Packing Up

Well said Matt. I think the critics of the "emergent"
movement would ask, make disciples of whom? They would press for you to define God and Christ etc, and claim, as so many anti-catholisism folk do, that you proclaim a false Christ. There is something to be said about tradition, which is what most organized churches are all about. And we need to make sure we are straight about who Jesus is. From what I have read, you have a pretty firm grasp on that subject. What I have come across lately is a lot of demonizing of Christians by other Christians who don't agree with a certin style of worship, or practice, or method. The Word of God is very clear on the subject of being judgemental. I believe we are supposed to have discernment, but we will be judged by the same standards with which we judge. And some of those "anti's" out there are judging pretty harshly.
Thanks for words of encouragement you left me last week. They blessed me.
Maryellen

As someone who has strayed away from the church in the past 10 years, I don't count myself as someone who is looking for reform from a current church, so I guess I'd be one of the people who would need to hear the message of the 3 fundamentals. To give you some insight on how we feel, or at least how I feel, the church can seem a little scary and intimidating, as a group in general not a specific denomination. As important as love God, love people, and create new disciples sound, it's a little intimidating to approach when you're an "outsider." As humans we are trained to see conditions on love and place doubt in love even if it is the purest form (God's love). Honestly, what I think I'm getting at with all of this rambling, is that as pure and appealing as the three fundamentals sound, the outsiders are still skeptical, most likely because we haven't given it a good try and are a little afraid to do so... if that makes any sense. Emerging yourself in a group of people who have a firm set of beliefs can be intimidating, from a social perspective as well as a faith perspective, even if those beliefs are honest, loving, and well-intentioned.

Frankly I think the church is ideally a great institution when there is love at the center, but the perception of church and it's intent has developed quite a social stigma over the years. I think that's more of a societal problem, not something that stems directly from the members of any given church.

that should say immersing, not emerging

I don't see any problems with the foundational aspects of the emergent church. In many regards I believe that we need to find new ways to meet people where they are with the Gospel. Meeting people on their own ground is nothing new and it is certainly what Christ did when He came down from Heaven to be with us. The kingdom building through God's love is an absolute necessity in our culture and it always has been. I think the emergent church is finding great uses for technology in delivering this message of hope, faith and love to create and develop community.

Where it seems to diverge off the path for me is the idea of leaving behind the institutional church. These ideas need to implemented within the institutional church because there is the structure needed to sustain these communities. Or should I say these ideas need to be re-implemented within the modern institutional church because we have always been called to reach out. A Christian walk should be a continual growing and stretching period. Salvation comes in a moment, but sanctification is a lifelong journey.

The spirit here is exciting to watch emerge, and God ignited that spirit when He created the world. That is why it’s important for people like Rachael to know we have all been “outsiders”, and there has always been hope, faith and love. As long as there are those that are “outsiders”, until the Lord closes that door, there is an opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work alongside the Church, emergent or not.

I have been wondering lately if the Holy Spirit evolves not only in us but in the Church as well. What i mean is that we start out as infants in the Word and grow from there. ( there is a verse about starting of in the Word like milk to an infant, but I couldnt find it this early...anyone who knows where is is please post it. :) ).Is the Church the same way? Supposed to be evolving in the Spirit just like us? Or is the Church as it is now, what God had in mind?
Just looking at it from a historical point of view the only way the Church (Roman Catholic) before 1450ad got the Word out was through the priests. Then I think the Church evolved in 1450 with Guttenberg and his press. The problem being that only the priests and a privliged few could read. So the congregants still relied on the "word" of the priests. It evolved again in 1517 with Martin Luther saying that among other things that you didnt have to go through the priests to get to God. It was pretty much status quo until the 20th century. Until then 80% of the world couldnt read for themselves the Word of God. Even now I think that time recently said that 25% of the world still cant read. The point being that as we grow in understanding, and in the world we live in, the Holy Spirit allows us to grow in the Word and with God. In the same way the Church is grown and remade...evolves...by the Holy Spirit.
Is the day of the "institutional church" over? I dont think so, but i do think that there will be a move away from the mega church, back to more of a small community. I think we have already seen a move towards a more dynamic praise and worship, and a need based teaching, rather than preaching, from the pulpit. The one thing in my mind that the Holy Spirit has evolved in the Church is the rebirth of the small group in our Christain culture. Taking the Word and teaching of God out of the Church and into the community. Jesus always met people where they were at, spiritualy and physically. People, nonbelievers and believers are found most likley where they live, not at church. Amazing huh?
I definalty am not one to just go up to a stranger and talk about Christ, I dont have that gift...or confidence. But have 10 cars over your house on a tuesday night and see if the neighbors dont ask what is going on. LOL. In just telling them it is a bible study, plants the thought of God into there minds...the rest is upto them and God. Maybe with another nudge from you.:) Sorry, I digress. I am curious on y'alls thoughts on the Holy Spirit evolving the Church. I think the "emergent" Church is the next step in our Church culture. It is time for us to get out of the comfort level that the church building gives us and out into our streets and communities. Good luck Mo, know that there are lots praying for you and your new church.

enjoying this conversation, mo. good to see you "[re]discovering" yourself. i think i'm gonna make a post on my blog called: "why i'm over emergent." having studied @ emergent (and personally met some of the architects) over the past few years, i'm finding i'm less emergent and more "emerging church." emergent, in my book, is looking more and more like a massive "tweaking" of existing structures. still attractional... still building based... still a reaction to something already existing (keep in mind, the whole Jesus Movement and seeker sensitive movements were reactions as well)... don't get me wrong, though. i enjoy the dialogue (one of the best things coming out of emergent) and am getting stretched by the conversations therein. anyhoo, i'll get deeper into this in a future post.

There are several “milk” passages if you will, but I believe you are most likely referring to 1 Corinthians 3: 1 – 3. “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal.”

A complimentary passage would 1 Corinthians 13: 11 – 13, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” This passage not only compliments the need to move towards solid food or spiritual maturity, the sanctification process, but also the Gospel message that I alluded to before that has always been present. It also points us to a time when we shall know the full glory of God, when the New Jerusalem is built. That is when the Church will look like God intended.

As these passages compliment one another I believe that the emergent church should be a compliment to the institutional church and vice versa. While some of these ideas from the emergent church are great, they aren’t necessarily new. They don’t have to be new to make a necessary impact. They need to compliment and refocus the Church on these issues.

Jesus taught and preached on the hillside, but also in the Synagogue. Replacing preaching from the pulpit with “need based teaching”, in my view, moves towards the idea of coping with where you are and away from the idea of moving to where you should be.

Honestly I am just now taking a closer look at the emergent church and there do appear to be good ideas coming out of this conversation, but there are also some red flags. While I have many passions in my life, I am also one that has come to realize the need for a balanced approach to anything. We are constantly reminded in the Old Testament not to fall to one side or the other, but to maintain balance on the narrow path down the middle. This makes me hesitant to jump on board with any pendulum swings in either direction.

Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Here is another Blogger that I met at the BWI - Evangelical Blogger Meetup recently who is involved in the emergent church conversation. DJ Chuang AKA a place called home (http://www.djchuang.com), Church Marketing Sucks (http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com), For Ministry (http://www.forministry.com).

Sorry for the long comment…perhaps it should have been a post on my own blog!?

Holy Cow! I get online & what do I see, a LOT of comments looking back at me.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. Lemme see, where to begin:

ME: Thanks for the encouragement. I agree about all the judging. It seems as I scan around some blogs that there are some out there more interested in pointing out who is wrong, then they are focusing on what they think is right. I don't know...I'd just rather focus on what is praiseworthy than point out everyone else’s flaws.

Rachel: Thanks SO much for sharing. I think your comments will open the eyes of a lot of folks who visit here who go to church. I understand your reservations. There are sometimes that I walk into a church and also feel overwhelmed...and I am a Christian. Not only that, but it's hard! Just like you, I've been trained to think that love is conditional, and Jesus is calling me to something different. One of the churches biggest failings is that we are BAD at doing these three things because it's not in our nature.
I guess what I'm getting at with my rambling is that I understand how you feel, and that's ok. I think that for too long the church has expected new people to come to them, and the church has put on this facade of being perfect, having it all together. When you put those two things together it's SO intimidating, I think that's what I'm trying to get away from. I want to be honest with people about my flaws, and let them know how awesome it is that God loves me despite them!
I hope what I've said makes some sense. I feel like I'm rambling.

Jeff: Shhhh...You’re giving away my conclusion to this series :) Great thoughts. I'd love to hear how you'd like to see some of this happen in your PCA tradition.

Kevin: Does the Holy Spirit evolve in us? Or does the Holy Spirit cause us to grow & evolve? I know it seems like semantics, but to me, it's an important distinction. I believe the Holy Spirit does challenge us to consider how we put our faith into action and that as we grow in Him so do our ideas on how to make that work, both individually and for the church at large. Thanks for the thoughts & prayers.

Adam: Sounds like you're writing my next post for me.

Jeff, thanks for the passages. Mo, good point I need to chew on that one for a while.

Jeff, you said "As these passages compliment one another I believe that the emergent church should be a compliment to the institutional church and vice versa." I really like that. I don't think we should get rid of institutional churches, any more than a person should cut off their nose to spite their face. There is no perfect denomiation, and no perfect movement. There is room in Christianity for mega churches, micro churches, main line churches, yes even Catholic churches, and more, as long as we proclaim Jesus, and Him crucified, risen, and coming again.

Matt- thank you, I find it comforting that someone who is a member of a church, and has a greater understanding of the principles of the church than I, also finds it intimidating sometimes.

In my finding out about the emergent church, it seems that it is necessarily postmodern in philosophy and that Brian McLaren is the main spokesperson. Just want to state my assumptions here. There is something very wrong with blurring the lines of truth and deciding to take your cues from something other than the Lord Himself, chiefly and authoritatively through Scripture.

Postmoderism is in direct conflict with the Word of God. The postmodernism I am attacking here is the one that it seems (from reading A.G.O. and his open letter to Chuck Colson) McLaren has been carried away with. It affirms that there is absolute truth but is extremely skeptical of anyone's claim to know that truth. But the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us in spite of any linguistic, cultural, demonic, perspectivistic, or emotional barriers in our lives. This is absolutely clear from reading, in context, 1 John 2:20-21, Heb. 8:8-11, Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 8:32, Matthew 15:1-9, and the fact that God has commanded us to teach His commandments across cultures using human language.

McLaren's humility is false. A lot of his charm comes from his constant statements of self-skepticism, which are only evidence that his teaching is not anointed by God but rather by academia. Did Jesus, or any of the prophets, or any of the apostles, or the early church leaders demonstrate their humility by prefacing their declarations of truth (which in some cases subsequently sealed their fate as martyrs) with comments like "some of what I'm saying is wrong, I just don't know which part it is."? That is not humility at all, because humility means having an accurate (not deprecated) view of oneself and of God. An accurate view will cause one to fall on His face in speechless awe at the wonder of God and yet have the boldness to enter His presence through confidence in the work of the cross and inequivocally declare the truth to the lost of the world who so desparately need it instead of this double-speak. Why is McLaren publishing books if by his own confession he is writing partly in error? Because he thinks that good ideas are the best you can get, that you can't really, finally understand the truth and then subsequently communicate it without introducing error. This is why he refuses to acknowledge the authority of the Bible:

"That oft quoted passage in second Timothy doesn't say, All Scripture is inspired by God and is authoritative, it says that Scripture is inspired and useful - useful to teach, rebuke, correct, instruct us to live justly, and equip us for our mission as the people of God. That's a very different job description than we moderns want to give it. We want it to be God's encyclopedia, God's rule book, God's scientific text, God's easy-steps instruction book, God's little book of morals for all occasions. The only people in Jesus' day who would have had anything close to these expectations of the Bible would have been the Scribes and Pharisees. Right?"(p.52, The Story We Find Ourselves In)

McLaren voices many insightful criticisms of the church, but don't let agreement with his criticisms draw you into agreement with his propositions.

The thing that really makes me angry is that He doesn't point to Jesus Himself as the solution to the church's problems, but rather to the worldly shift from modernity to postmodernity. I want to shout when I read McLaren's stuff, "Look at Jesus! Gaze on His beauty and let Him supernaturally touch you! Seek His face until He fills your heart with fiery passionate love for Him!" My heart is groaning with love for our Lord Jesus and absolute hatred for the lies of postmodernity concerning the truth.