The emerging church is hardly
monolithic.
But there are some common
trends that tend to fit most “emerging” churches.
And some of these trends aren’t helpful.
Here are five responses to five trends within
the emerging church that I’d like to push back on a bit:
- Don't forsake working with existing networks of
churches. Some emergent churches have forsaken
traditional ties, refusing to work within denominations or neglecting to
fellowship with other, more “modern” churches. Working exclusively with churches like
yours isn't going to help the Church overall. We have a lot to learn
from the variety of traditions. If we will ever have something to teach
them, we need to stay in contact with them.
- Take your time learning from traditions before you
implement their practices and beliefs. The growing number of neo-evangelical
churches using icons is more a sign of consumerism than it is a deep
appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy.
Be a student of the Tradition, cultivate theological thinking and THEN
begin to “sample” from various traditions.
- Rethink Pneumatology. Unless
our praxis is shaped by the Spirit, we will end up with yet another
set of static models. Postmodernism allows us to conceive of dynamic
systems that work as open sets. Let's utilize this philosophical
freedom to conceive of ways of being and doing the church that orient us
towards life and growth, rather than falling into new ways of limiting one
another. This area is of utmost importance, since how we conceive of
Pneumatology effects our understanding of authority, leadership,
decision-making, mobilization, cultural engagement, etc.
- Challenge homogeneity. If you
value diversity, social justice, and decentralized ways of conceiving of
authority (which many emerging churches do), then you have to decide
whether or not these things are more important than numerical success and
ecclesiological influence. If you value these things (which most
emergent folk see to say they do, but with limited actual expression),
then take a stand and be willing to struggle. I've known people to
start churches that affirm these values, but compromise upon them because
they don't "work" very well.
Being diverse doesn’t come without pain and struggle. And it is difficult to find a lot of
people who are willing to go through that pain and struggle together. You have to decide between size and
faithfulness, because it is enjoyable to hang out with a lot of people who
have the same interests as you; it is not enjoyable to feel confused and
challenged. The only thing that
makes diversity possible is that the Church is called to be an alternative
culture where we can share a new set of commonalities.
- Be Different. This one is actually
two separate ideas: On one hand you need to realize how similar your
church may be to the churches you criticize. Keep trying to move
towards faithfulness--be a reformation which constantly reforms. On
the other hand, allow yourself to be different from culture.
Sometimes our quest for relevance can lead us to stand with culture in
areas in which we ought to be prophetic. Following Jesus isn't
cool. And the church shouldn't strain to be either.
I wish we could go back to the time of Pentacost, Mr. Hjalmarson; then we would clearly see women at the table filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit.... and our society's insistance on MALE leadership in the church (at the expense of women equally gifted by God) could finally be recognized as the grievious error it truly is to the teachings of Jesus.
--Rosanne Ferreri-Feske ( rferrerifeske at aol dot com ) on 9/15/2005; 1:10:53 PM
Mark,
I appreciate you and what you are doing in Minneapolis. This article is a good reminder that as the church (emergent or whatever) we still need to be the church. We must be connecting with the rest of the Body, searching the Scriptures, and being true to how God fashions us.
Good word.
Press on friend,
Mike
--Mike Jentes ( mike at thequestcolumbus dot com ) on 3/8/2005; 12:06:52 PM
I wonder what it would look like to "go back to Pentecost?" I can imagine that for some it means a rediscovery of the supernatural, for others it might mean taking the early church seriously as a radical community of shared possessions, for others it might mean a discovery of the "prophethood" of believers (Stronstadt). All of these dimensions could be explored for their relevance to ecclesiology..
--Leonard Hjalmarson ( lenhjal at telus dot net ) on 3/2/2005; 4:59:13 PM
I am glad to finally hear someone in the emergent strain of thought mention that pneumatology needs to be re-examined. I am finding myself almost alone in my Pentecostal tradition as one who is interested in emergent. (I know they're out there, but I only know a handful!) Here is my critique of Emergent's desire for a return to authentic-vintage Christianity. In a desire to "make old things new," many of Emergent's leaders are willing and ready to go back to Nicea, or, for some, even the early church fathers. However, I have not heard or read anything (of course, I am not as well read in the movement as some) about going back to Pentecost. How much more "vintage" can we be than if we look to the birth of the church in that upper room? Now, I am not proposing we try to redefine the modern interpretation of the Pentecostal movement, which will be officially 100 years old in April of 2006. We certainly do not need to create another generation of "chandelier swingers." However, emergent must examine how the events of the books of Acts can inform our postmodern-ancient-future-missional model of the church. We need to constantly ask the question, "What is the Spirit doing?"
--Peter Zefo ( already_notyet_tension at yahoo dot com ) on 2/27/2005; 8:35:38 AM
Print-friendly version of this pageMail this article
