Cleaning out the cobwebs

I am currently reading a fabulous book called Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). I cannot say enough about this book – it is wonderful. I’m sure it will provide me with much fodder for blogging in the very near future. At this point, I’ll just leave it at that – it’s fabulous.

When I first started to blog, it was really just for myself. I love to write, and blogging seems to be the perfect venue for me to practice this and hopefully become better at expressing my thoughts. I don’t know that I expect anyone else to really care what I’m thinking about. I really blog mainly for myself, and if I touch others with what I say, I feel so very grateful to the Lord that He has used me for that purpose. I have questioned many times why, given the above, I need to “blog” in order to do this. Obviously, I want someone to read what I have to say. Otherwise, why publish it? But I have felt drawn to publish, so publish I will. Whomever reads my words, I pray they bless. It blesses me to write them.

That being said…I feel the Lord changing me yet again, and shifting me in a major way. This shift affects many things, including this blog. I feel the Lord calling me to be a bit bolder in the things I present here. And, as I am reading this book, I feel that I have to be bold in how I feel about the subject of Emergent/Emerging. Not to stir things up, but to clear things up for myself in terms of how I feel about it.

The reason this is so important to me is because I spent a lot of time in the emerg*** environment. The church I attended while I was in seminary would not call themselves “Emergent” (at least they didn’t while I was there), but they are definitely sympathetic to the movement. I have actually met Dan Kimball and have read a lot of emerg*** blogs and books. I have been a part of many “conversations” and would have labeled myself “emerging” not too long ago. But now, I would not.

I’m not going to go into all the reasons for that switch, at least not now. As I am reading this book, I feel a boldness to return to some of the passions that occupied my heart not long ago. So at this point what I will do is make some basic proclamations about who I am and what I’m about and go from there, if for no other reason than to clarify for myself what these things are. Kind of start over again if you will. Again, no details at this moment. My prayer is that as I work through things, the details will reveals themselves in my writing.

Okay, so…first and foremost, I am a Christian. Not a “Christ-follower” or a person seeking to “learn the way of Jesus”. I am a Christian. The next thing I would proclaim is that I am a woman – a Black woman. I say this because how I experience my life is informed by this reality. I have stated previously that my Christian identity intersects with these other identities God has given me. These two identities – my race and my gender – mean something in our culture. I cannot escape either reality. But I must always think of these identities in the context of my identity as God’s child. I know I’ll have ocassion to write about these things in greater detail later.

Obviously, there are certain things that are near and dear to the heart of the emerg**** ”conversation” that are also near and dear to my heart. Matters of social justice, racial reconciliation, even issues pertaining to women (and women in ministry) are very important to me. And frankly, these are the things that initially attracted me to the movement.  

There are other things that are near and dear to my heart. Like the innerrancy of Scripture; the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross; the salvation that comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; the need for doctrinal clarity and understanding; the idea that we cannot know everything about God or His Word exhaustively, but that there are things that we can know truly; and that proclaiming those things with confidence is not arrogance, is not “putting God in a box”, but is acknowledging that God has detemined to make Himself known to us in a way we can understand, even though it is incomplete (hence, the title of my blog). These are the things that caused me to think twice about the emerg**** conversation because of the way in which these issues are addressed within the movement. The great importance of these things are what caused me to finally break away and return to an environment that focuses on the primacy of these things to our faith.

This is not to say that that first list is no longer important; however, I assert that you cannot rightly address those issues without having a clear and solid foundation in the things in the second list.

This is a good place to stop. I’m sure I have more to say, but I’m coming upon 1,000 words in this entry, and that’s the limit I’ve given myself. So I need to pause. In a nutshell, I say all this to say that I am returning to my first love – thinking deeply about theological issues and bringing them to bear on life – not just my life, but life in general. Not because I have it all figured out…but because this pursuit is where my hope lies in the face of those things that defy my comprehension.

Grace and peace…

What I Like About…

I felt it wise to spend some time pointing out the positive aspects of what I have been reading on all the emerging/emergent blogs I have been frequenting over these past months. I have to say that the sheer volume of material written and published on the Internet is simply daunting. Where does one begin? I decided to begin with some of the major “leaders” in the movement, those who are seen as more influential to the overall movement. So, I began with Doug Pagitt, Dan Kimball, Brian McClaren, and Tony Jones. Some I agreed with more than others, but reading what these men had to say gave me a basic overview of what “emerging/emergent” thought looks like. I have to keep in mind as I do this that there are no appointed leaders in the movement – but there are those who have come to the surface as major players in the “conversation”.

So, these are the things that resonate with me as I read through these pages, blogs and websites:

1. The idea of reconnecting the individual with the community. The isolated nature of suburban living can prove quite lonely. And in the large megachurches that dot the suburban landscape, size overshadows persons and makes you anonymous. It is easy to slip in and slip out unnoticed – and equally difficult to develop deep, lasting relationships with those you are “worshipping” with. I can attest to this. I live in Suburban Chicago, and have found it very difficult to find true community here.

But more than that, it is a reminder that God is saving a people to Himself, not just individual persons. Note I said “not just”- this not an either/or proposition here. God saves individuals, yes…but His intent is to save a people, to bring us into His Kingdom rule, to adopt us into His family. And so, my salvation does not merely save me from certain eternal hell, it also saves me to a particular people, a peculiar people, which is the Kingdom of God.

2. The idea of connecting personal salvation to the the redemption of creation. Not only are we being saved to this new Kingdom order, our salvation is the firstfruits of what is to come for the entire creation – a new heaven and a new earth shall come when Christ returns. Creation groans in birthpangs as it awaits the final redemption of the sons and daughters of God. So, God’s plan not only includes the salvation of humanity, but also the recreation and restoration of the created order. Salvation is not just a “get out of hell free” card – we must think carefully about how we as Kingdom citizens interact with the world in which we live, which encompasses all areas of life.

3. Our identification with Christ has profound implications on how we live. Ephesians 2 states that we are not saved by good works, but that we are saved to do good works. We are saved from our slavery to sin so that we can be “slaves of righteousness“. This truth has practical implications. It is not merely a really cool or profound statement. James states that “faith without works is dead”. Is this a contradiction to what Paul spoke of in Ephesians? Absolutely not. Genuine faith produces real results. It is inevitable. You live what you believe. 1 John states that we love because He first loves us. Our obedience to God is thus born out of gratitude for the loving mercy and grace that has poured forth from His hand.

When questioned what the greatest commandment was, Jesus stated that it was to love the Lord with all our being and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Love is an emotion and an action. Love entails doing, sacrificing. Knowing what to do does not help unless you actually do it. And this is costly. It can be uncomfortable. Sometimes it can be downright dangerous. But the love of God compels us to do so, for that love is what spurs on our obedience to love in return.

I agree that faith is a journey. But there is a destination that we can be sure of. God knows where He is taking history, and He has made promises to us that we can be sure of, a foundation upon which we can build our lives, individually and collectively. We may not know the end from the beginning, or even how God is effecting His plans, but He has covenanted with us, and we can rest on the promise of His Word and character that His purposes will prevail. If we continually question even that foundation, where are we going and why? How can we move forward if we have no foundation from which to begin?

As Michael Horton stated so well, we are “travelers on [our] way to the eternal city.” (A good passage to meditate on for this point would be Hebrews 11:8-16) We may be uncertain at times as to how the road will twist and turn, but we can be sure of where the road leads. And this is where I depart slightly from the concept of “emerging/emergent”.

But, more on that later. I did want to lay down some of the things that are attractive to me about the Emerging/Emergent movement.

More later!

Peace out!

A Few Good Links

I found the following blog to be very helpful to me as I walk through this emerging/emergent topic. Check it out and be blessed. I’ll post my thoughts later.

Colossians Three Sixteen>Emergent

Also of great interest, an article from James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel here is Surburban Chicago about why he is not emerging. Here is a powerful quote:

What I am doing is hoping, praying and spending myself, along with many others, for “revival in the church in America in our lifetime.” The problems in the western church are extreme: legalism or license, dead orthodoxy or compromised consumerism, professional entertainers with pop psychology or angry disregard for the sinful world Jesus weeps for. The western church in our lifetime has become an awful mess, but Jesus is not giving up on her and neither should we. Now hear this: the answer we desperately need is a fresh move of God. We need a renewed vision of God’s exalted, infinite holiness. We need an overwhelming sense of our own pride and personal sinfulness. We need our eyes lifted from the bankruptcy of cultural reflection to the crucified, risen, glorified Christ. There must be a returning to the centrality of the unadorned Gospel and the power of God’s Spirit to redeem, restore and rebuild broken lives. We need men and women on fire with passionate confidence in the power of God’s Word proclaimed; not because pagans say they want it, but because God promises to bless it. In short, what we need, what we desperately need is a renewing work of God that will cut a swath of revival across our land like a tornado across a Kansas wheat field. That’s what we need and nothing else will do. In fact anything else is window dressing. Most urgently I am praying that we will repent and turn from the horizontal, man-centered focus that grieves God’s Spirit and prevents the presence of Christ from emerging more fully in our midst. 

Oh, how I resonate with what has been said here! In all the quest for critiquing/critcizing/decrying this and that about the modern Western church, we ought to respond with bowed knees, praying for GOD’S revival, not our “revisioning”…hmmm…so much to chew on as I try to drift off to sleep!!

Be blessed!

What We Believe…and Why It is “Relevant”

I always feel I must preface what I say with the following: This is a journal of my wanderings and wonderings through the terrain of life in Christ. I may question things “emergent”, but I do NOT believe that those of the emergent persuasion are heretics that should be burned at the stake. These are merely questions and challenges that come to my mind as I wade through the deep waters I have plunged into as I journey through life. It seems as I travel through the blogsphere that a lot of mudslinging takes place on either side of the argument. This does not happen in all cases, but it does in enough cases that I wish to make it plain to anyone who would happen upon my blog that this is NOT what I am attempting to do here. No fireballs or mud pies are being lobbed against anyone…these are my thoughts and musings and questions as I process this issue. Helpful comments seasoned with salt would be welcomed…but no mudslinging…

***

I read a very interesting post today from Ed Stezter, Why is Cultural Relevance a Big Deal?, in which he argues why it is important to be “relevant” to the culture within which the Gospel is preached.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to make the Gospel “relevant” to the culture – although I do feel like that word has been used to the point of being abused at times. But it is true nonetheless – the Gospel needs to be understandable to the people we are preaching to; otherwise, there is no point. This means understanding the culture in which we are communicating that message. But the message itself does not change. And the only way to make it truly relevant is to have a thorough understanding of the message we are conveying so that we can then convey in a way that is understandable to our surrounding culture. If we have no foundational source from which our message is coming – or if even the elements of the message are up for grabs and open to question – how can we then effectively communicate the message? What are we communicating at that point – the message or our own confusion about the message? Yes, there are aspects of following Christ that are difficult to swallow – there are some that are downright mysterious. And we must confess the points at which confusion is okay, and even doubt, for God does not explain it all. But I believe His overall message is clear – He is God, Creator and Sovereign Lord. We are created in His image, yet we are sinful. Christ died to save sinners, and to restore creation to its original intent. This is the Gospel. The implications of that are great and far-reaching, and there is more than enough within the confines of those basic beliefs to chew on for centuries to come…

I do believe there are certain things that you must believe in order to be a Christian, and that this belief is always displayed in the way you live – the decisions you make, the way you deal with people, with societal issues, and the way you think. I believe that the truth of the gospel is constant, but that culture must be given its proper place in considering how to communicate that message. Sometimes we have the tendency of swinging wildly between two extremes, as Stezter’s article pointed out so well…and I believe that both sides truncate the gospel. The slant toward relationship, cultural relevance and social justice has the potential to negate the reason behind those things, namely the truth of God’s revelation and how we are to live in light of it. The slant toward pinpoint accuracy in doctrine and theological debate has the potential of negating the implications of this truth we pursue, making the pursuit an end in itself, thus divorcing it from everyday life and issues. Either way, you have half the gospel. Why can’t it be both/and – why must it always be either/or? Can we have rich theology and true relational, cultural and social concern? Why is it that if you fall on one side, you almost abandon the other? Or, at least it is implied that you do?

One thing I find so very frustrating when I read through Emergent/emerging blogs is the imprecision of much of the theology that is presented. It is characteristic to not have a doctrinal statement, as those at the Emergent Village have stated many times. For me, this is nerve-wracking. Not that I think we will ever get everything right – but some foundation upon which to stand would be nice. The bottom line is we will never know truth exhaustively. And so, debate will thrive until Jesus is revealed in His full glory. But at the end of the day (and I believe a read this on a blog somewhere, possibly by Michael Horton), you have to come to a place where you take a stand one way or another. There are certain things that we all must learn from each other, but the discussion must be grounded in some sort of foundation. You can say that the foundation is Christ and salvation through Him; but what do you mean by these terms? How do you define salvation, and who is Christ? These questions must be answered; a decision has to be made where you land – only then can conversation take place that is meaningful and fruitful.

Putting everything on the table to scrutinize is not the answer – there are some things that have to remain non-negotiables. There are certain things that have been creedally understood to stand within the purview of the Scriptural witness, meaning that falling outside of their creedal understanding is to fall outside of orthodoxy. The very nature of God, and the nature of His salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ are the foundation upon which all these other things are built, and the answers lie in His nature and the way He deals with His fallen creation. We have been given His revelation, and need to heed it, not change it. We must not lose the message as we seek to tailor it to our culture.

There are aspects of the gospel that are going to be offensive to postmodern sensibilities. But there is nothing new under the sun. So to that I say “DUH!” The Gospel has always carried an element of offense. It seems to me that we are seeking to soften that offense for postmoderns just as modern “seeker-sensitive” models did for their target audiences in order to woo people into church. It’s the same concept, different method. We cannot minimize the offense that is inherent in the Gospel. We should never add to it, which we have been guilty of doing more than enough times! But we also cannot take anything from it.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

I am going to tread into some dangerous waters here and speak on something that I have been silently pondering for the past few years. I hesitate to write about this because I do not want to offend anyone, step on any toes. But, this is something that I must say.

I must preface this by saying that this is simply the observation of one woman who has not exhausted all that could be read on this subject. I am speaking from both personal study and personal experience, and so I hope that what I am about to say will be given some credence because I have actually interacted with that of which I am about to speak. That being said, I shall dive into my brain dump…we’ll see where it takes me…

I am talking about the “Emerging Church Movement”, or “Emergent Church Movement”…

I currently attend a church that is in deep conversation with those who would identify themselves as “Emergent”. And there are quite a few people in my church that would call themselves “Emergent” or “emerging”. Now, I have to say that I have never felt that anything unorthodox has been or is being taught in this church. If I felt that way, I would address that with the leadership and then evaluate my membership in the church. There is nothing in this thought stream that intimates that aberrant, heretical or strange teaching is taking place therein. I think it’s also worth noting that we are not an “independent” church – we are affiliated with a particular historic denomination or tradition, and have no plans of severing our ties to that denomination.

My first and primary concern is that I have not yet found a way for my brain to categorize or define the “Emerging” or “Emergent” movement in any coherent and consistent way. There is no true leadership in the movement. There are those who are more influential than others – but none of the men that would be classified as “leaders” would ever say they speak for the entire movement. Perhaps this is simply a matter of personal preference. If I am to be a part of a “movement” I want to know exactly what it is that I’m moving toward or moving from. I want to have a clear understanding of what the movement stands for and why it is important to be a part of this movement.   

There are many buzz words that float around – like “organic” and “ancient future” – that just don’t make sense to me much of the time. I feel like I am falling behind the times because I don’t understand half of what is being said or why.  When I visit blog-world and see the myriad blogsites dedicated to the discussion of things emergent, my eyes glaze over and I want to throw my hands up and give up. Where does one begin? How do you even begin to scratch the surface of the enormous amount of material that is available on this subject?

There are also philosophical issues of which my brain cannot even begin to grasp. Issues of epistemology, ontology, the philosophy of language and the like…names like Derrida and Foucault are thrown around. I don’t know much about who these men are – and wouldn’t even know their names had it not been for the people in my church. I have a degree in theology, so many of the philosophical terms mentioned above are familiar to me. But, again, at the mention of these things that glazed look will appear and my brain will shut down from overloaded circuits!

And I wonder, does this really help us understand how to “do church” better? Yes, it helps us understand the world in which we live a little better – but does that necessarily mean that we now have to “reinvent” the church? I wonder…

This is what I am thinking – many people decry the way in which the church abandoned “traditional” models of church in favor of the seeker sensitive, church growth, megachurch model. Consumerism and “modernism” gone awry – looking at church in a pragmatic way in order to design church that addresses the ‘felt needs” of the surrounding culture. This is a lot of what “emerging” is reacting against. As far as I can ascertain, in my limited understanding and experience at my own church, what is envisioned is a return to more historic roots of the faith, and community-oriented worship and practices versus program and performance. Postmoderns are more interested in relationship and authenticity (among other things) – and we need to re-envision the church to address the shifting concerns of the culture we are embedded in.

But is this not also a call to address the ‘felt needs’ of a particular generation? I see my generation doing exactly what we are criticizing our parents for doing – reinventing the church to fulfill the perceived needs of our generation. Perhaps we are making the same mistakes we see our parents’ generation making – reinventing the church to cater to the needs of our generation.

What should drive our desire to reform the church? There are different aspects that we should consider, but what is the primary driver of such reformation? I have an answer in mind, but I’ll defer that till later and just pose the question now.

These are just thoughts I have – not hard and fast convictions. I cannot speak with any authority because I have none…I speak from the heart of a follower of Christ that is frankly confused by all the competing thoughts of what church ought to look like. I feel like I’m standing on quicksand much of the time.

I’ll post more thoughts later…this is just for starters.