11.29.2006

Why I am FOR the Emerging Church

About 2 hours ago, I reached into our pantry and pulled out a bag that had three little cheetos left in it. My wife had finished off the cheetos a couple of weeks ago, or so we thought. Anyway, I was about to throw the bag away and thought I would finish them off. I put the three little chips in my mouth, and I immediately spit them back out. They were so stale. They kind of had that hard yet moist taste and feel. Sick! I should have seen this, but I was fooled because outwardly everything seemed ok. The color and feel led me to believe that they were still good and needed to be eaten. The inside, however, was an altogether different story.

The church in America today (and really in most Western cultures) seems to somewhat resemble the cheetos I ate. It seems to me that people look at the church and see that it still carries the same "color" and "feel," and therefore, assume that it's OK. They "go" to church only to find out that it is stale and spit it back out. But why is this? I mean, afterall, isn't the church to be salt and light? It seems to me that we should bring flavor, instead we're stale and hard. I realize that this is my opinion and that there are many people still in America that do not see a major problem with the church. It is my understanding that the majority of "church going Christians" are mostly fine with the church the way it is minus a few problems. One such problem they see is from those who do church in a different manner. I guess those people are just too liberal!

I've never been one that fit the mold of a cookie cutter too well. That's probably why I have such a hard time with seminary. The point of a cookie cutter is to cut cookies into the same shape and size so that each one looks alike. For the most part, churches in America follow this model. The problem is that when a church does not look the same it is severly questioned and in some cases altogether dismissed. This, I fear, is what is happening to the emerging church. Those most critical of the emerging church say that the emerging church is liberal or lacking in the area of theology. They say this because some of the leadership of the emerging church do not have seminary degrees. Translation: they do not have proper theological training. This has led many to conclude that the emerging church is liberal theologically. This is not the only thing that has brought about this conclusion. The emphasis on meeting humans needs has also factored in to this conclusion. The emerging church is very much interested in the social issues of the day. They are concerned about poverty, injustice, oppresion, human trafficking, homelessness, AIDS, war and the environment. They are in favor of showing love to the homosexual population and those who have had abortions. These very issues are the ones most liberal politicians talk about, and thus it is easy to see why some might label the emerging church as liberal.

The very reasons that many oppose the emerging church are the very reasons I am FOR it. The "cookie cutter" approach has failed in society as far as I'm concerned. There was a day when it worked well. That day was when most of America went to church. That day was when the culture was more influenced by Christian values. It was a day where the church was gaining a high percentage of new converts. In that day, the church had a voice and quite a few people listened to it. Today is a new day though. Today we live in a postmodern society. I know for many believers that word "postmodern" is a cuss word. For many, they hear that word and automatically think words like "relativism" and "pluralism." Often times you will hear emerging church leaders refer to the emerging church as the "postmodern church." This realy sets off those who oppose it, and most of the time it affirms their preconceived notions. Postmodern is NOT just relativism and pluralism. It is a new (at least to us) way of thinking and living.

Since the protestant reformation we have lived in a Modern age. Everything was linear and logical, at least here in the West. This is evidenced by the way we argue and debate, and by the way we organize and compartmentalize. Walk into any church and it will be very symmetrical. Sit in any court room and the arguments will be logical. As more and more people migrated to America from the East, eastern ways of thinking came with them. Ironically, the root of Christianity, Judaism, is an Eastern religion. In eastern thought, things do not necessarily have to make sense or add up. Reason is not the strong point of eastern thought. Here in the West if I want to prove something is true or make a point I will use reason. In the East, if you want to prove something is true or make a point you would use imagery or parables. More or less, you would use things that reveal the truth or the point. Revelation is not often times explained by reason, but we want it to be that way. What postmodernism has done is introduced new ways of expressing truth, while at the same time it has introduced things such as relativism and pluralism. There are positives and negatives to both reason and revelation.

I believe the above is important to note because it helps to understand where this emerging church has come from. You don't have to sit long in an emerging church service before you realize the emphasis of the arts. From the music to wall paintings, believers are finding creative ways to express ancient, Biblical truths. They are always creating ways to express their love to God and their hurt from life. This has more to do with revealing than reason, and there is nothing wrong with that. The emerging church is also relativistic, but not about truth. The styles and methods are relative, and this really seems to rub some who oppose it the wrong way. For example, I had a professor just yesterday say that house churches were great, but he one problem with them. His problem with them was that some house churches lead everyone to believe that they are leaders, and they don't have a pastor. He argued that this was not Biblical. Is it or not? To me this has more to do with style and structure, which I would contend is relative. The house churches that I have heard, known and read about do not operate the way he says they do. Most have a defined leadership known as either elders or some other name. There is generally one who has the gift of teaching that rises up and does much of that. Each person is seen to have a responsibility in the body, and all are held accountable to doing it. The Bible did not give a point by point way to structure a church, the church did. Overseers (elders) and deacons were appointed to lead the church, serve the church and correct the church. Pastors were not necessarily the leaders, nor teachers. Apostles, prophets and evangelists are supposed to be apart of equipping the body too, but I haven't seen any of those guys in awhile!

All I'm saying here is that there is not one clear cut way to do church. What I believe the Bible presents us with is a skeleton that will be covered with the skin of different cultures. While the church in America has been sleeping, our culture changed. Thus, the skin needs to change. The truths MUST remain, but the style, structure and methods must change. Again this is relative. If you plant a church in a retirement village, I doubt very seriously that you will be singing David Crowder songs and preaching with videos and powerpoint. What will work there most likely is hymns with a piano and organ, and a good onle 3 to 5 point sermon. This is why I despise "how to" guides for church growth. Give me a break! Go engage the culture around you and meet them there. Don't let some book or seminary tell you how best to structure your church. This is just a minor part of the emerging church, and I want to add that the general style of an emerging church does not work in every context. I fear some churches are trying too hard to look like an emerging church that they are missing the people in their community completely. You MUST know those of your own community.

The main difference, as far as I can tell, between the emerging church and the existing church is in the areas of social issues. As I mentioned above, the emerging church has a heavy emphasis on meeting the needs of humanity. (I want to note here that they do not preach a social gospel as some have begun to do in this country. Those that do that are consider part of the Emergent church. There is a difference, and I would encourage anyone to do their research about an emerging church to make sure they are not really Emergent. The social gospel places all them emphasis on human needs, and neglects the gospel essentials such as repentance, faith in Christ alone and in some cases even the existence of hell. It is basically a mix of secular humanism and Christianity.) The emerging church seeks to live the way of Jesus, and not just preach it. Jesus lived His life among the poor, the sinners, the drunks, the tax collectors and whores. He was considered their friends. These are the type of people He came to call. He did not spend His life lobbying the government of His day to pass laws saying that homosexuals could not get married. Nor did He lobby them to end abortion and prohibit alcohol. He understood that there was already a law against those things, just like there was against lying and stealing and adultery and murder, etc. God's law has never changed whether a country or nations government has acknowledged or not. The law was given to show us our need for Jesus. However, the Pharisees of the day thought their morality was fine enough. I hear at seminary a lot something like this, "It's great that you want to go and feed everyone and clothe them and heal thier diseases, but what good is it for them to go to hell well fed and comfortable?" I agree. But the opposite is true as well which would sound like this, "It's great that you want to go and make sure there's no more abortion or homosexuality or drunkeness, but what good is it for them to go to hell as good and moral citizens?"

It seems to me that the church today has become more concerned about issues of morality than they have social issues. We can quote the Word inside and out, but we can't tell or show anyone how to actually do what it says. I fear we are more like the Pharisees of Jesus' day than Jesus. This is why I believe the emerging church is such a timely reform of the church. It is wonderful to be grounded theologically and to live moral lives, but this is not all we're called to be about. It is the churches responsibility to care for the poor and naked and homeless and hungry and oppressed and sick. Not the government! Like our pastor here said once, "Do you find it interesting that in Jesus' day the homeless and drunks and whores and poor viewed Jesus as their friend, and the rich, upper and middle classes viewed Him as their enemy. Yet today, the upper and middle classes of society view Jesus as their friend, and the poor, homeless, whores and drunks view Him as their enemy." Why is this? And can this be changed?

The emerging church has some flaws, and they must be addressed and dealt with in humility and love. However, the emerging church does not need to be written off or dismissed. My plea is that members of the older generations (i.e. my grandparents and parents generations) would get behind the emerging church and bless it and strengthen it and fan it into flame. I don't know if I speak for the majority of my generation or not, but I feel that the older generations just view us as ignorant and rebellious. I do not feel that we are validated by the older generations, and I long for them to come alongside us and encourage our growth in the Lord even if it doesn't happen to look exactly the same as it did for them. So this is why I am FOR the emerging church!

Thoughts?


Bryan

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

you and cheetos huh, who would of thought.

Anonymous said...

I think the parallel comparing Jesus and his associations to that of the Emerging Church is much too simple a comparison, and possibly not very accurate.

If the "Traditional Church”, with its orthodoxy and conservative ideals represents the Pharisees then Jesus and his love of sinners, the poor, hungry, children, and prostitutes, does not represent the Emerging church. Jesus associated with the underclasses and dredges of society because they showed an interest in Him. He would have turned his heal on a hooker or a thief who didn't care about him, as quickly as he would a rich young ruler, or a stiff necked Pharisee. Conversely he would have spent his time with any Pharasie who had a heart to know the truth, as he did with Nichodemus. So if we immerse ourselves as Christians into the current culture just so we can appear more welcoming then we overshoot as tragically as if we insist on suits and ties, and hymnals. None of that matters. What matters is that we see life, the world, and the condition of man as God did when He was in the person of Jesus, and still does even from Heaven today: Namely that mankind is largely against Him, sick, dieing, and is bringing upon itself inevitable judgment. But that there is a Lamb who has been sacrificed for those who will set their hope upon Him. Anyone interested in this loving gift should be our friend, and to him/her we should minister. To those who’s hearts are hard, we should kick the dust from our shoes. How they are, or are not dressed is not the issue. Whether they like hymms or rock is meaningless. There are homosexuals actively against God, and there are homosexuals who are lost and long for God. There are suits and ties who express a faith that is really wrong and dead, and there are suits and ties who love God with a heart you and I can only marvel at. Its not about the shell, whether grey or colorful, its about the heart.

Jesus would have loved the overweight un-showered mama in Wallmart with the 3 kids with un-wiped mouths. Will the emerging church do that too? Or is it the cool, subculture, that the emerging church is after? Homosexuals are pretty cool, and so are grungy rock band members. hip young post-modern, eastern thinking kids are not a parallel for the tax collectors and prostitutes of Jesus day. A better parallel would be the wallmart mom, or the cussing, grumbling coalminer who drinks too much, or the Las Vegas Hooker. Or howabout the wealthy, rich, well dressed wallstreet stock broker whos life is in shambles? Isn’t he in need too? I guess my concern is that the when Church becomes "cool", it is as ugly to me as when it is steeped in "tradition” Can’t it just be real, and true? Gimmicks whatever side they come from make me want to vomit.

One last thing… You speak of morality, as if it was actually achievable. It isn't. If it was then Jesus would not have needed to die. Morality if it happens at all is only a byproduct of a regenerate heart that has had many years of hard lessons from a God who disciplines whom he loves, and all credit therein belongs to God himself. - Nick