haven't posted for a few days because i've been struggling with this one, trying to 'get it right' and express my thoughts clearly, so here goes...
while i've heard in the past about alt.church (alternative church) and similar ideas, i've only become aware in the last couple of weeks of the phenomenon/movement called 'emerging church'. have a look here and here for a bit more info, or read a few blogs such as living room or the lingering lemon of death (and follow more links on those pages).
my first impression was that a lot of what is called 'emerging church' seems to be about dressing evangelicalism up in post-modern garb: changing the location of 'gatherings' away from traditional buildings and changing the setup and structure of the gatherings by, among other things, incorporating alternative 'worship' forms and/or input from different branches of the arts, all in the hope of making these gatherings more relaxed and/or accessible to a certain demographic (eg. skateboarders), or to the non-churched in general. in other words, along the lines of what paul the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 9:22 - "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."
this is all good and admirable, and many excellent things are being done in this regard by people who are sincerely and honestly seeking god's will in bringing the gospel to those who haven't heard about jesus or are/have been alienated by traditional church. i don't want to denigrate those ministries in any way, but if this is all that what is being called 'emerging church' is about, i wouldn't, as a de-churched person and therefore nominally at least in the 'target demographic', feel particularly excited or drawn to the concept - it would still leave me feeling dissatisfied and wanting more...
i know a lot of this is just my personal response, coming from a reasonably traditional church background, but i feel like a bigger and more significant change is needed, that most if not all accepted evangelical doctrine needs to be re-visited, re-thought, renewed. i believe we need to find a post-evangelicalism, not post-modern evangelicalism. i'm not saying that we should abandon our heritage or discard the many gains and advances that have been made by the evangelical 'movement', but i think that by and large its done its job and run its course, at least for the contemporary 'western' world, and now its time to move on. we need to build on the foundation that evangelicalism has given us, especially the emphasis on the bible as the primary revelation of jesus, and create something new and wonderful for this new millenium.
actually, in some sense i think we need to move backwards - from Paul back to Jesus, from the epistles back to the gospels. maybe i'm wrong on this, but the way i see a lot of what Paul was trying to do, especially in his writings, was to give a consistent moral/ethical framework to christianity in relation to his contemporary milieu. it took a while to take hold, but modern democratic society is arguably based on christian, or more accurately pauline, principles. mark strom commented during the "[Almost the whole] Bible in a Day" seminar last Saturday that the creed "there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free" described paul's program of social change, and went on to say that he thought paul was mostly successful in the first, but less so in the second and third - we know that the slave/free issue in western society at least was not finally dealt with until early last century, and the male/female issue more recently still, with the church if anything lagging the furthest behind.
to continue what i see as our evangelical fixation on paul, then, is, i believe, somewhat akin to flogging a dead horse. its not new or revolutionary anymore, as it most definitely was when paul was elucidating it. as far as I can see, post-modern society has gone past it, its now a case of ‘been there and done that’, and now something new and equally revolutionary is desperately needed. i’m convinced that the gospel is radically counter-cultural, whatever culture (and age) you choose to name, but in today’s western society the church is so deeply entwined with culture and identified with contemporary values that it is either invisible or completely irrelevant, or both. and the people know it, so nobody bothers ‘going to church’ anymore (its just another club, a mostly superficial one at that, and its more fun to choose the people i hang out with because at least they don't pretend as much), and christians are viewed as wackos who believe in fairy tales, otherwordly, head-in-the-clouds, not-in-touch-with-reality irrelevancies, hypocrites or some combination of the above. the only christians that are respected by society in general are the ones seen to be practicing what they preach in a tangible way, which almost always involves helping the poor and disadvantaged in some way.
so i believe a new revolution is needed, maybe even a new reformation. its great to see that some elements at least within emerging church are talking about emerging theology/doctrine, such as here and here, and also to see that there are a number of books addressing these kinds of issues, for example Christi-Anarchy by Dave Andrews, Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community by Mark Strom and The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is by N. T. Wright, among a number of others.
of course i have some ideas about what this renewed faith might look like, but this post is long enough already, so i'll just list a few of the topics i think need to be covered:
- the person and work of jesus the messiah
- the meaning, significance and practical outworking of grace
- the nature of sin and what god has done/is doing about it
- the understanding of the after-life (and how is significant it is)
- the nature and role of the church
- the future of the human race on this planet
obviously not too much there...
i'm aware that there's a very good chance that, as we travel this journey, what we'll find is more familiar than unfamiliar. if so, well and good, but i'm convinced that there is immense benefit in travelling the path nonetheless.
4 comments:
Hi guys,
Thanks heaps for your comments. I'm actually planning to write another blog entry on the subject of church and culture, which I think is the main subject of both your comments. Seems to be a very hot topic!
Glyn, you and I seem to be very similar. At the very least we have the same reaction when we're confronted by a large body of christians singing the latest choruses! Why is singing such a big thing in church? It just feels totally strange to me now, having not been a regular at church for almost 5 years. Singing is even less of a cultural thing in Australia as the UK, because we don't even do it at the football (except of course when we're playing the Poms in rugby when we try to muster a communal Waltzing Matilda to conteract the Swing Low Sweet Chariot from the English fans). I can't think of one place in general (Aussie) society where people sing together - even the national anthem is mostly mumbled in embarrasment, (partly due to forgetting the words, partly due to it being an act of patriotism which is largely an alien and uncomfortable notion - except of course if we're overseas and meet a bunch of other aussies in a pub somewhere, then we'll do the patriotism thing with pride). So I'm right with you on the 'get rid of the singing' bandwagon, especially when its done with canned music - there's nothing quite as bad as christian group karaoke!
I think in many respects its hard to be aware of just how much of a different culture church is when you're actually in it. I admire the folks who come from an un-churched background and manage to survive and perservere through the culture shock of joining a church, but I don't think there'd be many that do. And of course, they end up part of the church culture themselves. But we seem to make it so hard, to put up so many hoops that people have to jump through just to get in the door (sometimes even physically, not just metaphorically). I agree, Leo, that church is necessarily a different culture (and that there are a large number of different cultures within 'the church' as well), but in my experience the existing cultural differences (eg. language, dress, sunday meetings) are at unnecessary points, but there are very few noticable differences at the points where there very much should be (eg. consumerism, materialism, heirarchy of power, intellectual elitism).
Leo, you asked, "The question is, do we need a different church for the unchurched "post-modern" culture and never the twain shall meet, or does the existing church need to change its approach to integrate the two?"
Good question. The problem, in Australia if not elsewhere, is that there are fewer and fewer people in the church and more and more on the unchurched side, so in effect the number of people alienated from church culture is increasing. While this might not worry the people that are on the inside and complacent in their salvation, I think it is a huge concern.
I agree with your statement, Leo, that "I think the biggest drawback to todays church is not so much theology, or worship style and language, or building location and configuration, but relationships and community (or lack thereof)." I believe it is in relationships and community and the un-churched are looking for something significantly different in the church, and largely not finding it. I'm not so sure about the "sense of mission as a unifying goal" part, though - sounds a bit too much like business-speak to me. The unifying goal that I imagine is that of living the story as a redeemed people, living and creating the kingdom of god among us. If you want to call that mission, so be it, but I think its quite different to the usual idea of mission as 'reaching the lost', at least in scope (I said a bit in the 'Presence' post about my opinion of the use of the word 'mission').
Glyn, I haven't addressed your excellent point about the 'us and them' mentality that pervades so much of church. That, again, is the subject of another blog entry I'd like to write: do the categories of 'in' and 'out' exist in the post-resurrection era, or are they just another man-made construct for propping up the ego and propagating control/power?
Great work!
[url=http://xknjeedj.com/vegs/seqt.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://gmohwhst.com/qtnt/wlcz.html]Cool site[/url]
Good design!
My homepage | Please visit
Great work!
http://xknjeedj.com/vegs/seqt.html | http://oozjiejy.com/tpet/kqru.html
Post a Comment