emerging mosaic

It may be self serving but I am encouraged when I see others speaking out for a post emergent future for the emerging church. Here is a snippet of a review from a talk given by Jason Clark titled The Emerging Church: Another Dead-End or the Hope of the Church?

First, it must become a deeper church by valuing old, new and even Christian faith.

Second, following the example and work of such theologians as Stan Grenz, Jon Franke, Scott McKnight, and Ray Anderson, it must become a theological church by developing a theology robust enough not to be either threatened or co-opted by postmodernism.

Third, it must become a Biblically-informed church by reading and re-reading the Bible as the church- and culture- critiquing set of authoritative texts that it is.

Fourth, following the ancient church on the road to depth, it must become a creedal church, checking the individualistic impulse towards fashioning the church in the image of ourselves.

Fifth, it must become a confessional church, not to celebrate sectarianism, but to show the richness and vitality of a deeper church. “Maybe then,” says Jason, the emerging church’s legacy will be that it was “the response of the church catholic to our emerging culture … known for it’s vibrant ecumenical depth, with a life giving theology, rooted in a new Biblicism, growing counter to our individualized culture, as it affirms the creeds, with a plurality of local confessions from communities growing in faith, with new Christians handing their lives over to the way of Christ.” We can only hope the emerging church will have such an impact.

I couldn’t agree more with Jason’s assessment of an emerging future for the church. His observations address the tendency of many in the emergent conversation to act as it they are inventing the church all over again. Furthermore that re-invention tends toward the image of those who are doing the re-inventing that is to say white, liberal, male and academic. While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of that it has not created space for the richness of the church which comes from its history and the diversity of its members.

That has unfortunately caused some to step out of or beyond “the conversation” having become frustrated with perceived the intransigence of the emergent hierarchy, (yes there is a hierarchy) around these issues. Thanks to Jason for being a bold and prophetic. Maybe his voice will be heard and stimulate where others have not. 

Popularity: 28% [?]

Technorati Tags: ancient_church, church_catholic, emergent, emerging church, emerging_church, faith, jason_clark, postmodernism, post_emergence, theology

I am preparing for a couple of worship messages based on Act 2:42-44Act 2:42-44
English: Contemporary English Version (1999) - CEV
42 They spent their time learning from the apostles, and they were like family to each other. They also broke bread g broke bread: They ate together and celebrated the Lord's Supper. and prayed together. Life among the Lord's Followers ⁴³ Everyone was amazed by the many miracles and wonders that the apostles worked. ⁴⁴ All the Lord's followers often met together, and they shared everything they had.

and while browsing the religion section of a local bookstore I came across a great book find. A couple of dusty feet caught my eye.  They were on the cover of a book called dust off their feet- lessons from the early church by Brian McLaren and Chris Seay. The title doesn’t fully describe this gem. I describe it as a postmodern reading and commentary of the book of acts. The back cover asks the question, “Did you know the first church in acts was the original emerging church?”

I’ve already  got some good insight from this retelling and commentary on Acts and I recommend to all of those seeking to reclaim the passion and purpose  early church and rebirth it into our emerging contexts.

Popularity: 30% [?]

Technorati Tags: acts, bible, books, Brian_McLaren, chris-seay, emerging church, emerging_church, post_modern_world, spiritual-practice

I got the latest Emergent/C (which is the newsletter/communication piece of Emergent Village) today and it included this quote.

We in Emergent Village are poised for an important year in 2007. A pivotal year, I’d say. Lots of people are watching—some with high hopes that EV might be a part of a re-birth of Christian faith, a revolution in what it means to follow Jesus. (Others, of course, are plotting our demise J.)

The part I highlighted above about revolution has got me thinking. Is that why some people are “plotting the demise” of EV. Would it be more accessible for people to think of the emerging emergent church as an evolution of how the church practices the faith rather than a revolution? Can the emergent folks make claim to being the vanguard of a revolutionary movement in following Jesus (especially when it is still so monolithic in its racial ethnic makeup)?
Kester Brewin in his book Complex Christ suggests that emergence is more closely connected to evolution than revolution. Revolution he continues correlates more with insurgence than emergence. The point of view from which we view the emerging church and emergent conversation determines how we pursue the developing practice of the faith and who ends up coming along for the ride.

So is it evolution or revolution? Maybe it is both and what say you?

Popularity: 23% [?]

Technorati Tags: christian_faith, emergence, emergent_church, emergent_village, emerging church, emerging_church, evolution, follow_jesus, Kester-Brewin, revolution, spiritual-practice

Alex Mcmanus of Mosaic Church in LA has an interesting observation and reflection on the emerging church and Mosaic’s link to things emerging into the mystic… » Is Mosaic a part of the Emerging Church?

Here’s the interesting observation by someone outside the church

Recently a Los Angeles Times reporter was given the assignment to write an article on the “Emerging Church.” In doing her research she called me to talk about Mosaic. After she did her research and wrote the article, I spoke to her about why she chose not to include Mosaic. She had concluded from her research that Mosaic was not an emerging church because emerging churches tended to be “small, white and inward looking.” 

And the reflection from Alex on emerging church 

Mosaic is different from the “Emerging Church” not just in terms of ambition, ethnicity, and mission, but also in attitude and thinking. Many of those who take on the mantle of the Emerging Church seem to me to be burned out Church leaders who needed to bail on a Christianity that offered pat but empty answers. I consider this a good move. But, in contrast, Mosaic is more like a convert who is full of enthusiasm, joy and hope. The new convert moves with speed and intentionality toward Jesus, towards the scriptures, towards Christ following community, and towards the world in service and mission.

Everything Alex says and Mosaic LA  does is not gospel or perfect they don’t pretend that it is. But I think many who are embracing the emerging church mantle in the U.S. would do well to pay attention to the increasing perception of the make up and approach of the emerging/emergent church that seems to be more about disenchanted Christian than connecting people to God.

Popularity: 41% [?]

Technorati Tags: Alex-Mcmanus, diversity, emergent_church, emerging church, emerging_church, missional_church, mosaic, Mosaic-LA, spiritual-practice

In my recent web browsing of things emergent. I came across some posts that suggest that my post emergent perspective is not a fluke.

Jaimie Smith of Generous Orthodoxy ThinkTank: Emergent Reflections Post-Divergent points out several distinctions he recently experienced at an emergent event in Geneva between the US EC and the expression of emergence in Europe and the U.K . Things I have been saying is what makes the EC conversation in the US so limited and uninviting to people of color.

• This is not an “academic” conversation.
• There are hints of post-emergence afoot. 
• There are surprising elements of anti-intellectualism in the conversation

Jamie Arpin-Ricci is posting about being a An Emerging & Affirming Critic From Within

However, the critics we could perhaps learn the most from are those within this emerging community itself. The value of affirming critics from within cannot be overstated, as who better knows the dynamics, intentions and convictions better than those who share them. This should never exclude the other critiques from without, but if we can embrace the necessary humility and patience, we have a wealth of wisdom that could help us move towards maturity. That is where I hope my future lies on this journey- to be an affirming critic from within the emerging culture. I have been deeply moved and encouraged by all that I have discovered on the way.

I don’t know that I have Jaimie’s patience but I appreciate his humility and I’m glad he is bold enough to be a critic from within. Since I have never felt I was in I guess I will remain an affirming critic from without.

Jason Clark has a post  Love/Hate the emerging church from 2004

Well here in no order, and remember from my experience, in small corner of the emerging church are the things I have learned most, and enjoyed most about the emerging church, and some experiences that make me despair the most about emerging church too.

He really sums up my ambivalence toward the current state of of the EC.

Interestingly all of them have lived and/or experienced the emerging church outside the US. I think it is important that those of us who have roots outside white middle class America tend to see this emergent/emerging church thing a bit differently than the current dominant group. The question that continually arises for me is simple. Is there room in the EC tent for those whose perspective is even a bit divergent from the status quo or has the "conversation" devolved into defense of anti-church, radical liberalism as some critics suggest.

I wish I knew the answer to that but I don’t think post emergence is a fluke! So here is my post emergent must list. It seems to me that;

• We need to be more than rescuers of the Bible and Jesus from modernist theology.
• We need to be more than critics of the fundamentalist evangelical spiritual practice that has distorted much Jesus message.
• We need to be more than purveyors of some new anti prophetic, anti charismatic, anti-church, politically liberal, new expression of the Christian faith.
• We need to be more than spiritual option for people who don’t like church, have been hurt by the church or think the church is unnecessary
• We need to be revolutionary in more than just our thinking and theology.
• We need to have more than just a visual affinity with the poor and underprivileged.
• We need to move beyond warm and fuzzy gatherings where we can all feel good about ourselves, to risking self to be impactful in world so we can see the kingdom of God we hold high begin to be revealed in our world

This is just a start what can you add?

Popularity: 43% [?]

Technorati Tags: divergent, emergent, emergent_church, emerging church, emerging_church, faith, post_emergence, theology

This morning I opened up my email inbox and there was this article about Driscoll defining emergent/emerging churches is a way "we can all understand" Monday Morning Insight Weblog: It has link to a PDF of an article by Mark in the Criswell Journal (which also has an interview with Brian McLaren giving his perspective that the good people over at Monday Morning Inisght don’t link to) and a previous article by Ed Stetzer using the same categories as Driscoll.

After staking his claim to being of founder of the emerging church in the US Driscoll goes on to categorize the emerging church (based on Stetzer’s categories) into three groups as follows.

Relevants are theologically conservative evangelicals who are not as interested in reshaping theology as much as updating such things as worship styles, preaching styles, and church leadership structures. Their goal is to be more relevant; thus, appealing to postmodernminded people. Relevants commonly begin alternative worship services within evangelical churches to keep generally younger Christians from leaving their churches. They also plant new churches to reach emerging people. Relevant leaders look to people such as Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell as like-minded leaders. The common critique of Relevants is that they are doing little more than conducting “cool church” for hip young Christians and are not seeing significant conversion growth. Within the Relevants there is also a growing group of outreach-minded Reformed Relevants, which look to men like John Piper, Tim Keller, and D. A. Carson for theological direction.

Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical and dissatisfied with the current forms of church (e.g. seeker, purpose, contemporary). They bolster their critique by noting that our nation is becoming less Christian and that those who profess faith are not living lives markedly different than non-Christians; thereby, proving that current church forms have failed to create life transformation. Subsequently, they propose more informal, incarnational, and organic church forms such as house churches. Reconstructionists, who are more influenced by mainline Christian traditions, will also use terms like “new monastic communities” and “abbess.” Reconstructionist
leaders look to such people as Neil Cole and Australians Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. The common critique of Reconstructionists is that they are collecting disgruntled Christians who are overreacting to the megachurch trend but are not seeing significant conversion growth.

Revisionists are theologically liberal and question key evangelical doctrines, critiquing their appropriateness for the emerging postmodern world. Reconstructionists look to such leaders as Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt as well as other Emerging Christians. The common critique of Revisionists is that they are recycling the doctrinal debates of a previous generation and also not seeing significant conversion growth.

A couple of observations  

Why is it that we are so eager to put each other in boxes and define groups? Is driscoll’s true modernism showing through. He is just adding to the fodder for those who want to quiet prophetic or more radical voices in the conversation by labeling them. While I may disagree with the theological direction some of folks are going in I defend their right to go there. But I guess this is the consequence and they need to be prepared for that.

The article is called a pastoral perspective on the emerging church I guest hat is in contrast to the non-pastoral perspective of Driscoll’s recent Christianity Today rant.

There is no mention of the missional church folks. I think they are another stream in the conversation unless he covers that in mentioning Hirsch.

It is strange that he feels compelled to mention as a critique that these streams don’t see any significant conversion growth.  I do feel sometimes there isn’t enough attention paid to being evangelistic conversion growth isn’t the only paradigm. How about transformational growth?

There are several other things in the article that I explore at a later date but for now let me look at Driscoll’s attempts to define. Driscoll interestingly enough doesn’t put himself in any of the categories but the inferences are clear in the article.  Relevants good. Revisionists bad! Recontructionists eh?

BTW no people of color mentioned

Brian Mclaren’s definition of emerging church in his interview in Criswell

"the emerging church" (a term I don’t particularly like because it can sound divisive) is really "the church that is engaging with the emerging culture."

Read the interview Brian is as articulate, gracious and thoughtful as ever despite some loaded questions.

My favorite definition of the emerging church comes form Kester Brewin om The Complex Christ

we need to become wombs of the divine and completely rebirth the church into a host culture.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Technorati Tags: Brian_McLaren, emergent, emerging church, emerging_church, evangelicals, evangelical_churches, faith & culture, mark_driscoll, spiritual-practice

Mark Driscoll has issued a public apology for the pretty ugly comments he made about Brian Mclaren and Doug Pagitt on leadership journal blog. Here’s a clip of the apology

I have come to see that my comments were sinful and in poor taste. Therefore, I am publicly asking for forgiveness from both Brian and Doug because I was wrong for attacking them personally and I was wrong for the way in which I confronted positions with which I still disagree. I also ask forgiveness from those who were justifiably offended at the way I chose to address the disagreement. I pray that you will accept this posting as a genuine act of repentance for my sin.

On the one hand this is very courageous of him. ON the other hand he seems to have done it in response to some self interest. (He does have a new book coming out)

He kindly said that my reputation was growing as a guy with good theology, a bad temper, and a foul mouth. This is not what I want to be known for. And after listening to the concerns of the board members of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network

Read the rant, then head over to his blog and read the apology then decide for yourself.

Popularity: 17% [?]

Technorati Tags: Brian_McLaren, emerging church, emerging_church, leadership_journal, mark_driscoll, missional_church

I had an interesting conversation with another urban church planter yesterday. He shared that he was rethinking how being a missional church (along the lines of the The Shaping of Things to Come) would fit into his ministry with people of diversity in an urban church context. The forced choice between being attractional and missional seemed well forced.

I’ve felt this tension often the past few months and I’ve wondered why it is that the response of some many who critique the modern church for its imbalances seem to set up their own imbalances by going to the opposite extreme. Does it have to be either missional or attractional? Shouldn’t our strategy (oops bad word the modern church uses it) for engaging people in a post modern world be a both/and/also not just and either/or? Doesn’t Jesus attract people and scripture suggest that we we should as well?

Why does it seem that the emerging church is experiencing this same drift to extremes theology or praxis, black or white, missional or attractional) as other iterations of the church? Are we as post modern as we think? Or maybe we are just in a hyper modern transitional on our way to what the church is becoming. A community of theology& praxis, attractional and missional, with people, form all races. Is that the glimpse of the kingdom we ought to be?

How do we get there? More to come. for now sound off

Popularity: 22% [?]

Technorati Tags: church planting, church_planter, diversity, emerging church, emerging_church, missional_church, post_modern_world, praxis, spiritual-practice, theology, urban_church

As I share in a comment to the original post I was un prepared for the the nerve that this post has struck in the emerging church blogosphere. I think it is important to share the wealth of thought that is being generated on the subject. Not everyone sees it the way I do (that’s a good thing) but there’s a great deal of thoughtful conversation and for that I am grateful. So here’s some clips from around the blogosphere and responses to them.

In his post  Is Post-emergent Emerging? Michael Hamblin writes

 Although I have differing concerns about N.T. Wright than Andre, I do feel that there are too many people riding on the “N.T. Wright is cool” bandwagon. Too often it seems that before you can be part of the emerging conversation, you must be fluent in whatever Theological tongue or personality happens to be the fad of the moment, or you can add nothing of value to the conversation (which is to say, you are marginalized and excluded for not being into the hip new Theology). Lastly, reconciliation as a lifestyle is something under emphasized by both Evangelicals and emergents alike - but more on this another time.

He also offers a critique which has popped up in other places of my use of the word post-emergent to describe my current connection with the emergent conversation. I’m a bit ambivalent about the word post and underestimated the range of meaning that is has for folks. I use to to mean beyond as in I am being drawn beyond the limitation of the current conversation.

rhett at the The Colour & the Shape asks

I’d like to know more about the ‘European theological framework’ though. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure I understand what is meant by this. Either way, it’s sad that you feel that you can’t be included in the Emergent Conversation on your own merits. I can only put that down to your context. I know many people who would do their best to welcome you, or anyone else

some of his commenters write: Give us some books by other ethnicities we can read then. If you’re African American involved in the conversation, write book.

Another writes: Attacking or putting down one conversation does not promote another. For me I do not want to be apart of one group that is just tearing down another.

The European theological framework is the I reference is the approach that normalizes theological conversation about a white European/white American world view. This has the effect of excluding the voice of non euro theologians etc.

Tim Samoff writes

I guess I’m not ready to give up just yet (big—and true—change doesn’t happen quickly).

I haven’t given up I’m drawn to something more.

Jordon Cooper asks Is the emerging church really any different?

This(my post)  has been a discouraging post for me because I fear he is correct…

one Jordan’s  commenters writes: Surely the influence of Martin Luther King on the aspirations and ideals of the emerging church has been momentous? He was immensely inspired by Karl Barth, who I’m sure owed a debt of gratitude to that North African theologian of note, St Augustine.

To this I ask where is the influence of MLK evident? If there was real influence then the conversation like MLK would be multilingual in its  language of theology MLK was intentional about reading European theologians ( maybe he had to in order to included have the conversation) shouldn’t those in the emergent conversation have that kind of intentionality as well?

Jamie at Hey, Ya Know What? says of the conversation

It’s much like so many other Christian movements and institutions, it is very anglocentric. One of the things that drew me in early on was how this may finally be the thing that brings folks from different ethnic groups together. That is something important for my family. I want my kids, who already claim to be ‘both’ when faced with the "are you black or are you white" question, to see and practice a faith where both are present and celebrated in Christ.

subversive influence prognosticates

2006 will, I think, be a year where the emerging conversation starts to crystallize some of its theological common ground, but a lot of the emerging voices who have been at this a while are going to become less and less concerned with doxis and more and more concerned with praxis. That is to say, emerging churches that have been doing are going to start talking even less and doing even more. Some of this is characterized as weariness, but at a deeper level, I believe it’s the stirring of the Holy Spirit in these leaders.

I hope is is right and if he is I will be a part of that.

Finally Anthony Smith (a friend and who I might add is a brilliant guy) adds a historical perspective to what I am expressing

In his recounting of Guder’s thoughts he mentioned that there is a danger in the emerging church in not  thoroughly discerning its sharing in the American experience.  This has been one of the valid criticisms, I believe, of the emerging church conversation.  That somehow we have moved on from modernity and have found (and still finding) a faithful way to follow Jesus in postmodernity.  I believe this to be a dangerous temptation.  The temptation being that we have faithfully (possibly completely) named our capitulation to the bad habits of modernity.  The emerging church, in many ways, has the resources to ‘name’ these bad habits.  But one bad habit has gone typically unscathed in the broader conversation: the racial Constantinianism of North American Christianity.

That is my round up for now I am floored and humbled by the response to this and only pray that in some useful way I have helped move the conversation in a positive direction.

Popularity: 51% [?]

Technorati Tags: diversity, emergent, emerging_church, evangelicals, postmodern, reconciliation, spiritual-practice

At the risk of becoming what I have critiqued I think I ought to suggest what can happen beyond the talk about post emergent. A speech by Dr. King Where do we go from here: Chaos or community? that later became a book has formed a good starting point. The question of whether the conversation dissolves into chaos driven by neophilia (as "The project, the vision, the great new thing collapses.") or moves to a new place of community driven by the practice of reconciliation is at the core of any next steps. Here’s Dr. King’s which is insight still relevant today.

One of the great problems that the Negro confronts is his lack of power. Now, power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, and economic change.

You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that the concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites, polar opposites, so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. (Yes) Power at its best [applause], power at its best is love (Yes) implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.

Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.

How do people of color achieve purpose in the emerging church conversation? Is the conversation anemic in limitation of speaking the language of love without addressing the realities of power? Are we so satisfied with the  recapturing of the historic creeds that we not sought to live them as deeds?

I humbly suggest that the way forward is not only to ask the question Exclusion and Embrace?  as Volf appropriately does. But to move toward inclusion and embrace. By this I mean that for the emerging church conversation to forward it must do more than include people of color and those outside the dominant culture in teh conversation. It should embrace our world view and theology as equally valid in the conversation and not a secondary thought.

 Some ways this can be expressed concretely follow.

• Pursue a generous orthopraxis alongside the generous orthodoxy already being pursued. One should not be separated from the other it s a both and not either or.)
• Include more of the issues of people on the social margins in the conversation.
• Listen more to the voices  speaking for those on the social margins and outside the dominant culture.

What ideas do you have for the way forward?

Popularity: 36% [?]

Technorati Tags: emerging_church, generous_orthodoxy, orthopraxis, racial_reconciliation, reconciliation