Another workshop I attended this past week was lead by Vincent Bacote from Wheaton College about the Emergent Church. The emergent movement/conversation got started by Dan Kimbal, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Chris C. They started off as a leadership network of youth pastors from successful larger churches; some "mega-churches". They came from the church growth model that involved flashy presentations and were more seeker bent. They did not have the cross prominently displayed or include Christian symbols or things that may offend people. They began asking questions. Is this good?
(I must point out here that I did notice the absence of the cross when I started attending these seeker type environments and I ached to see the cross prominently displayed like the Methodist Church I was raised in. I spent so many Sundays staring at the old rugged cross and even before I understood the sermons as a child, I would meditate on the glory of this symbol central to our faith.)
This line of questioning lead to an experiment. They decided to have a church with a less flashy presentation and acoustic sets. They wanted to present without acting like they have all the answers. They wanted to engage in a post modern world. (Post modern being the range of ways one talks about our era- how we perceive/grasp reality. For example, believing that perspective really matters when you read the bible or engaging in skepticism to get a full sense of the truth.) They were interested in giving very authentic presentations. They were not afraid to ask questions.
This whole idea of the emergent church comes about from a practical theology. They read a lot, they talk about ideas and the emphasis is on practice. How are we doing this? It emerges from practicioners rather than from having a statement of faith. It is missional, which means not saying it has a mission but is a mission. It is very holistic. We do church instead of just talking about it.
Someone I am very interested in learning more about that he mentioned is Leslie Newbigin. His focus of being missional is on a way of practicing Christianity now- instead of saving souls for eternity. His focus is on social justice, poverty and the environment.
One of the criticisms of this "movement" (or conversation) is the lack of education of the founders. Tony Jones is the only one with a PhD (from Princeton). Brian McLaren is an English Major and a reader but Vincent mentioned that those things can only take you so far. Another criticism is it seems to be a very white male dominated conversation. The one female he mentioned was Karen Ward out of Seattle. He also mentioned of the danger of authenticity if we are not also thinking about personal holiness. At some point he said, boundaries will show up. At some point, you do start to nail things down and eventually come to the place where you answer the question- what do you believe?
A couple books he mentioned that I would like to read are Emergent Manifesto of Hope by Doug Pagitt and Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger.
I have to say that I am a friend of the emergent church. I welcome the authentic questioning, the discussion and the way they are even bringing back into light some of the ancient traditions of worship and prayer forgotten by the church. I like the creative, imaginative aspect to all of this. I am attracted to the grassroots feeling surrounding it. When I hear of women like Phyllis Tickle getting involved and see the Emerging Women's blog I am encouraged that it will not remain only a "white man's" conversation. All are invited! All are welcome!
Note: A blog summarizing some of the criticisms by John MacArthur on the emergent church can be found here and Dan Kimball's response to it can be found here. The conversation continues...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Did you feel that Vincent Bacote believed the Emergent Church will nail down what they believe or he simply "wanted" them to nail down what they believe?
One commonality I notice with critics of emergent is that they always want things settled. Living in the question is not where they want to be, nor do they want anyone else there. Having an answer is very important (on a side note - Answers are very big in Mormonism too).
I think that is what has drawn me to Emergent. Answers don't speak to me like they used to and the ones that do have little staying power. Therefore when a critic comes at it from that perspective, Emergent gives no answers, I find myself saying "so?"
forgive me for being a bit out of the loop on this one, but at the moment, "Emergent Church" strikes me as a label that (forgive any pun) "emerged" prematurely, that folks seem to be almost scrambling after to fill with content (usually their personal "vision" of what it means). I find it odd that the label on its own became so solid a term before there was (apparantly) something solid there to be labeled. at what point does the "un-nailed-down" nature of the label render it meaningless in practical terms? why are folks even spending so much time talking about a label, trying to figure out what it means?? It's striking me as a catch-phrase / latest trend that probably could have used a few more moments in the oven to cook, and the whole conversation being had about it seems a bit backwards...
Andrew,
I agree that one thing so attractive about Emergent is they do not claim to know the answers to everything. They are comfortable with the questions.
This is just my opinion, but I believe Vincent Bacote believes the emergent movement will naturally evolve and begin to nail down what they believe at some point. At the same time I think that he is very comfortable with the questions and discussion surrounding all of it.
I do know that Vincent Bacote desires to embody a faith that engages culture. One person he has studied and even written a book about is Abraham Kuyper. Bacote grew to love and respect so much about Kuyper and then discovered he was racist. (Bacote is African-American).
He wrote a fascinating article about his transformation away from zero-sum type thinking as he struggled with this dilemma that I highly encourage you read here.
My favorite quote from the article is this: "This wrenching experience pushed me to become a thinker who looks at figures and movements and then draws from them what is good while acknowledging imperfections. I acquired nuance. This shift in thinking enabled me to pick up the book and continue to the end and to remain excited about Kuyper's legacy while lamenting my discovery of his clay feet. Of course, the fact is that no one figure apart from Jesus Christ is going to really be completely satisfactory to any of us, if we are honest, but there are many people who are more comfortable living in a zero-sum universe that lacks nuance, rather than face the potential distress of critically engaging figures and movements. Since that day, I have been no longer a resident of that universe, thanks to this wrenching encounter."
Brook,
I think that is what is so intriguing about all of it. Here we have something baking in the oven and everyone is talking about it while it cooks, rather than someone sitting in a closed room writing out beliefs to a church that not everyone has participated in developing.
I like the local aspect to it. Emergent churches look very different within various congregations. The services are run differently and can change overtime as the needs of the congregation change.
A little off topic. One blog I read recently said, "If being Emergent means I can't be Catholic, than I can't be Emergent." Reminded me of you for some reason... :) However, I do think people can be both.
I guess I am not too cynical yet because I haven't been around enough of these kinds of things to be able to predict the outcome. Where is all of this going? I'm not worried about answering that question yet...although I hope it moves us to maturity in Christ. The fluent church...
Post a Comment