Jesus said to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength. In the next breath - or perhaps the same - He said to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Christian definitions used not to matter so much. People used to be Methodists or Lutherans, Episcopalians or Baptists. Each denomination had its own culture, its own jokes. A Congregationalist friend once defined himself to me this way: "We're the ones who fold up the chairs after church to make room for the basketball court."There is something great about a challenge like this - it causes us to concentrate on the core of who we are... versus the clothing.Outsiders could—and did—make assumptions about their neighbors' personal habits and politics based on denomination. The United Church of Christ was left-wing. The Southern Baptists leaned to the right. Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans fell somewhere in between.
Then, in the 1980s, as nondenominational churches became the fastest-growing segment of American Christianity, a number of Christians cast off their labels. But with this freedom came a challenge: what should this new generation call itself?
Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Acts 11:25-26)If you don't know geography, we have cultural Jews entering non-Jewish territory on purpose. In other words, the first time the word "Christian" is used is when a group of people were crossing bridges to pursue people on the other side... not create fences to feel "safe" and "right" in. Before that, Christians were known as followers of "the Way" - in other words, "Christ-followers."
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2)Today, Jesus is asking the same thing of you and I - can we follow Him without knowing every detail of what that journey will entail? Can we truly be a "Christ-follower?" There is definitive promise in who we will become, and there is always His presence to guide us.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. (Matthew 4:18-20)
well, how about this?
Inspirations from Kendall Payne..
Inspirations from Skit Guys..
Inspirations from Tony Jones (and the E-Village)...
I know there was a purpose to the crazy antics of the "old school evangelists" in comparison with today's journeymen, but I honestly didn't like it. When I'm not sure if someone is mocking elements of our faith or not, I'm not inclined to enjoy their shtick. Inspirations from David Crowder...
People want to sing praise to God. They often just need a crazy, joyful man to take them to that crazy, joyful place.
The big curveball, though, was that after she was done and the worship tunes started, I got a phone call from Scot McKnight (see earlier post). He'd made it back home to Chicago, only to realize he'd left his personal journal, Bible, and other stuff in his seminar room. So I huffed up four floors for him, spied it out, and then passed it to the appropriate hands.----------
Inspirations from the opening comic, Taylor Mason...
Inspirations from MercyMe...
I like this band's honesty and humor to call out how they've become the "funeral band" due to their power ballads like "I Can Only Imagine." That's gutsy, and yet it humanizes them. I really enjoyed singing out on that last round... but again noticed that when the lyrics aren't on the screen (meaning, the band assumes everyone knows the song) it makes it hard for new people to jump in.Inspirations from Phyliss Tickle...
Before I translate my academic notes from the message, here are some of my favorite Tickleisms that she said tonight (which sounds awesome coming from a spunky, 70 year old gal with a southern drawl):
Inspirations from Matt Maher...
The primary question being asked here is if there are certainties when it comes to theology. The secondary question seems to be how certain individuals in the Emergent Village might handle this question. And then there is the issue if some of the current conversation being had on this matters is constructive or destructive.
Obviously, I am under qualified to answer every one of these questions with accuracy. I can, though, offer my thoughts and feelings in the context I was asked - "With your contact with some from the movement..." As mentioned in the last post, I do have a bit of history here.
I remember when I received my first email to join in on a Google group for the Emergent coordinating group. While that was intriguing in itself, what was even more interesting is the fact that my email address was buried in a list of "who's who" in the "to:" line. Sure, there were some other guys and gals I'd never heard of before, but it felt kind of cool to be asked to sit at the cool table.
So I pulled up a chair.
I understand that the source of many questions about the Emerging Church and Emergent Village has to do with the voices that have been published. Keeping with the metaphor I've established, these people are like the upperclassmen at the cafeteria table who have been around the halls a bit longer than you. This doesn't mean you don't walk the same halls and can't come up with observations of your own, but there seems to be a bit of confidence in the things they say that cause you to think, "Hmm... maybe I should consider that."
In that analogy, though, I'm sure we all knew a few upperclassmen in high school who were just "off" a bit. Maybe they drank too much or were too consumed with one niche of high school at the expense of the rest... I'd argue that in any group of people you'll find extremes like this. For instance, there are some ultra conservative theologians who find that their "spokesmen" often speak for them, and other times they embarrassingly don't.
It's funny how quickly a "poster boy" can become a "wanted poster."
What I found through the Google Group is that there was clearly a line between the "Emerging Church" and (what would later become) "Emergent Village." To abuse another high school metaphor, the former group were interested in a "pick-up game" whereas the latter group formed a "team." There is still a friendship between both sides, but one has become more defined.
The reason I'm establishing this framework to answer the questions is because there is a difference between the Emerging Church and the Emergent Village... EC is the present-future of the church, whereas EV is an example/element of the present-future of the church. This has a few immediate implications:
From my vantage point, there are things we can be absolutely certain of when it comes to theology. There is only one Savior and His name is Jesus Christ... apart from His redemptive offer of grace alone through His cross and resurrection, we are stuck in our sin and eternally separated from a fully-alive relationship with the Trinity. I think you'd find that most EV people would agree with this... but not all of them do.
And that's the rub. Especially when one or more of them get published, seemingly speaking for the whole group. But they don't, much like a person in a church might believe a certain way about a certain thing that the rest of the church sort of smiles at but doesn't really endorse. Maybe it's an old lady who believes you need to pray in tongues during worship songs or a young guy who thinks that tipping is a greater principle than tithing since God says to give "cheerfully." Imagine if that person published a book and said they were a member of your church... others would assume the whole church thought that way.
What I'm getting at is that there seem to be several different people in the Emergent Village:
If you asked me to summarize that all, I believe we're talking about 75% in the first category, 15% in the next, and 10% in the last. That is completely opinion, though, so don't cite that.
Speaking of which, Tony Jones is a Christian. This means he's not into universalism, but rather he's trying to foster a framework for all this conversation to take place. The idea of such a deep ecclesiology might frighten some, but what is interesting is that Tony is the most cautious about it of all... fully aware that every slice of structure he helps coordinate has massive ripples to it. I don't envy that role, yet I pray for him in it.
So were the great theologians of the past wrong? To the people of their era they were... and yet here we are, basking in "recent" shifts in thinking like pre-millenial eschatology and the salvation by grace alone. Sure, those were always around... but it took some emerging theologians in the more recent centuries to help us understand what that all meant.
Which is odd how they're right to us, even though they were severely questioned in their day.
For all we know the next revelation in theology is on a blog named "Frank Likes Cheese," and since theology is just that - revelation (not reinvention) -we'd best be praying for Frank.
A friend of mine who is also in pro-min (that's my new short way of saying professional ministry, but since I had to explain it I really lost any need to be witty, didn't I?) recently emailed me this query:
Hey Tony! How is all over there in church planting land?
I have been thinking, reading and discussing the emergent church stuff lately... With your contact with some from the movement, can I shoot you some questions? I will take that as a yes...because of the long pause :-)
With all the "postmodern" thinking and theological bent, I understand all the arguments for epistemology "beyond foundationalism" etc. but aren't there some certainties in our theology? I get the feeling that those in the E-Village do not want to nail down some doctrines of the faith based on Biblical and Historical roots. Specifically in regards to Jesus being the only way to have eternal life or the Scriptures being inspired and without error. Is universalism an option for Tony Jones, Brian McLaren etc.?
I have appreciated many of their thoughts about justice, the Kingdom, inclusion and love, but is it at the cost of Truth and Doctrines? Have many of the great theologians of the past been wrong all this time? What is your take on all of it?
Thanks man. I value your wisdom.
Ah... here's where the rubber meets the road for me, isn't it?
Let's start with some personal history.
This was refreshing.
At least... for a while.
More to come.
That said, I am very intrigued by the book Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. DeYoung serves as Senior Pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, while Kluck runs his own web site where he shares the latest things he's doing as an "author/speaker/screenwriter." Their collaboration on this book is an attempt to explain why ideas and people of the "Emerging Church" should be questioned, although most points made deal specifically with "Emergent Village."
Some great audio from the Emergent Midwest gathering.
The emerging church seems to be forking in three directions, says scholar Ed Stetzer...
- The most conservative fork accepts the gospel and the church in their historic forms but seeks to make them more understandable in contemporary culture.
- A second fork accepts the gospel but questions and reconstructs much of the traditional church form.
- The third, the most radical, questions and re-envisions both the gospel and the church.
Don't know if you guys are familiar with Blue Like Jazz writer Donald Miller. Check out one of his quotes from an interview:"I attended the Dove Awards and was brokenhearted. I saw all these beautiful Christians, wonderful people, with this wonderful, revolutionary message of Jesus, who, instead of saying, "Look, fashion doesn't matter, hip doesn't matter," were saying "World, please accept us, we can be just as hip as you, just as fashionable, only in a religious way."Interesting insights. Having started my journey with Christ through a seeker-sensitive church, I received a number of philosophical seeds about how we need to provide a "culturally-relevant" alternative to the traditional church. Over the years my journey has drifted away from that into conservative/holiness waters, then postmodern concepts that rethink it all, a summer home in the Emergent Village, and somewhere back toward the basic tenets of the Apostle's Creed. In all that time I have asked the same question - is it possible that we are on the verge of seeing something healthier in the Church than what we're currently doing?
"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."(1 Samuel 16:7b)
Now what can I say about Dave The Horn Guy?
By the way, this is what is left over from a balloon I popped after it hit me one too many times in the head.
Why did we start to present Jesus as a product who could fix our lives and fill a hole in our heart that nothing else could fill? Christians still have bad days, and so it would seem the "product" doesn't work as intended or we don't understand it.My takeaway questions:
Speaking of a post from last week, I've been thinking quite a bit over the past year regarding the church.
Sometimes, though, we end up messing up on our end.
Maybe there's a reason Jesus calls the Church His Bride. One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. (Revelation 21:9-11)
This article may look familiar to you, but it's been published on-line now by people who like to talk about this stuff in more specific ways.
A little over a month ago a buddy of mine and I did a road trip over to Minneapolis for The Summer Institute. The event took place at Solomon's Porch, an innovative congregation headed up by lead pastor Doug Pagitt. Doug has been one of the many voices on the forefront of Emergent Village (formerly called Emergent). Long story short, he's highly relational, notably intelligent, and extremely counter-intuitive in his thinking.One of the guys I spoke with had a hard time sitting through it and eventually got up and left. His thought was that "the motivation isn't to know God better... the motivation is for knowledge." I understand his point, and even sensed it in a couple of people. Honestly, though, what was fun for me was watching the way people talk with each other versus what they actually said. In many cases, being too fundamental was looked upon by the progressives as being small minded; on the flipside, the progressives were seen by the fundamentals as lacking any stable structure.
I'd been praying all along on this trip that God would allow me to listen and enlarge my heart for the church. Given the fact that I couldn't talk much, I think he did exactly that. Overall, Emergent Village has well exceeded my expectations even though it is a bit flawed (as are all things run by humans). There were some moments in the science discussion, for example, that I was a bit bothered by a few people who seemed to have a "Tower Of Babel" mentality that we can create a scientific pie in the sky. Sure - we we create because we are like Him, but we cannot create like Him.
In some ways I get a sense like we often face the temptations in this great postmodern conversation to fix everything that bugged us in the past wave of ministry. Maybe so, and maybe not. Maybe there is something more.
Relevant Magazine recently shared this in one of their articles:
"For a generation raised on televangelists, pedophile priests and megachurches, Emergent [Village] seems like a pretty good deal. It represents 'a new kind of Christian,' a phrase coined by Emergent's unofficial patriarch, Brian McLaren. To those who have been burned by the Church, this kind of Christian is more open-minded, intelligent, loving and sophisticated than the Christians who came before.
But this is sacred territory, and it's easy to see why this makes many Christians uncomfortable. To Emergent's critics—and it has many—the group is off base at best and heretical at worst. Emergent has no formal doctrine, and, thus, the group is quite mixed. 'We have Texas Baptists who don't let women preach, and we have lesbian mainline pastors in New England,' says Tony Jones, Emergent's national coordinator. 'Emergent is an amorphous collection of friends who've decided to live life together, regardless of our ecclesial affiliations, regardless of our theological commitments. We want to follow Christ in community with one another. In a very messy way, we're trying to figure out what that means.'"
Personally, I'm into this because I'm a tension lover.
Often we end up waxing over concepts that to many have a "biblical basis" - regardless of what side you fall off the fence. For instance, some see it as absolutely "essential" to keep men in leadership over women in order to honor the verbatim of the Scriptures, whereas others hold it more important to understand the "spirit" behind the Scriptures and show how women in leadership is a biblical issue after all.
You can pick any issue, for that matter - slavery, women in leadership, homosexuality - and you will find people claiming one biblical truth at the expense of the other. Proof-texting is a lost cause (as we all know), but then again... so is issue-texting. By this I mean often we come into the Bible with a favorite passion and hope it says something we'd like it to say... and if it doesn't we fold it under a principle of "grace" or "holiness."
What I find absolutely amazing is how two people who proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior can come to two amazingly different conclusions.
So... how is this possible?
Perhaps on one side of the camp you have people looking at the Scriptures through their own unconscious personal lens of personal experience, present day barriers, and future hopes. Then again... might the other side be doing the same? The real issue is to wrestle over the Scriptures together... together... together.
To me... this is the real "emergent" issue - honoring all of the Scriptures... including the tensions that fly against our personal hot button platforms... and being able to dialogue all over the place in order to find a *balance of tensions* that honors the Bible in its disorderly coherence. This will probably look differently from local church to local church, for some issues will quickly cause division in one context that won't in the next. And if God is as concerned about unity in the body as the Word proclaims, then maybe we should, too.
Unity... that means parts of our passions need to not be in the spotlight so that someone else's may share that space, too.
Many people are drooling for Emergent Village to define itself theologically, from "this belief" to "that issue." Their intent, of course, is to be able to critique it like a politician who has run out of their own things to say and has to resort to shredding the platforms of others. Perhaps in knowing this there has been some intentional ambiguity in order to promote a spirit of conversation.
Or maybe... they aren't being silent at all. Maybe they're just deciding it's better to listen than to speak. Coming from a guy who was forced to not do a lot of speaking and a whole lot of listening, I think that's a good move.
"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." (Proverbs 17:28)
If you're into the flow of conversation (or want to be) about the "emerging church," I'd like to refer you over to a POST I have on my other blog.
(seriously, here's your spot: ______________________ )
Now that's out of the way, I'd like to highlight something I just heard about the one in which I was saved several years back. They took up a one-time offering and gathered 1.1 million dollars for global outreach all around the globe. Not only that, but they have allocated a disaster relief fund so that if anything should happen in the realm of a natural disaster there is a lump sum of $400,000 ready to go out right away."Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys." - Luke 12:33
"The other thing I thought was weird is that so many people end their postings with 'peace.' I thought I was cool - now I realize I'm just like everyone else. Great... now I have to find something truly original."
