|
|
|
about the author...  Alan Creech Alan is a church planter and graphic designer in Lexington, Kentucky. He, his wife Liz, and a small community of others are planting a new church there called Vine & Branches Christian Community. You can find more about what they're doing on their website - www.vbcc.net. You can contact him at vbcc@qx.net. He also has a rambling blog where you can read his mind on a regular basis - scary - www.alancreech.com.
|
What I am and what I'm not - or a short history and explanation of the wider "emerging church" by Alan Creech
one - the winds of culture
Interesting times we live in. Christian people are all over the lot. You can't really pin it down can you. Even those within certain sectors are hard to connect. I've seen a couple of things lately about the "emergent church" or "the emerging church" and what it is and isn't, etc., blah blah. It's all a very confusing sort of mess at this point. It wasn't always. When all this business first started "happening," however it was happening, wherever it was happening, it was much simpler. At least it seemed like it was. Perhaps it was just as complex but nobody was paying attention to it and analyzing the hell out of it like they are now. It's actually getting press at this point, weird. You have to understand, many of us, who are doing this stuff, who have started these weird new little churches (yeah, we can still call them that, but can you still hear that without thinking "building") - see why we call them "communities?" - back to what I was saying, you've got to understand that many of us have been doing what we're doing, in some form, for much longer than the term emerging church has even existed. Some of us have even been doing something "different" (at least different from the common norm) for longer than we have even known what the word "postmodern" means! Wow. OK, this is why it's all very hard to define and pin down. It's not like we all heard of this cool new thing, left our old stuffy churches and joined a new club. No, we didn't do that. Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm telling you, that's not what this phenomenon is all about. Many people in many different churches came to similar conclusions around the same time in history - for some strange reason. Now, not all of us have interpreted our similar conclusions in the same way. Here lies some of the confusion. Some saw it as a cultural shift issue and so their "thing" became more about what was happening in the postmodern world as opposed to the modern world which was fading away. Yes, these things effect everyone, of course, but this was not the sole reason for the emergence of a new reformation in the Body of Christ. There has been much ado about "reaching people" and how it wasn't being done by the old forms of church because they were now irrelevant, so people started doing new things to connect with the outside culture, trying, as I see it, to make the church relevant to people so they would at least begin to want to be a part of it. Music, clothing, paraphernalia of all kinds, meeting places - all these changed - this was the "postmodern church" born. I know, I know, there's not one, but there is sort of. There is a sector of this whole mass phenomenon that does what it does because of postmodernism and it's effect on society. I'm just stating what would seem to be the obvious. OK, giving some legitimacy to my post title, I'll say that that is not what I am. I understand there has been some sort of shift, at least in Western culture, but I'll say again, this whole phenomenon of new kinds of churches that are emerging after people having left the old ones, is not nearly all about postmodernism. It's more than that. I know I've said much of this before but I thought it might be time for a reconstitution of many of those statements. My intention is to lay out as much of the whole thing as I can, connecting or disconnecting myself with parts of it as I go along. So, while I'm laying out what I hope will be a helpful explanation, I'll be locating myself in the matrix - oh my God, did I just say matrix!? Sorry. two - in the house As I said before, there is more to this entire phenomenon than the postmodern shift. There are many reasons why people have moved on into new ecclesiastical territory. For instance, we have another wing that wanted to get back to the way things were done in the early church, stripping things down to a bare minimum, seeing all structure as having been added by man and thus being bad. A particular version of the house church movement finds no place for leaders, only for a consensus among siblings. Sacraments and anything that developed along the years have been set aside. Christ alone, it is said, is their focus. Noble goals for sure. And I must say that I understand much of the reasoning here. By the way, this particular reformative phenomenon actually started in the 1970's and is only being adopted somewhat by many in the latest emergence of reform. As I have observed it, the more hurt and damaged individuals in the traditional or institutional church tend to end up in this camp for some reason. I think possibly because it's as far away as you can get from the former way of life. Now, not everyone who has started a "house church" is doing so out of pain and anger. I will admit that there is a good measure of hurt in this group though. Also, all so-called house churches are not the same. There is the older stream, identified with Gene Edwards, flowing theologically from the writings of Watchman Nee, which is more dogmatic about this being the only right way, the pure way, and have very much worked out this and that being right or wrong ways of being a "true church." Pretty ironic. There are some people who have been equated with the emerging church phenomenon who have stepped into that creek. Just for the record, I am not that. There is another whole river of "house church" folk which might more accurately be called the simple or organic church people. There is not so much dogmatism going on here. Mind you, there are overlaps, so pay attention for God's sake! :^) OK, once again, you have, I think - I have observed - a lot of pain in this sector of the (you see me straining to not say movement don't you) - of the phenom. Many of them have pulled out of the old ways of doing church and have done nothing for a while - almost like a detox time. Then they realize that they need the Body in some form, so they have people over to the house, because it's natural, that's where people relate to one another. They might also get together at a coffee house, because people naturally hang out there too. Again, leadership is going to look very different - not so much with ordained pastoral elements here. Leadership erupts naturally out of the group. Warning, these things aren't solidly definitional of these groups, but I present that they are fairly accurate representations of what's happening. Relationships are very important here, almost paramount. They are the vehicle through which all things "church" flow. If it short-circuits or goes against the grain of relationship, they don't do it. I'll pause here and say I'm all about that. They've tapped into part of the way God designed us and are flowing with it. See, institutions aren't very relational. There may be relationships happening at the micro level of these churches but I would say that's in spite of it and not because of it. Titular, hierarchical leadership which separates the "clergy" from the "laity" (laos = people, aren't we all that?) is anti-relational and thus against real spiritual formation in the Body, thus anti-God. Do the math I guess. Share moment again: my original "vision" when I pulled out to start Vine & Branches included the word Relational in very high order. It was about being more relational, less hierarchical, and more grace-oriented/less legalistic or rule-based. So, I used those words and had concepts in my mind about what a church should look like and was deeply familiar with the Cell Church movement - then it evolved from there into what we are now. The lines criss-cross quite a bit. We emerged out of the ashes of the old way and grew into something new and perhaps very old. Moving along, the largest part of this wing was rooted deeply in evangelical Protestantism with a good dose of the Charismatic element thrown in for good measure. There was, earlier on, still not a great recognition of other, more ancient faith traditions in the Church. You know, the "real" church started in around 1507 or something like that. Yeah, uhhh, OK. Anyway, the distrust of all things Catholic carried over for a good bit of time I think. Redefinitions were and are rampant, practically as well as theologically. The reinvention of the wheel was underway. I'll tell you, parts of it needed reinventing, so lets keep on doing that. As many of you are aware, things have continued to evolve. I know that's not exhaustive of the whole simple, house, organic arena, but hopefully it helps clarify a bit some more of what's happening - of what is emerging. I am a good bit of this. three - the emerging catholic church Finally, to put the third nail in, I'll move on to what I'll call the emerging catholic church. Note the small "c" in catholic. There has been some evolution going on since all this started happening. We haven't all stayed in the same place. Just because some of us left something and started something for one reason doesn't mean we've remained static in our reasoning. If we remain open, we evolve, we think, we listen, and things change. So, there are people out there using candles and so forth in their "services" because young folk like that kind of thing and they want to be relevant. There are also people who use candles, and incense from time to time, icons, etc. because of the deep theological symbolism. There actually are small, "insignificant," emerging communities who haven't thrown out every baby with every tub of old dirty bathwater. We think and pray over these things. We study and work these things out and struggle through them, and we come to conclusions about things. Yeah, I am that. There are churches started by people who've pulled out of denominations, or maybe to the very edge of them, who still value Truth as it has always been handed down in the ancient catholic tradition - the universally held truths of the church from the beginning. The term McLaren has thrown around lately - post-protestant - is a good term for this bunch. I honestly don't think it fits with everyone in the "emerging" arena. There is still a good bit of sola scriptura, old line protestantism in the mix. In this newer world, though, there is an embracing of all things Christian and not just one chapter. Oh, there was also this Bob Webber dude who wrote a book called Ancient-Future Faith a while back that struck some chords. Again, not everyone in the whole phenomenon has resonated with this ancient catholic thing, but many have and are. I personally see this as a further evolution on the whole simple/organic thing. It's that with a theological compass, as it were. There is a good deal of good deep theological thought going on in this stream of the whole business. How these churches are "constructed" are flowing from deeper waters, I think. The rethinking of pulpit-pew preaching is not just about people being bored by that, but more about this being a very limited view of how the church functions as she meets together. There is more of a holistic view. In other words, there's not just Martin Luther and Zwingli to take into consideration, but also, and perhaps more, there is St. Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Tertullian and Basil. There are the many monastic renewal movements starting in the 6th century and on through the middle ages. There is the deep and ancient tradition of Christian Mysticism which has been handed down and which still exists today in many Catholic monasteries. Perhaps St. Patrick and many of the Celtic missional monastic tradition could be mentioned as highly influential of this stream. There is a virtual liturgical renewal going on right now, not so much in the Roman Catholic Church or even in the Anglican or Orthodox arenas necessarily, but in the emerging church. A real deep appreciation of a liturgical lifestyle is emerging in many of these communities. There is a huge surge of liturgical prayer going on - praying prayers from a prayer book - prayers that have been prayed by our Christian forebears for 2,000 years. There is a very deep reconsideration of Sacramental spirituality running through this camp. Communion (Eucharist) is once again being taken up as a central focus of meeting life. Sermons aren't as important, but rather, teaching and other gifts flow in the natural life of the community, as they pray together and live together and meet together. So, the natural and the organic flows side by side with the liturgical - very interesting. So you have a non hierarchical, more flat and relationally based leadership structure, but there IS leadership. You have meetings that are both formal (in the liturgy sense - where certain prayers and responses are used - sacraments, etc.) and informal (not necessarily robes and standing and sitting - usually in a living room with snacks and drinks). There is teaching but not necessarily in the form of prepared sermons from one person. It might only happen in the course of a discussion on the Scripture used in tonight's evening prayer. There is also a moving away from hard-core protestant beliefs such as "sola scriptura" - that the Bible is the only authority for life. Sacred Tradition is also becoming something people look to. It's a bit complex trying to explain all this. I still don't think it's as complete as it could be. One thing I want to make clear before I close this out is, once again, when people talk about "the emerging church" you might ask them which one they're referring to - or rather, which channel in that river (perhaps that's more like it). You might say "emerging" doesn't always mean "pomo" doesn't always mean "house church" - "house church" means about 3 different things in itself. This is why I keep saying it's not classically what you'd call a "movement" because it's like 3 or 4 different things emerging at the same time for slightly different reasons. I say that only to help further explain why there is some level of confusion in the whole conversation. I could go on and on with this last section, because this most accurately describes where I'm at on the spectrum. I hope it has been helpful exercise. Pax vobiscum! As a former founder/pastor of a church...that is, starting it from "scratch", I can tell you that you are definitely on a "sacred" path. Thanks for the encouraging and constructive comment "keez" - if it's such a waste of time, why spend any commenting on here or reading my horrible writing? Aahh, the curiosities of life. I wrote it how I meant to write it. It's pretty much exactly what I meant to say. Oh, and yeah, I'm making tons of money off my conference CD's - and from this article - Charlie! Where's my paycheck for this again? I'm still waiting! Sorry fot the sarcasm, sort of. But for real, Peace and chillness to you.
Look - why do we tie ourselves up in knots trying to figure out categories and definitions. "Emerging Church" You know what that is? That's a marketing hook - thought up to sell books and magazines and worship planners and CDs and songbooks and all the rest. Helpful summary.. I like it :) Alan-great thoughts. Like many things one reads and hears from others now days, you have articulated many of my own thougths and experiences. Thank you for sharing your journey. Alan-- Great article, Alan. One thing though: I have been part of an intentional house church community started by Gene Edwards 15 years ago; we're not nearly so dogmatic as we once were that this is the "only way to be." We've worshiped with "steeple house" churches (as George Fox used to call them) and we are very much cognizant that we have a lot to learn. What a great article...I thinks probably the worst thing was slapping a defining label on this shaking and re-settling of God's church. I thinks the sad thing is people are now trying to construct things to fit the definition, instead of letting it unfold naturally. I think there is no " one " definition. Each thing is like a thread making a beautiful and complex tapestry...beyond one single definition.
Print-friendly version of this page Mail this article
|