Dying for the Church Emergent (Emergent, Part 9)

When most people think of "Emergent Church," they often think of young adults worshiping together at candle-lit services and having deep conversations about postmodern epistemological issues. No doubt, this is a slice of the Emergent Church. However, when I think of Emergent Church, I think of something much broader.

George Barna has just published a new book called Revolution. I haven't yet read the book, but here is a quote from Barna in a press release on his website:

“Having been personally frustrated by the local church, I initiated several research projects to better understand what other frustrated followers of Christ were doing to maintain their spiritual edge. What emerged was a realization that there is a large and rapidly-growing population of Christ-followers who truly want to be like the church we read about in the book of Acts. We began tracking their spiritual activity and found that it is much more robust and significant than we ever imagined – and, frankly, more defensible than what emerges from the average Christian church. But, because the Revolution is neither organized nor designed to create an institutional presence, it typically goes undetected.”

A couple of other books I have read recently, A Churchless Faith and The Transformation of American Religion, echo these same conclusions.

Many Emergent people are consciously aware of postmodern influences at work in the culture and their lives. However, I guess that the majority are unaware of such changes. There is a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction with the present milieu and a search for something more authentic. They are deeply affected by the collapse of Modernist structures but are oblivious to modern versus postmodern thinking.

When the term "postmodern Christian" is used, too often Christians attuned to formal philosophy and theology recoil because they interpret this to mean Christians who have embraced a Postmodern school of philosophy. I have understood "postmodern Christians" to mean "Christians living in an age after the collapse of the Modernist ethos." Some are consciously aware of ways the Church has adapted itself to Modernist thinking and seek to be free from these adaptations. This is not a wholesale endorsement of a formal Postmodern school of philosophy. Most critics of postmodern Christians and the Emergent Church are attacking "straw men" and not addressing what Emergent people are actually about.

At the Emergent gathering in Glorieta, New Mexico, two weeks ago, Brian McLaren suggested that maybe we should talk about the "Church Emerging" rather than the "Emergent Church." Emergent Church sounds too much like Liturgical Church, Charismatic Church, Contemporary Church, Seeker-Friendly Church, etc. It becomes just another narrow sectarian niche. "Church Emerging" expresses a passion for conversing across many boundaries of the Church to discern what God calls the Church to do and be in this postmodern age. In this sense, it sounds suspiciously like the "Church reformed, always reforming, according to the Word of God.

McLaren also read a draft from an as-yet-unpublished paper about becoming post-colonial instead of postmodern. (As one friend wrote me, "From pomo to poco.”) I took as his basic theme that the Church is still captive to the empire mentality of Rome 1,700 years after Constantine. God works in a variety of cultures and in diverse ways to do God's work of transformation in the world. Because of our empire mentality, we are predisposed to impose our Imperialistic Christendom on others instead of being attuned to the diverse ways God works in the world. I don't share some of McLaren's specific concerns, but I think he is right as a thesis.

The fact is, the back of the Imperial Church is being broken, and in my estimation, that is a good thing. However, the idea of Christians going on their own or operating as isolated bands of disciples do not strike me as a healthy development. I believe in the basic concept of connectionalism. On the other hand, an institutional behemoth trapped in its bureaucracy, mesmerized by its 500-year-old traditions (as opposed to its 2,000-year-old calling), laden with Modernist assumptions, and insulated from the spiritual hunger of everyday folks does not sound like an attractive option either.

Traditional denominations and congregations as we know them are going to die. But they have a choice of how to die. They can die from rigidity and refusal to change. If that is the case, God will emerge something new that will take their place. I think that has already begun. Alternatively, denominations and congregations can choose to die in order that something new might be born in them. Something compelling that creates authentic community and empowers people for ministry. This set of choices should come as no surprise. There have been repeated cycles of this dynamic for 2,000 years. There is no escaping it. For those of us in leadership within the old structures, survival is not a question. It is a question of how to die.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[rodger sellers]

You're going too fast for me! Have to uncomplicate my life enough to digest the last two or three before I can comment -- but think the "church emerging" hits a nerve. Subtle change, but one that speaks volumes as a metaphor that *we* of all people should understand in a heartbeat.

RPS

[Michael Kruse]

I think I have just one more post in me on this topic. I would be very interested in your observations, Rodger, as you are consciously trying to be "Emergyterian." So when you get the time, I hope you well share some your thoughts.

[Robert Morehouse]

No terms are defined in this treatment of the Church. We are Westerners (Greeks) first before we are Christian because both Paul and Augustine intrepreted the Gospels in terms of the Greek "Form/Matter" paradigm (spirit/flesh). We need a new Renaissance (sp?).

[Michael Kruse]

"No terms are defined in this treatment of the Church."

Of course not. Then someone might actually know I have no idea what I am writing about.

**grin**

In your estimation, how does this new Renaissance look? What would be the focal points?