Posts filed under 'emerging church'
Something that Brandon Hammonds prayed today got the ol’ wheels turning in my head and heart. He prayed that a missiology of signs and wonders would emerge in this generation. “Missiology”, for the uninitiated, is properly defined by the Oxford dictionary as the study of religious (typically Christian) missions and their methods and practices. Missiology and praxis (practice, as distinguished from theory) are two major buzz-words in the evangelical church in our day. The related term, of course, is missional - a term that captures the desire for the church to be relevant (or “contextual”) in its efforts to reach the hearts and lives of unbelievers. These efforts involve the message, morality, and methodology (thank you, Wikipedia…) of the believer who seeks to see the lost come to the saving knowledge of Jesus.
Brandon’s prayer stirred me again with appreciation for my missiology - as he so succinctly stated, a missiology of signs and wonders. I understand why cursing and drinking might help some in the emerging stream contextualize for unbelievers the aspects of the gospel that matter (winning the lost by not majoring on the minors - or what they might feel is a non-issue biblically). I can see why, in frustration, they would see the current expression of Christianity as one that is insufficient, irrelevant, and hopelessly unsuitable to present to an unbeliever in this hour. In many ways, I happen to agree.
Yet I long for a way to reach the lost that is radically different than being personally authentic, hospitable, and relatable. While I appreciate that, I am hungry to see more than a warm embrace and a conversation. I want something inexplicable, something transcendant, and something wholly inarguable to take place on a regular basis when I whisper the name of Jesus. I want to see the power of the Holy Spirit that the early church saw. I want to see the dead raised, I want to see the sick healed, and I want to see the demonized suddenly free. I want to see what the Apostle Peter, Charles Finney, and Jonathan Edwards saw: hearts cut in two with conviction of sin with a fear of the Lord and a yearning to repent. I want to see what Stephen and thousands of martyrs have seen: gnashing of teeth and the stopping of the ears because of the tormenting power of the truth for the heart that rages against God.
I want more. So I give myself to prayer and fasting, with the understanding of the uselessness of a conversation in which neither party has much of substance and depth to offer one another. I want to answer the great crisis of the hour from a place of significant personal encounter with the Living God. I do not want to answer the crisis facing the western church with an empty missiology. I want to gather in a solemn assembly in the face of a national crisis and appeal to God with all my might to relent and leave a blessing behind (Joel 2:14), or as Peter called it, a “time of refreshing” (Acts 3:19). That methodology and approach is incredibly frustrating for some evangelicals, as it seems to leave no immediate answer for the one who does not know Jesus. God’s answer of “who knows” in Joel 2 seems to lack the impact one would hope for when my neighbor is suffering, lonely, and depressed today.
I understand that frustration. It feels weak to wait. It feels powerless. In God’s economy, I tend to think of those two emotions, well, as the point.
What’s your missiology?David
June 8th, 2007
During the break in my seminar for our Israel Mandate Conference a few months ago, a young woman came up to me and asked me about my opinion of the Emerging Church movement. Limited in my time to answer, I had to come up with something succinct to summarize my thoughts. I responded with the following thought:
“The extreme edge of the holiness movement said, ‘before you have fellowship with us, you must totally embrace holiness’; the reaction of the Emerging Church is to say, ‘I’ll love you unconditionally until you choose to be holy.’ What is needed is a more biblical and less sentimental posture towards human nature - that true love does not shrink back from telling one who is in sin the truth about righteousness, yet is willing to love someone freely as they wrestle with truth’s implications.’”
I went on to talk for a moment about the short-term wisdom of a movement that seems so godly as it is so thoroughly embracing and inclusive towards, for example, homosexuals. It seems so loving during the early stages of the movement to freely and unconditionally embrace the sinner with no immediate pressure to renounce their lifestyle - while simultaneously leaving it vague and ambiguous as to whether or not they even need to. To have so many unsaved people, steeped in their sins, filling these churches around the nation searching for truth seems so wonderful - initially. The critical issue is not knit to the immediate inclusiveness and loving embrace. The “success” or health of a movement is revealed ten to fifteen years later. Has the movement produced the fruits of righteousness? If the homosexual that was initially embraced and loved is still a practicing homosexual ten to fifteen years later, can one honestly endorse the movement? If wholehearted love exhibiting authentic, biblical Christianity is not the end result of the journey, can one honestly testify that they had been traveling on the right road?
This was the point I was making, in essence, in my post about Barack Obama’s faith last week. You will know a tree by its fruit - those who follow you will only do (to a measure) what you have done recently. The memory of radical holiness and dedicated godliness is an insufficient motivator for the next generation - only a fresh and vibrant Christianity infused with life from the Spirit has the power to be contagious. The “fever” that is caught from the one who carries an authentic faith in Christ carries the symptoms of longing to know God and a hunger and a thirst to be with Him. In the deep stirring that is awakened within by the Holy Spirit, true faith is likewise awakened to live differently by the power of the Holy One.
Responding to God vs. Reacting to Men
How does one lay hold of such a faith? From what source are we drawing the power to convert men’s souls and deliver them from death? While I do not have a problem with excellent methodology, I wonder how much substance there is to the emerging church movement beyond a methodology that evolved out of its reaction to the seeker-sensitive movement? There is a longing to be missional all throughout the movement, or, in less cultural terminology, there is a desire to be relevant to a lost and dying generation. Philosophically, the question that emerged over the last few decades of church growth and the drifting of a young adult generation was simple: what really is the best way to reach the children of postmodern culture? In examining the methodology of the modern seeker-sensitive church, the emergent leader felt as if the techniques employed would fill mega-churches with those who were 35 and older.
How then, to take the gospel to young adults? Seminal works and enlightened study uncovered the model, brilliant men employed it in their home groups and young adult gatherings. Then, in my opinion, the worst thing possible happened to the Emerging Church movement. Their ideas worked. Young adults connected. Churches and mega-churches were born from the seed-bed of ideas that originated as a reaction to an unsatisfactory methodology. As with Obama, however, these men misdiagnosed the problem - and thus their “cure” for irrelevant, outdated expressions of Christianity revolved simply around the delivering (in a holistic manner) of an ancient message to the next generation in a manner that was connectible. The lifestyle of that message (love) also had to be experienced amongst a people for it to take hold their lives.
Again, it was, in its simplicity, a theological and practical reaction to the ineffective models of the last few decades. In that reaction a different expression that seemed more earthy, real, and honest took hold and captivated leaders that were looking for something more authentic than the next marketing survey. The counter-culture reaction will always have, built into it, a certain appeal - particularly among young adults. So what again would be the problem?
Love is about obedience
The Emergent movement has, in my opinion, settled for a definition of love that is vastly inferior to the true love of Christ. I’ll put it this way, and perhaps this is too unkind: in it’s reaction to what it deemed as the inferior methodology of the seeker-sensitive movement, the Emerging Church movement implemented what they saw as a vastly superior methodology (and lifestyle practice) of implementing what was in essence the same message. In reacting to a broken methodology few stopped to wonder about whether or not a broken message needed fixing.
This is the posture of weak and broken men who cannot react to the inadequacies of other weak and broken men: to respond to the invitation of God to rend our hearts in repentance, prayer, and fasting. Methodology and practice must flow from internal transformation and true fellowship and communion with the Living God. What is our “reasonable service” that Paul asked of us as believers in Romans 12:1 but to present our bodies on the altar of sacrifice - laying down the whole of our lives - as the manner in which we enter into the same love that Christ has for us? We were made for wholehearted love, which involves more than believing we are loved and then in turn love others. The social activism that is intrinsic to the call of the Emergent movement is a noble call, but woefully incomplete.
We were not made to love, nor were we even made to love “much”. We are called to love wholeheartedly, voluntarily. In other words, our destiny and our hope is that we become consumed by a love that costs us everything yet is well worth the sacrifice. Love hears and obeys. Love delights in the pain and the cost of obedience. Love is far more than acceptance and service, it involves deep and costly sacrifice. I want to call the church to the kind of love Jesus had in mind when He prayed for us in the upper room thousands of years ago. I want to express the kind of love that enters into by grace the beauty of His holiness, embracing a kingdom lifestyle that authentically reflects the dream of His heart for the Bride.
I do not want this call and yearning to love to come as a reaction to what I might perceive as a weakness or deficiency in other streams of the Body of Christ. I want a love that flows out of my heart as a joyous response to the continual promptings of the Holy Spirit in the place of prayer and communion with the Father. I want to grow and increase in my yearnings and longings for Him - my life becoming defined by a simple cry: “I want more of You!” I feel as if, in the desire of the leadership of the Emergent movement to improve upon the weaknesses of those who plowed the ground before them, they have at the same time missed the simplicity of love in their desire to express it rightly.
Reactionary Eschatology
In yet another reaction to the excess and weakness of the Western church, Brian MacLaren (one of the fathers of the Emergent movement) has given a call to those within his sphere to embrace what is known as preterism. The excess that he is reacting to is the passivity of a church that has embraced an escapist (pre-trib) end-times view and thus disconnected a bit from social activism. In his zeal to see a church that is relevant in the affairs of this life, expressing the love of Christ through social activism, he has called the church to dismiss the prophetic and the future specultating and embrace a here and now kingdom mentality. While his heart may be in the right place, he has made a grave error. This, however, is the fruit of reactionism. When one is consistently “reactionary” in their posture towards the church and its weaknesses rather than responsive to the Lord in the place of prayer, one will then be unintentionally resolved to focus on the wrong issues.
I want to examine the implications of what Brian Maclaren is urging another day. For now I simply want to remind myself of my limitations and lack of information regarding root issues and problems I would want to acquire a platform to solve. I do not want to react to what I perceive to be serious errors in the Emergent movement. I want to respond to God and do what is required from His perspective to prepare myself, my family, and those whom He would send me to serve in the coming hour to endure the storm of trouble that is coming to the whole earth. I want to walk worthy of His calling, being fruitful in every good work, filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. So, rather than react, I pray this simple prayer again today:
“Help, Lord.”
David
May 9th, 2007
If you can’t find the time to read “Dreams From My Father” or, “The Audacity of Hope”, then perhaps you can read the “Cliff’s Notes” summary given recently by the New York Times, as reporter Jodi Kantor examines Barack Obama’s faith. I’m not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to issues of media bias - I tend to view conspiracy theories as those musings that attribute far too much thoughtful, strategic thinking and planning on the part of those who constitute any kind of “right-wing conspiracy” or “liberal bias”. Of course a bias exists. Reporters are not automatons or robots able to divorce how they perceive the world, what is noteworthy, or what stories need to be told from their worldview and life philosophy. No one reads the New York Times for the facts. In the information age, the facts come quickly and fade from their importance just as quickly. People want to know more than “what” in our postmodern time - they want to know “why”.
This article, in fact, is exactly in line with modern reporting - particularly in regards to the media pace-setters. It presents, in fact, the reverse of the above premise: it feeds hungry information junkies the “why” as a means of providing a very interesting and noteworthy “what”. In other words, the reporter already assumes you knew the initial “what”, or facts of the matter: Barack Obama is a man of faith. Her job, then, is to report to you why that is. In doing so, she is presenting to Democratic voters in the south and the principled swing voters throughout the nation a very appealing “what” - a presidential candidate that actually possesses a substantive faith. A similar article ran in the Times regarding Hillary Clinton’s Methodist faith a few months ago in Newsweek.
It’s a reasonable faith that is the subject of these presentations, a depiction of the kind of faith that stirs the complacent and provokes the selfish to do similar good works and have a like-minded concern for the down-trodden, or the “underdog”, the concept that Obama credits with his conversion to Christianity. It is a variation of a theme - faith as the vehicle for hope related to great societal change: all that is wrong being set right in a manner that expresses true justice for the weak and the hopeless. Isn’t this what we all are striving for - and isn’t this something that all should celebrate? Obama’s social and societal concerns appear to be noble and his intentions sound? If you are nodding your head “yes”, at this point, you really won’t care for what I say next.
What does your faith draw men towards?
Hear me when I say this - the fact that the New York Times has an affinity for Obama’s version of Christianity does not make it illegitimate in my eyes. I would, however, suggest that you read the previous paragraph again and tell me what is missing. In my opinion, the initial by-product of my faith in Christ should not be to stir men and women to good works and worthy causes. If you come away from talking with me and are not stirred to:
1. Know Jesus (and study the Bible) and / or
2. Pray more
…than I am going to have to confess, repent, and try again. I was commissioned to draw all men to the Beautiful One, the Desire of All Nations - the Risen King who is the only One worthy of such pursuit. I yearn and long within myself to be a true friend of the Bridegroom, and as such my prayer life is in part a pursuit of authentic loyalty through a transformed heart that draws no attention to myself or my own cause. I want to be a living advertisement for those things that burn on the heart of Jesus. Once we connect to Him in prayer, subject then to the tenderizing work of the Holy Spirit and ignited with a heavenly fire within, we will then receive our mandate and can go forth from that place in confidence that we have been sent by the King and are safely subject to His will.
Obama’s faith is the kind of faith that stirs the soul within itself to act as the first response to need and lack. As a gifted, competent, and capable man, one like Obama would feel a deep responsibility to do his part when made aware of the societal deficiencies and racial inequities that those around him experience on a daily basis. While sounding benevolent and reasonable, Obama falls victim to the most seductive deceit in all of history: the need to play the messiah for those who are in need. Obama’s faith is the kind of message that draws men to themselves as the solution to the problem. Thus it becomes (with seemingly good intentions), even initially (and fully expressed eventually), outrageously anti-messiah in spirit and in truth.
Men are sinners that need to be saved
The first sign of one who is “anti-messiah” is that they misdiagnose the problem. Thus, rather than preaching Jesus, they spend much of their time identifying problems and challenging people to change / learn compassion / get perspective in order to solve the problem. Pick any issue - race, poverty,the environment, peace, etc. The solution, ultimately, is that men would be transformed and renewed in their innermost being that they might walk in true meekness and love. This can only happen through encounter with Jesus Himself, of course. It takes repentance, it takes a conviction to leave our sinful ways, and it takes a continual heart cry in prayer to ask for help, or grace, in our times of need. It takes work to come into true godliness and holiness - work that most do not want to give themselves to. It is far easier to either preach easy forgiveness or social action as a way of appeasing the guilt of the wounded conscience.
The “what” and the “why” that is being presented to our generation falls woefully and tragically short of the truth of the gospel and the reality of the power of the kingdom of God to bring deep and eternal change. This issue, of course, goes deeper than a politician from Illinois and reaches into the depths of what it means to be the church in this hour to a lost and broken world. The solution, of course, runs far deeper than an introduction of the weak to a strong God whose love is relevant to their struggle. It lies in our willingness to confront our sin, repent, and continually and daily appeal to God to do what only He can do. This is not the popular theological conclusion of the day however, and the journey of the heart towards voluntary love and voluntary weakness is repulsive and foolish to the strong. It is, in fact, as it always has been, since the first man went his own way in his attempt to attain knowledge and insight to the world apart from the Living God.
Thanks to Randy B. - I could not have asked for a better introduction to my examination of the emergent church.
David
May 1st, 2007
I am writing this examination of the concept of “team ministry” for one reason - it is the beginning of a series I am doing that will examine the nature and implications of the Emergent Church movement related to the end of the age. Thus, the purpose of writing this is to establish for you my broader philosophy of the roles different “tribes” and groups play within the body of Christ in this hour. It is important to me that we are on the same page before I say what I am going to say next.
Those that know me know that my aim is to be unusually conciliatory and honoring of different “streams”, movements, and expressions of the body of Christ throughout the earth. I greatly value and enjoy the astonishing creativity of God - the God who birthed what is now 6,000 languages (and counting). Beyond this, I have continually valued and honored what I consider to be an expression of “team ministry” that transcends one corporate gathering or group of people with a variety of gifts and talents.
I see an expression of team ministry reflected in the corporate church of individual cities, nations, and whole generations, depending on the scope of local, national, and international ministries and their God-given spheres of influence. One church in a city might function in a more evangelistic manner that serves the whole city, while another church is more teaching-oriented; still another group might excel in equipping for missions and function as a true sending vehicle to launch skilled leaders to the nations. Everyone can play different parts on the team of a city church, whether they operate in such a manner knowingly or not. Jesus is a skilled Apostolic leader fully able to gather a diverse group of leaders to a geographic location to serve His purposes.
So it is in that spirit that I have been quick to honor brothers in the body of Christ that function in ways that serve cities and nations in broader ways than many desire to give credit for. While it is valid to question some pastor’s motives in the manner in which they establish “seeker-sensitive” expressions, this does not give us license to then dismiss the viability of the entire seeker-sensitive movement. Could it be true that God has actually called some to establish these kinds of ministries in the body of Christ in our day? While others, looking to duplicate or replicate the success of the legitimate structures that have been built, often end up doing so for transparently ambitious and self-gratifying reasons, we must be careful in our judgments and religious opinions in deciding the worth of a thing that might serve a God-ordained purpose beyond our limited perspectives.
True God-initiated seeker-sensitive churches serve the body of Christ in two critical ways: first, they are zealous to pursue skillful and excellent communication of biblical truths; and second, they often end up contributing significantly to the building of the whole body of Christ in a geographic location. We must admit that excellence in communication is a worthy pursuit, and one that is better than entertaining poor communication in the name of unbiblical idealism regarding authentic Christianity. If we were honest, we would also admit that there are churches near seeker-sensitive ones that are secretly thankful. Why? They owe much to these churches for believers that progressed as far as they could after finding Jesus before shifting to a spiritual family that better fit their increased hunger for more “meat” from the scriptures as well as an answer to their unsatisfied yearning for the deep things of God.
If seeker-sensitive churches are content to play their role on the “team” rather than build the biggest, most successful ode to their giftedness on the block, then everyone wins in the end. If other pastors can come to terms with the fact that “sheep stealing” is a farcical notion birthed from insecurity and sinful ambition rather than the word of God, they would then be fine with people shifting to different expressions of the the body reflected in the different corporate gatherings throughout their cities. Different seasons of growth, maturity, and development demand that believers run with different groups that best fit those seasons. Pastors that are willing to serve, launch, and recognize their limitations can be free of heart and pleased to have played a role in loving a member of the broader body of Christ that is valuable to Jesus. Pastors that seek to be “all things to all men” in a vain effort to gather all peoples to themselves will be sorely disillusioned and frustrated with the passage of time.
Thus, we need the excellence in which seeker-sensitive ministries (called by God) communicate gospel truths to the unsaved or the newly saved. We need the faithful commitment to scripture that the baptists exhibit, the excellence in teaching of the Calvary Chapel movement, and the love for the things of the spirit that the Charismatic expresses. I love that prayer ministries are being established in cities around the world. I love that there are many significant ministries (Hillsong, Vineyard, Integrity) that have contributed mightily to the worship culture of the church of this generation. The Wesleyan / Methodist movement did the same for generations past.
I never want to fall into the trap of assuming that the stream that I swim in is innately superior to the ones that others enjoy. I never want to give myself to an elite spirit that desires a conformity to my spiritual culture. We need Campus Crusade, Young Life, Navigators, Intervarsity, Youth With a Mission, Acquire the Fire, and many other ministries and expressions that serve their redemptive purpose under the sovereign call of God for this hour of history. Everyone plays a part.
This is important to me that my heart on these issues is clear. The reason is this: I have serious questions and issues with the Emergent Church movement. I am not alone in this, nor am I the first to raise these questions. It is important to me, however, to establish my own “ground rules” before being what is, for me, uncharacteristic of my normative posture towards other brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not want to unintentionally give permission to, nor room for, ungodly religious opinions that refuse to take into account the purposes and plans of a soveriegn God that transcend our own perceptions and reasoning. It is not my way to speak ill of sincere believers who truly seek to honor Christ with their lives and choices. Those that know me know that I often speak well of pre-trib brothers - of whom I want to extend much charity and respect in regards to their labors to see the lost won to Christ. Regardless of how Christ is preached, I delight that He is preached to all.
That said, I want to conduct my own honest examination over the next week of the Emergent Church movement. Again, I have grave concerns over both the present expression and what I feel is the logical future destination. In my next post, I am not going to address them - it is important that I first define this movement so that we have a common understanding of what I mean when I say “Emergent”. Then, I want to examine in my next post what I feel are some illegitimate foundations. I will wrap up the series with a look at what I believe the future has in store for the emergent church.
It should be an interesting week.
David
April 14th, 2007
