|
|
|
about the author... Ron McKenzie ...is a Christian writer living in Christchurch, New Zealand. During the 1980s he served as the pastor of a church, but found that he could not manage to do everything that Jesus did. He is now employed as an economist and writes in his spare time. He is married with three adult children.
|
Talk, Talk, Talk by Ron McKenzie
As I read the websites and blogs for the emerging church, I am amazed by the verbosity. There is a lot of talk, but what does it all achieve and where is it all going? There seems to be a lot of debate about marginal theological differences, but is that an important priority? Looking at Church history, arguments about theological niceties seems to be feature of a church in decline. When the church was expanding rapidly, Christians did not have a lot of time for theological refinements, as they were all too busy, proclaiming the gospel. I know that action is very "modern", but surely there will have to be some. The great advances of the gospel took place when, men who understood their times, just got on with the task. John Wesley was not always theologically correct, but he changed the face of England. Many members of the emerging church would find Paul hard to handle, but he did push the church on to a new level. Lenin taught that when a culture collapses, people who understand what is happening and have a clear vision for the future will have an influence far beyond their numerical strength. As our culture winds down, will the emerging church emerge, or will it sit "wringing its hands" and talking about what could be done. In this context, sitting in judgement on Christians who were successful in a different age seems a bit precious. Getting the whole of Europe to accept a reasonably-correct Christian worldview for almost a millennium, was an amazing achievement that we should not knock. Does a generation that has presided over a rapid and deep decline of Christianity, have the right to criticise their success, or should we be attempting to remove the plank from own eye. Only the churlish could be glad that we have got rid of some garbage by dumping this worldview. Christian Pessimism When reading about the emerging church, I am also struck by a lack of hope, which seems inconsistent with the gospel. A problem with the post-christendom debate is that it understands the present in terms of the past. While we need to know where we have come from, looking back all the time can make us very negative. Spending too much time wallowing in the past can close our eyes to what God is doing in the present. I am concerned that the emerging church will get so stuck in a swamp of post-modern pessimism and be unable to progress into the future. The church has always made mistakes, just as we are making mistakes now. Instead of focussing on past mistakes, we should be trying to identity our own blind spots to remedy them. While we may be embarrassed by the past, and may need to apologise for some mistakes, wringing our hands does not equip us for the living in our world. Much of the writing by the emerging church seems very morbid. I cannot help wondering if the people of God have lost hope? I know that there are lots of problems with the church, but I have great confidence in what the Holy Spirit can do. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would do greater things than he was able to do. Can a church that is paralysed by despair, be a vessel for the Spirit of Hope. Love is the greatest virture, but Faith and Hope must also abide. To understand our calling in this time, we also need a clear vision for the future. Instead of lamenting, we should start thinking about serious solutions. If the emerging church is to emerge and impact our world, it will need a clear trumpet sound to call it forward into God’s purposes. Type A/OC behaviour, rant, reformation project, enlightenment mindset, another war, manufactured hype are very interesting labels. Not very open. While I fully agree, I fully disagree. Let me explain. Those in the "modern" church need to come to grips with their Type A/OC behaviour (no wonder we like propositions!). Those in the emergent church seem more inclined to at least admit their anger. At some point we need to work together. For a bit of a perspective on the process it is worthwhile reading Jamieson's article on churchless faith - http://www.reality.org.nz/articles/33/33-jamieson.html - the reality is that emerging church is a grap bag term for people on various states of a journey. Some are very much in the deconstruction phase and this can seem quite negative. But it is not the end of the story. Conversely, some conventional church people may be full of enthusiam ... that is built on manufactured hype and not much self reflection. That's not necessarily a sign of a mature faith. What's needed is integration - moving beyond naivete, and negativity, towards a hope grounded in a realistic appreciation of the crosses we must bare and the resurrection hope. Thanks Ron, I agree!
I think writing an article or rant for Next Wave qualifies you as a participant in the emerging church. What you have written doesn't strike me as lamentation or hopeless. My hunch is that you haven't been exposed to enough of what might be called the emerging church. Your call for action is good but most of my emerging chums are acting. So my only beef with what you've said is that you should further qualify what segment of the emerging church you are speaking to, don't generalize so much.
Print-friendly version of this page Mail this article
|