Bob,

I really appreciated this article. As someone caught between the mega-church and emergent church (Gen X) in experience and loyalty, my one concern for emergent churches is the critical nature it sometimes seems to have towards past successful methods.

True, the megachurches don't meet everyone's needs. But they do obviously meet A LOT of people's needs or they wouldn't be MEGA.

Some might say Billy Graham's methods are outdated, but I say don't criticize anyone who is getting better results than you. And actually by the time we get there, we'll prob. be too humble to criticize anyone.

Laura
--Laura ( Kamikaze4Christ at aol dot com ) on 8/26/2005; 1:07:28 AM

A pure heart can worship God anywhere.
--Chris ( ChristopherGuess at aol dot com ) on 7/5/2005; 12:29:31 AM

I don't think any appolgy is necessary! Let's face it when we were not in EC we were in another movement that did not meet needs - our needs, my needs - and often the needs of others. Our leaders did not, in many cases, would not listen! Our passion led us - me - to be critical of others before finding a different way - a better way.
--Mark McDonald ( mmcdonald at aptidev dot com ) on 6/21/2005; 1:55:53 PM

I don't see emergent thought as better, only different.

It is hard to argue the impact that "Bill and Rick" and many others have had. In response to sincere urgings to reach the lost in innovative ways, they followed their dreams and made something new happen.

Go and do likewise.
--Dave ( dave at ctkonline dot com ) on 6/17/2005; 8:44:24 PM

I appreciate your article and agree that out of friendship and loving engagement with others that dialog is much more fruitful than attacking. I think that offering tentative critiques (of ideas, movements, attitudes, etc.) is a necessary and important part of our stumbling towards truth - perhaps it's a matter of the spirit in which it is done.

Here are a few thoughts in response to your article:

I realize you are speaking from a personal perspective (specifically about the repentance) but are also writing to a larger audience. Without wanting to take anything away from what you are saying/doing, I think it's is generally okay to offer critiques of Rick and Bill and others, if done gently and in love. Perhaps it is not either of their faults, but often Rick and Bill's conceptions of church end up being taken as the right/better models for THE CHURCH. Of course there is a large-scale reaction to this, and this is good overall, I believe. When people have huge influence on others, I think we should question how their journeys and beliefs are influencing others of us, both for good and for ill. Questioning and tentative criticisms are important because I think that often the best leaders have very little idea of where they're going much of the time.

Small philosophical reflection: I think that in trying to understand ourselves and others we inevitably go through something similar, though not exactly, to the process of Hegel's dialectic (one of Hegel's students used the terms "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" to describe it). On the level of Christian beliefs and practice, one starts where one is (thesis) and then a conflict or opposition arises (anithesis). One moves to resolve the conflict with a synthesis which does not destroy, but preserves and reconciles the initial conflicts, at least in part. The synthesis then becomes a new thesis and the process starts over. There are many critics of Hegel and the idea of dialectical movement, but I think it is a helpful way of looking at new church movements that emerge, and church history in general.

Throughout church history, people have critiqued the status quo, renewed their existing part of the church or broken off to start something new, only to have the process continue again by their contemporaries and/or the next generation. I think one of the many questions this process raises is how critique is done. Unkind and undeserved critique seems less likely to foster loving communities or bridges between them, than open dialog and friendly criticism.

Borrowing again from a little philosophy, it seems that two general attitudes toward 'hermeneutics' or 'trying to understand', are 'understanding' and 'criticism.' One does not have to study philosophy or theology in an academic context to have these attitudes at work in one's life.

With an approach of 'understanding', one does just that, tries to understand a movement, person, idea, etc. as much as possible in a generous way. It is often helpful to be on the inside of a group to really understand it, but sometimes distance helps as well. It seems that many of the disagreements between different parts of the church, and undoubtedly some critiques of the emerging church, are due to a lack of deep understanding. Deep, sympathetic, benefit-of-the-doubt understanding, seems to be a prerequisite for friendship and fruitful dialog with others. Without it, how do we know with whom or what we agree and disagree?

That said, there is also a role for criticism, and I think that some people are more wired this way. I am not someone who likes a lot of conflict, although I am starting to see the potential for growth and change in it, but I think criticism and thus conflict has a very necessary role in challenging common practices and assumptions in the church. We probably all have idea about how to fight nice, but part of the problem is actually doing it.

I think we need those people oriented more toward understanding and those oriented more toward critique, if there are such types, to bring their gifts together and contribute to the continually evolving church. Easier said than done, but I think both are necessary. Jesus is a prime example of deeply understanding the hearts and motives and actions of others, and also prophetically critiquing them. I wouldn't want to attempt anything close to the scathing criticisms he brought to the religious leaders of his day, but I think we see a model in Jesus of bringing together understanding and criticism in love. It is hard to know the motives of others, but we must ask where they are going and where they are suggesting we go.

I am certain that I've said nothing new here, but am continually trying to sort out some of the above issues both theoretically and practically. I appreciate what Bob has said about repentance and dialoging in a spirit of friendship. Amen.
--jer wiebe ( jeremiahpw at yahoo dot com ) on 6/8/2005; 1:56:43 PM

Wow. I really appreciate your sentiments. I sometimes find myself beings o prideful and arrogant and, yes, even condescending to traditional and purpose-driven folk. It's something I have to battle and allow God's grace to wash over me along with his forgiveness and the forgiveness of those I've wronged.

Once again...thanks.

--mike
--Mike Hilliard ( braveheart at gmail dot com ) on 6/5/2005; 12:26:00 AM

thanks for publishing this, Charlie!

It's funny... I've been ruminating on this idea for a couple months now. I even started this article 2 or 3 times. But it never quite came out.

This weekend, the "Superfriends" (I love that name) released their very kind and very generous reply to the critics of emergent, be they the reasonable kind or the other, less so variety.

I watched closely and was dumbfounded by the response or the latter.

Let me say this- I think that we are seeing the beginnings of some good, truthful yet tactful interactions with the emerging church movement (yeah, I used that word... but that's a seperate article). As I said in this article, we tend to listen to those that approach us as friends. As for others...

When the level of dialog is at (actual quote coming), ""Nice try, Slippery, Slimey Emergent! You fool only those entranced by your poetically smiley luster. Soothsayers!" I say time to move on. With a smile and a blessing, but I think we only give these few radical critics and sites credibility by turning up on them and blogging about them (guilty!) and writing articles about them...

This one was an attempt to start moving on towards something more healthy, by first making amends for having done much of the same stuff...

We should all know better, I guess.
--bob hyatt ( bob at evergreenlife dot org ) on 6/4/2005; 5:26:27 PM