of whichever books you wanted with the proviso that you don’t circulate them and contact me before quoting from them.
At the risk of sounding like a self-promotional jerk, I think my talks from Greenbelt 2007 are still available and I gather the money from the sales there go to help put on future Greenbelts.
Comment by Becky — November 22, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Here’s an article a friend just sent to me that I thought was interesting (and has some interesting cartoon ideas for Jon):
http://www.billdahl.net/articles/take-away-the-stone-shedding-light-inside-the-emerging-church
I do think a lot of this frustration (at least on my end) is that there’s such potential to be the body of Christ and we all (myself included without a doubt) tend to get in the way and muck it all up.
Comment by Becky — November 23, 2008 @ 6:50 am
nothing wrong with a bit of self promotion becky.
i’ve still to read much of your stuff… but then i’ve still to read much of loads of stuff. i don’t read enough… too many books to choose from. 
Comment by jonbirch — November 24, 2008 @ 2:49 am
AnneDroid – No it’s just a photo shoot and not real but….
Matybigfro – yes, it was him. Everyone else on the panel turned on him at that point though…
Comment by Robb — November 24, 2008 @ 3:23 am
The danger of doing deconstruction is that it’s very easy to go gonzo and engage in temple smashing to the point everything is demolished. Where I’ve gotten myself into primordial soup (back to Jon’s cartoon) is when I’ve let my snarky side rule to the point where I went form satirizing a subject to slamming someone’s soul. This is why I find having an accountability group to be critical when I do my work – i just re-wrote a chapter tonight because a few folks felt I went too far.
Comment by Becky — November 24, 2008 @ 4:05 am
To be honest it was funny cos it just show’s how impossible it really is to pin down what is going on at the moment.
I struggled a fair bit with how Pete talked about the emerging church at greenbelt, but i’m not at the point of dismissing what he had to say yet I think it’s probably an important thing to hold in contention with other voices.
Comment by matybigfro — November 25, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
really enjoyed reading this
thanks
Comment by lorna (see-through faith) — November 25, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
Matybigfro – I am struggling with the fact that it is my firt encounter with him and I was quite shocked by what he had to say. However, I know many who think that he is a resounding voice of the emergent generation. If I did not know this I would have written him off. I guess my community is who I am listening to rather than my experience……..
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 1:36 am
[sorry, now that I have pressed send there is something bubbling over]
He seemed to talk about a lot of ancient concepts like it was new and radical thinking. He kept quoting ancient philosophers. At one point he talked about reading Nietzsche instead of the bible like Nietzsche was cutting edge and out there…..
…..erm no. Not going to cut it in the mining communites of Yorkshire. And not particularly cutting edge. And probably not going to kill anything off.
…..probably….
…but what would I know….?
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 1:39 am
[sorry, just re read that. Looks like I am saying that he hates the bible, that wasn't the case. What I am saying is that he was advocating ancient philosophies. He was keen to point out (when asked) that he liked the bible]
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 1:43 am
Sometimes a bit of pushing can be fruitful – I find some of my most helpful and fruitful dialogues are with thoughtful atheists – by pushing my buttons about why I believe what I do, they help me refine my faith by forcing me to rethink my faith with new eyes. A number of atheists and humanists that I’ve met have a greater respect for Jesus and the Bible than some Christians do (at least as evidenced by their actions) – they just don’t buy into the divinity biz.
Some of the groups in the US that call themselves “emergent communities” seem to take on more of the character of an academic guild or an artists collective than a body of believers that gather for worship and offer a pastoral care component. This is why I sense that many people tire of the conversation – intellectual discourse can be quite edifying but if you’re sweating bullets over this economy, dealing with a dying relative, divorce and the like, then you need a hug not some academic diatribe about what it means to be the church of the 21st century. Where is the person of Christ in this whole discussion of are we emerging or not? After all, isn’t the point to create communities where we implement the Kingdom of God here on earth today?
This is what attracted me to Jonny Baker’s work years ago and then the larger UK Anglican emerging stream – they were creating places that welcome those for whom church doesn’t work. (And for those whom the traditional church works for them – God bless them.)
Comment by Becky — November 26, 2008 @ 3:08 am
My grammar and the repetitive use of words sucks on the previous post – serves me right for not proofing before I hit send.
Comment by Becky — November 26, 2008 @ 4:54 am
Becky – my mother keeps telling me off for using the word “sucks”. I guess I am part of the “Friends” generation….
My biggest concern about the UK emerging church is that it is very intellectual. My previous example is only a small part of it. We seem to embrace and levitate the artist and the poet… but I don’t see them in the working mens* clubs. I don’t see my dad** going to the Tate Modern. I can’t envisage a point where he will pick up a paint brush.
As with much of the church it seems to be centred upon a middle class cosmopolitan outlook. It can seem very south east centric (but that is the UK and most forms of British church all over really). You only have to look at where the theological colleges in the institutional church are based to find that Scotland is completely out of the picture and the North is out on a limb. Durham is considered far enough north…
Heck, Spring Harvest in “The North” is in the south…
I wish I had more answers. We are here trying to do it and I wonder what ex mining community shaped church looks like.
On another thread someone mentioned “why men don’t go to church”. That book doesn’t really get what it means to be part of a working class northern UK community. It tries to assert a nice middle class form of male control without really grasping nettle of patriarchal northern council estate families.
Again I reassert my “don’t know, wish I did”ness.
Can someone help me out here?
[having proof read, I am inclined to point out that my 'institutional' colleague was talking about Pusey over dinner last night like it is the life changing force that will change the world. I doubt it is. I suspect it wont. I wonder if there is a real answer that will actually change the world. I suspect it is Jesus and the things he said - most of which scare the pants off me and I wish I was more like him! I wish I was less small...]
*Where women congregate to play bingo…
**an ex miner
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 9:20 am
BTW – It is clearly evident by my constant posting two/three times in a row that even when i do proof I get it wrong and have a second/fourth attempt at using the English language. My arguement for being so bad at greek is that I am already at a disadvantage because of my illiteracy…….
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Robb I can see where you’re coming from here – and it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. As an academic (well, an embryonic one at any rate
), I know how easy it is to slip into language and reference points that can immediately put distance and barriers in the way of meaningful exchange.
I try, I really do try, to make sure that my academic endeavours don’t just exist as an intellectual conceit – that they feed back into my everyday living in a meaningful and connected way. And I try to communicate those ideas in ways appropriate to context – whether that be through writing, conversation, whatever. I don’t think (judging by feedback from assorted family members!) that I’m always very succesful in that
…so I guess it’s me who should be asking ‘can someone help me out here?’
Comment by Pat — November 26, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Rob as long as you stick to suck and not another filthy term that rhymes with suck, you’re OK in my book.
You are touching on a main theme in the book I’m writing – here in the US emergent gatherings tend to be full of white, male, postevangelical progressives. Some progressive gatherings might be a bit more ethnically diverse with a few more female faces but I’d venture to say that 98% of those gathered have a college degree or more.
In my quest for gatherings that look more like Jesus ‘n’ his crew, I have found a few places – including yes, an Episcopal Church in the East Village that attracts professors and prostitutes – go there any Sunday and it’s like the UN is present. The congregation is small as they are in-between priests but worship leader there has a global spirit where she seeks to serve God – she has NO formal connection to the US Emergent Church but what she does embodies the spirit that’s for sure.
Comment by Becky — November 26, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
yay – it’s about time someone officially pointed it out
Comment by Robb — November 26, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
119. Pat – I would love to give a shout out to academics here – there’s a vital place for the work of the academy. I go to academic conferences once in a blue moon, so I can get borderline up-to-date on the latest scholarship. I CANNOT pen my stuff without having this work to inform my thinking. It is a VERY rare person who can pen a range of material that can be read by both those with PhDs and the general public – N.T. Wright is about the only person I can think of who makes this bridge.
The problem is in US emergent church the academic has been given center stage and the practioner shoved off to the sidelines – I have a dual Masters and I’ve been at emergent events where I felt like a total moron because I don’t do academic-speak. Then again, after I did a bit of reading in postmodern theology and philosophy, I began to wise up here – a lot of times people engage in pomo pontificating because they want to appear cool and with it – but if you dissect what they’re saying it’s sheer rubbish.
Comment by Becky — November 26, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
“but if you dissect what they’re saying it’s sheer rubbish”
The frustration cuts both ways though doesn’t it? I agree that academic gobbledegook and posturing is a complete pain – and means that stuff which could potentially be really useful/helpful doesn’t get translated across into the ‘lived experience’ sphere. On the other hand though, reading material/hearing speakers from the practitioner side can also be a frustrating experience sometimes, because the way they express things (even if they are right!) leaves them wide open to challenge and dismissal; or, even more frustratingly, simplifies things to the point of emptying them of most of their power as illuminating concepts. I’m currently having a variation of this experience – reading a book by an academic in the emerging church movement which, although in some ways I’m really enjoying, in other respects has me boiling with frustration because I just don’t think it gets that balance right.
My non-academic writing is usually in the form of assorted liturgical material rather than explanatory treatises
. Which maybe offers a different way of trying to bridge that gap between academy and practice which I’m trying to live out myself.
Comment by Pat — November 27, 2008 @ 8:51 am
i thought walter wink was pretty good.
Comment by jonbirch — November 27, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Walter Wink rocks – so does Henri Nouwen.
Pat, thanks for the story about bridging the gap.
Comment by Becky — November 28, 2008 @ 4:37 am
Becky – I too love Henri’s writings, but I’ve never read any of Walter’s books. Having just visited his website, I think that’s an omission I need to rectify asap…
Comment by Pat — November 28, 2008 @ 7:44 am
I had a similar discussion in the pub last night with some colleagues. We know people who advocate “bigging up” the language* and don’t want to dumb it down for the plebs (like me). We mostly spent the evening saying that it was pointless use of big words that make people feel unable to know God. I guess I count as an academic (albeit an academic with leteracy issues). If the learning doesn’t help me be a better communicator on all levels then there is zero point in it. May as well go back to bed!!
I hate it when people think that knowing stuff gives you the right to laud it over others.
Actually, perhaps going back to bed is a good idea. Perhaps I can go and dream about my coeternal consubstantial God….
*academic gobbledegook and posturing
Comment by Robb — November 28, 2008 @ 9:24 am
BTW- check out this topic on Andrew Jones blog – I see an ASBO Jesus cartoon coming on …
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2008/11/recession-proof.html
Comment by Becky — November 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
‘consubstantial’ is a workaday word in the orthodox church.
Comment by jonbirch — November 28, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Jon – you just did exacly what I am talking about. I now have reason to light a candle and be thankful for dictionary.com!!
Comment by Robb — November 28, 2008 @ 10:41 pm