I just recently read a post on my friend Jason Makowsky's blog and wanted to respond to it. I did so on his, but thought I'd post my response here as well. Before you read what I had to say, I'd recommend reading what Jason had to say and the other comments that were made at http://makfooleryreligion.blogspot.com/.
I have a disclaimer to make so that it's understood where I'm coming from: I am very much a proponent of the emerging church, faults and all. There is a fair amount to address here, so hopefully you'll bear with me.
While interviews like the one Jason mentioned can be informative, I've found that other materials have been more informative and formative for me as I've looked at the emerging church. I'd recommend looking at some of these before drawing hard and fast conclusions about the emerging church: Emerging Church by Dan Kimball, Emerging Worship by Dan Kimball, http://www.theooze.com/, www.sacramentis.com.
I agree that it does seem to be a "white" thing. I don't know if that holds true in other areas of the world that are actually farther down this road than we are like in New Zealand or the UK. We might even find it to be a bit different on the west coast than in the midwest, but regardless, it does seem to be primarily a "white Christian" thing in the US.
Part of the reason that may be true is that in ethnic minority communities, there is a greater sense of need to remember and celebrate your history and to stick together. Having just lived in Marion, IN, it struck me how "present day" things that happened years ago were in the African American culture. This greater sense of historical, cultural identity seems to drive much of what happens in their churches.
There is also the sense that social justice and service to the community have always been stronger in minority churches than in most white, mainline churches. One of the foundational values of the emergent movement is an increased awareness and involvement in these areas. If it wasn't lacking in minority churches before, they wouldn't need to make a shift like some of the rest of us.
I do think that the methodology that is prevalent in emerging congregations is also more eurocentric and definitely contributes to the gap as well.
Speaking of methodology, I disagree that the emerging movement is more about the medium than about the Message. I think that the same criticism can be leveled at a good number of churches that use contemporary worship and churches that hold to traditional styles while their churches die. We shouldn't be surprised that it is a fault of the emerging church when it is really more a condition of the church in general.
One of the reasons that I believe the criticism is leveled so heavily at emerging congregations is that we have a tendency to define things by comparison. Because of this, a lot of what I've read in places like Christianity Today and other similar publications that are read primarily by mainstream churches focus mainly on trying to express what is different about emerging churches. A disadvantage that these publications have is that these articles are usually (but not always) written by people from outside the emerging movement for people outside of the emerging movement. Because of this, the content and approach focuses more on the differences in methodology than the similarities or foundational values. It shouldn't surprise us that the topic of "the medium" would be a main point of focus.
Methodology is one of our favorite things to talk about in the church, no matter what kind of church. We (the church in general) have a desire to know what different churches are doing, what is helping to communicate and what is not. We're trying to learn from the experiences of others so that we can be more effective in how we try to communicate the timeless truth of the Gospel. This is not a bad thing, but when it becomes the primary thing that we try to use to draw distinctives between church approaches, we have a tendency to allow it to overshadow more important distinctions that probably should be given greater consideration.
One of the things that I think is a plus in the emerging church in terms of methodology (in worship and service) is the value of it being an organic, community based thing. It should look different from church to church, city to city because it is being creatively explored by a unique mix of people with unique personalities trying to reach specific, unique people groups.
Because of that value, it should be hard to make blanket statements about the worship methodology as a whole for the emergent movement. But, because of our tendency to mimic rather than truly create, there are churches that claim to be emergent that throw out their unique, community expression of worship and adopt something from somewhere else instead.
Luke Middleton seemed to make a statement to the affect that emerging churches use "recent hit songs and movies as their starting point, rather than the Word of God." We saw this played out in contemporary, "seeker" churches long before we'd ever heard the term "emergent church." In most worship planning approaches that I've used or discussed with others, these pieces are used to help communicate Scripture, not as the focal point or starting point. I doubt very seriously that guys like McLaren, Rob Bell and Erwin McManus are sacrificing the Word of God for these other things.
Luke also said, "I have no desire to follow a God who needs my help to keep up with the times." I agree, but God has chosen to do His work through us, and we are in a certain time, place and culture so that God can use us to communicate to that time, place and culture. Paul's message at Mars Hill is a model for engaging culture, and he used that which they knew to communicate to them Who he knew.
That's enough on the methodology. I think both Jason and Luke's criticisms should be taken seriously as the conversation goes forward, but I don't think any of us will have the last word.
As for Jason's question about other religions; I think it is an interesting one, but left to people better acquainted with the topic.
I'm not sure that I agree with Jason's statement: "The chief aim of this movement is to appeal to the masses." I haven't seen or heard anything that has stated any such objective. It may be out there, but I'm not sure that it represents the emerging church on the large scale. It may simply be a poorly stated way of saying that the chief aim of this movement is to fulfill the great commission.
A good friend of mine who has been a Pastor on and off for several years and I had a conversation a few months ago about the emerging church. This is a guy who has led traditional and contemporary congregations and was a part of our ministry at Hanfield for several years while we grew in the late '90's into the new millennium. He has often hesitated to give a firm prediction on where the church is headed, but on that day he shared something with me. He said something to the effect of, "I've tried walking away from the emergent thing. I've even tried to go in the exact opposite direction. But I'm more and more convinced that it is the future of the church."
My hope is that we won't write it off before it works out the kinks. I also hope that we will challenge it where it needs to be challenged, just like we should do any church or movement, so that it may be better able to aid in the great commission.
No comments:
Post a Comment