I think the "Emergent" movement is dumb. For all it's talk about a new "conversation" that is honest and doesn't have the baggage of a built-vocabulary like the "institutional Church," I don't think it's that much different. There absolutely is a set of buzzwords that you need to know, and the buzzwords, at least to me, appear to be synonyms of the horrible, soul-crushing buzzwords that "Fundamentalists(!)" use. But not the same words mind you. The emergent church can't use the same semantics as those they are emerging from, right?
I guess the most frustrating thing about it for me is that, while I agree with many of the things the movement says, I don't want to be a part of no movement. I want to be a part of a church that does things however it wants! I don't care if other emergent churches do things a certain way and go to certain conferences and read certain books. Once we all start doing that, we're nothing but another denomination that'll soon have mega-churches of its own. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It just seems that so often we are blind to our own ambitions, our own destiny. Without thinking independently, we'll all become that which we rail against. It's happened time and time again, both within the church and without. So 20 years down the road, don't say I didn't warn the movement.
And here's another thing. Can we drop the criticism of other churches already? Yes, I already know that we do things differently. Please stop reminding me of how stupid other churches are for the way they do things. Stop defining yourselves by what you are not, and start worrying about what you are! I'm not saying we shouldn't look around us, but there is a HUGE difference between saying, "eh, that's not really for me, but if it works for you..." which is what I thought the emergent thingy was all about and saying "what you are doing is different from my church in the following ways and this is why it is stupid and wrong and if I had enough guts I'd say you were going to hell, but that's what a IFB would say so I can't say it but I really think it."
Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places (i.e. Ginkworld and The Ooze). As an example of what I mean, read this article by Frank Viola (imagine my disappointment when I realized he was not the same Frank Viola that led the Minnesota Twins to the World Series in 1987.) He's trying to be evenhanded, but the whole article is predicated on the fact that we all know how stupid this other person's church is. Grrrrrrr!
Maybe y'all can educate me on how "emergent" is any different in essentials from any other denomination. I already know we do things differently, but are we any less elitist? Do you have a good book I can read? If you tell me to read any more articles or anything else by John O'Keefe, I'll just pretend like I didn't hear you.
18 comments:
Weird. It says there's a comment, but then it says no comments left. Eh. Technology.
I'll leave it to y'all to suss out what we are, aren't or wanna be. Sorry to cop out. I just like all of you, and spending time with you and exploring stuff is fast becoming one of my very very favorite things.
Also -- YAY for the return of the BrickRant! Oh, how I have missed them. (I am 100 percent serious about that, if there's any doubt.) I love, love the honesty.
I need to say here that I don't think our church is really like a lot of those other stupid "emergent" churches. I mean we don't do.....
CRAP! Now I'm doing it.
Nevermind
Well, that's what you get for thinking too much.
I have yet to run into anyone -- and these are all church people, mind you, and not those loser stodgy denominational types (KIDDING) -- who has heard of the ermergent church movement. Apparently, it hasn't emerged too very far yet.
Actually ... I was about to suggest reading Searching for God Knows What (at least I think that's the name of the book I just read) by Donald Miller. And ... I think I pretty much agree with you about the "emergent" movement. Or any movement for that matter. If you study the process or life cycle of institutions you'll see that they all pretty much follow the same same cycle. For what it's worth. And it's what I appreciate about our church, we do not just do different things for the sake of being different, I think we do them because we're honestly trying them out and trying to seek after God. I've met John O'Keefe and he's honestly trying to do that too ... (in the fwiw category) ... but too many people are just following him in form and not in their hearts, which makes it all pretty shallow. They should be following God for themselves, not JO'K. Sorry ... this got pretty long. Anyway ... liked this post.
examples, man, we need examples. What are the buzzwords of which you speak, etc?
Conversation
"Community of Faith"
Postmodern
even "emerging"
Missional
etc.
words can have meanings and a reality that are legitimate even if overused. (i've seen people deny the reality of a term they didn't even have a bad definition for.)
but just like the old terms -- you shouldn't need the new ones to express your faith. (or church.)
the books are primarily for those who need to unlearn. i think the interview is meant to be just that -- showing church leaders (via a typified church, not a specific one) the water they swim in.
the books (and the emergent movment) can also be/become (as you astutely observed) a new formula. and a new system. my thoughts when you encounter that -- run away!!! run away!!! run away!!!
I am soooo overdosed on christian buzz words. And formulas for anything ministry/christian for that matter. I don't give a crap about what methods are used as long as they are from the basic heart that Jesus set forth. And as long as they don't time warp me back to my recent past, because I think those methods have a very wrong motivation behind them once you get through all the layers of reasons for why we do what we do.
I'm almost at the point where I don't give a crap about the church at large in that I have no desire to control them/ even influence them. I think it's a ship too large to steer. The motivations behind what is done and the way it is done are centuries old, even in the newest movements. I think it has more to do with human nature than God.
I'm almost at the place where I don't want to be called a Christian but rather a Christ follower because I don't feel a lot of identity with much of the Christian world - but then it would be another label and I've already heard it used so it could become another buzzword which would be oh so loathsome to me.
Anyways I've been in enough Christian movements. It doesn't develop the heart. It makes you feel cool and that God likes you more because He chose to reveal His 'inside info' to you - so you think. It's really a discusting one-upmanship that goes on and on. Competing to be the best Christian out there - to know what God is doing right this very second and to ride his next wave.
I just don't even think that's how God operates. We have to take everything organic and homogenize it and package it. We can't just drink it and let it soak into our bones.
oh yea? well, emerge from THIS rebuttle! http://tortilini.blogspot.com/2005/10/is-mars-hill-better-than-emergent.html
oh yea? well, emerge from THIS rebuttle! http://tortilini.blogspot.com/2005/10/is-mars-hill-is-also-system.html
oh yea? well, emerge from THIS rebuttle! ooops, found a mistake... try this: http://tortilini.blogspot.com/2005/10/mars-hill-is-also-system.html
you mean I wrote all that over a misunderstanding in your semantics? I actually suspected that. but I wanted to work out what i was thinking on paper anyway. And I really am glad you didn't stop writing due to the abortion issue. we're not an honest community, I think, without conflict. And your blogs really help me to think outside my narrow mind.
you mean I wrote all that over a misunderstanding in your semantics? I actually suspected that. but I wanted to work out what i was thinking on paper anyway. And I really am glad you didn't stop writing due to the abortion issue. we're not an honest community, I think, without conflict. And your blogs really help me to think outside my narrow mind.
Israel! Hit refresh!
All of these posts and nobody mentioned the hilarity of the Frank Viola reference. Beautiful Schuyler!
I have been noticing in teaching my World History classes how the textbooks, assessments, and curriculum all teach the founders of the world's major religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, etc... I don't think any of these "founders" set out to found anything. People came along and institutionalized their philosphies. Such is human nature. We have been doing it for thousands of years and often it produces bad results. This is a good discussion because it helps us to recognize the problem and try avoid doing it ourselves.
right on ryan.
but your missing the business opportunity here ;)
e.g. http://jesusinc.com/
Ryan, the Frank Viola thing was my favorite part too. The rest of it was basically just a reason to mention and show a picture of good ol' Sweet Music Viola.
Stacy, I wish I could see when you added this comment, because I don't think I saw it before. Anyway, thanks for the pointers. And I hope I didn't come across as an illiformed baseless criticizer, though, in essence, that is precisely what I am. Sometimes I just worry that a group of wonderful and well-meaning practical idealists (like I imagine those at the core of the "emergent" movement to be) that don't have "any sort of agenda to initiate a denomination" but also don't have an agenda to NOT become a denomination will end up as one. Which is maybe just the natural way of things. The next generation of followers of Jesus will need an establishment to emerge from and find there own way and if that establishment is us, maybe it's not such a bad thing. If, by being ourselves and going where we feel led, we become anathema to some in the future and it leads them to find God in there own right, so be it. It can be our way of bringing about the kingdom from the seat of power.
I hope this made at least a modicum of sense.
Post a Comment