Emerging Church Critiqued

Critical comments received third-hand don't really help, and they can leave a bad after-taste, as you've encountered.

From my experience in the institutional church, I'd reckon that there's also a kind of jealousy about the flexibility and the possibilities in these new forms of church, so the attitudes are both pro. and con. I do know that outward focus (both in evangelism and in social action) is also point of contention and frustration in many smaller struggling churches too, so maybe there's a little bit of displacement going on.

At LivingRoom (I'll "come out" here: we've been coming for the last months, and we're becoming a part of the group) we'll face a challenge to not become a purely inwardly focussed clique as we grow, but get engaged in the community in various ways, both individually and as a group. The nice thing about LivingRoom (and other small forms of church) is that the boundary between the individual and the group is more permeable. Inviting someone 'to church' is as easy and natural as inviting someone to dinner with friends. Getting 'the church' involved in some activity is remarkably like inviting your friends around to help out. This flexibilty is a wonderful thing, but it comes at a cost: the risk that you lose your centre. That's where a solid kind of focus (regular practices of prayer, reading, reflection, liturgy, etc.) give the thing its backbone and character.

Or so I reckon, anyway. It's this kind of combination of the grounded and the flexible that excites me about the future.

Greg Restall » 29 July, 2004 12:22 PM

Well if you're attracting criticism, you must be doing something right(!)

"A church that doesn't provoke any crises, a gosepl that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin, a word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of the society in which it is being proclaimed - what gospel is that? Very nice, pious considerations that don't bother anyone, that's the way many would like preaching to be. Those preachers who avoid every thorny matter so as not to be harassed, so as not to have conflicts and difficulties, do not light up the world they live in." -- Archbishop Oscar Romero (I've been reading a lot of Romero lately)

Steve Bogner » 29 July, 2004 12:31 PM

i'm probably one of the pseudo-critiquers (is that a word?), d. i've been involved in a lengthy email tete-a-tete w/ a friend who is planting churches in kentucky that are definitely in the "emerging" mold, while i am on my way toward becoming an episcopal priest. can't get much more divergent paths than those. my main concerns about post-evangelicals and the emerging church have been (a) the risk that we will "out-relevant" ourselves, ironically succumbing to the post-modern culture to which we claim to be bringing the gospel; (b) that "no church form" has in actually become a "church form" and, therefore, is subject to being championed and attacked in the "my way's best" argument; (c) what seems like -- to us on the inside, especially of the mainlines -- a rush for the exits, leaving the orthodox voices in the increasingly liberal churches all alone out there.

look, maybe i'm just jealous and afraid of getting old. i do pray for you, though, and i look in on your 'blog every day. i hope to post some more about this on mine in the coming days, so i'd love to have your voice there. thanks for being part of this conversation.

~ sam

sam » 29 July, 2004 12:54 PM

good post, i am a critic of the movement as i've witnessed it in the states and a huge fan of the expressions i've seen in the uk. my primary critique is a limited theological vision offered by an often homogenous cadre of practitioners. i hope that whatever or whoever is emerging will seek to be in serious conversation with theological and political voices from the margins in the midst of discovering emergent liturgies.

tim » 29 July, 2004 1:25 PM

thanks for posting this. it really resonates with the questions moot is starting to ask and be asked. I think there are clearly two opposing strands of thought here - one that says that misisonal activity (including social activism) is worked out by the individual members of the churc in their daily rythms (as you suggest) and the other opinion is that the church per se should be involved in missional activity as a community.

moot is similar to livingroom in that many people are involved in the former sort of activity, but we as a group are wrestling with the second opinion.

I presonally think that in the end we need to end up with both, although being a small group we would network to do the community-wide missional stuff.

In London at the moment some of the groups are looking to get together to see how we can pool our resources into the issue of human trafiking (which is a big problem in London) - whether collectively as groups we can support already in place ministries and how we can best use our varying gifts in this area.

I hope that this could be a catalyst that enables us to see the possibility that we could do things as a community if we have a good focus and make sure it doesn't burn us out.

gareth » 29 July, 2004 8:25 PM

Just some random thoughts in response to Darren's initial post...

The questions being asked of you are pretty much the same questions that you would have asked of the 'insitutional church' when you embarked on your journey into living as a missional community. If you hadn't of asked them, you would not be doing what you're doing.

The fact that more and more people are starting to ask the same questions of you should be an encouragement. The more people that ask them, the more that will recognise the changing culture we are living in and how 'emerging churches' are placed to remain relevant. A measure of success perhaps?

The critiques will always happen. And whilst outsiders will constructively criticise the Living Room in their discussions, you're own group will discuss your abilities as a leader - how they agree with some things you are trying to achieve, what your strengths and growths areas are and so on. You'll never be there for the discussions, but it is a natural part of community. How often have you invited John Howard to defend himself when you have been talking about government policy?

The best defence is to keep your integrity, remain true to your calling, sift through the feedback you get and take on board that which is helpful. There's usually an element of truth there somewhere.

Both of the criticisms you've mentioned could be levelled at any small, but growing, faith community. Easy to become a holy huddle and cater only for our own. Perhaps it's worth spending some time thinking on how you can best equip your community to 'maintain the mission' when they go to their workplaces. It sounds to me like there is some significant things taking place, all of which could be celebrated in the times you gather.

Anyway, like I said. Random thoughts on the coffee table for you to do what you like with.

Storyteller » 29 July, 2004 11:31 PM

Where are the programs!? How does anything get done? How may people you got? Who's in charge?

Hmm, questions asked usually outside even a near full understanding of what's going on. So, it's very difficult to answer them given the prejudication that's going on in the minds of the askers.

Rather than writing things all over again that I've said before again and again, I may just re-post on my blog. I might - not sure if I want the trouble it will inevitably cause. I'll just say one little thing though: that the phenomenon of the "postmodern church" as observed in the West, does NOT necessarily equal the phenomenon known as the "emerging church." There are ovelaps, and language has become confusing of late, but I'm looking at two different things going on.

What is the point for those who critique? This is a question I've had. We critique, yes - because we are in a process of reconstruction. We've stepped out and are making sure we don't step back into the same patterns we've critiqued. Makes sense to me. So why are others critiquing us? Doesn't seem to have much constructive purpose most of the time.

Yeah, many "emerging folk" have done the same kind of simply tearing down kind of talk - not good either. That being different than deconstruction for the purpose of redefinition and reconstruction. This, ultimately, for the whole Church, IS constructive. OK, I'll leave it at that. Really, questioning things is good but not just to say, "you suck."

+ Alan » 30 July, 2004 12:14 AM

Every great movment of God has had it's share of detractors. The Martin Luther, Wesley brothers, William Booth, Charles Finney, Smith Wigglesworth, etc. all experineced harsh criticism. Now, I don't know if this movement is as great as the Protestant Reformation etc. However, criticism, can be considered as a positive in that it could indicate that we are headed in the right direction. And it certainly is expected. Iow, something would be wrong if we weren't getting criticised.

The emerging church phenmenon is rather new. Expecting immediate results from it is really unfair. It often takes many years to see the bigger picture results from a move of God. People are always so very myopic and impatient in their observations of effectiveness. And I would argue also that the critics likely have entirely different measuring tools than we do. If they are looking for numbers, there's a distinct polarized difference right there. They are looking for proverbial apples when we are growing oranges. Chances are they won't be happy no matter what.

The Bible says "the fear of man is a snare" for a reason. Our responsibility is ultimately unto God...not to try to please some old guard who wants to hang on to their comfort zones. If they wish to remain there, so be it...and blessing on them. But we must be faithful to the call that God has given us.

Rich » 30 July, 2004 12:51 AM

i'm a fairly new visitor to your blog, but thought i'd put my $.02 in anyway.

i'm on staff at a local church that's trying to figure out what "emerging" is going to look like for us. being a church of about 1200 that is steeped in a religious tradition that doesn't do change well it is going to be interesting over the next few years to see what church is going to look like.

i took a class this past semester (continuing ed kinda stuff) that looked at the history of theology and the major shifts that have taken place over the centuries. the pattern that i noticed was that each "new" thinker was branded by those behind and those ahead as either a liberal or a stick in the mud. now to look back at what some were calling liberal seems almost silly, but at the time a new idea strikes fear in the heart of an older regime until it has time to solidify and stand the test of time. before long the new idea is an old idea and will be resistant to the next new idea to come along.

with that being said, i think that for the most part the "emerging movement" (however we want to define or not define it) seems to be on the right track. sure there are those that respond to the current epistemology in a reactionary sort of way, but those voices are needed as well in the process of change to signal to the rest of us that something's gotta give. what i've seen so far from the livingroom has been good stuff and not too reactionary. my advice would be to hear the voices of criticism and critique as natural feedback in the change process, listen to what they have to say, sift through and find whatever truth God is giving to you through them, and continue on the path that you've been called to. two things to remember on the journey, "God is faithful. Change is hard!"

chris » 30 July, 2004 12:53 AM

As an 'outsider' I'll post my 2p as well. My perception of LivingRoom and the concept of Emerging Church (and admittedly it is only through this blog) is that it provides a unique space in the Christian community. Sort of like a beautiful orchid in a garden of great variety. An orchid isn't to everybody's taste, but for those who love special and rare orchids: it is a thing of wonder and great beauty.

My perception from reading your blog is that your church provides spiritual solace, and a chance to live the Christian message, in a special way. Don't lose that to try and satisfy the desires of those who like 'other' ways of church.

Maryam » 30 July, 2004 2:52 AM

Woo hoo! I can load your site again! I don't know what changed, but I can access this site for the first time in months (from Seattle). More comments later, just celebrating now.

Justin Baeder » 30 July, 2004 7:57 AM

Some encouragement, in case it will help (its funny how criticism pierces to the quick, while encouragement glances off sometimes, isn't it?).

I think what you're feeling is no different than what the early church felt. When I read 1st, 2nd or 3rd John I think that is one of the questions he was wrestling with. He gives some criteria for knowing whether someone is from God, or not.

I think one of the ways you can know if someone is in touch with God in an honest way is their ability to listen. By listening I mean is someone asking you a question, wanting an answer? Or are they asking you a question as a non sequitor, political way of putting you down and making themself feel better. There is a big difference. If someone's ears are closed, if they have it all figured out, if they look at the world (and the church) and see no questions, see no conflicts, see no inconsistencies, then why would they even ask any questions at all, unless it is to firmly hammer down and stomp out anything/anyone that would dare to raise their head and suggest that the world (and the church) are not perfect, are perhaps not even fair, and that perhaps 'the way it has always been done' no longer fits the walk Jesus has you on personally.

Its a flavor I'm talking about I suppose, and you know what I mean if you've ever tasted it. A lack of listening. A conversation that is over before it begins. I think any evangelism that comes from someone not willing to really hear only works IN SPITE OF the messenger, not because of them. God doesnt seem to get bogged down, however in these little petty distinctions (but I would, if I were God).

So two people had a conversation. The first man was right in his own eyes, and successful by the world's measures, and felt justified from the moment he woke up to the moment he fell asleep. The world was an orderly place, and everything was squirrelled away in its proper box. There was no situation or subect that did not have a proper explanation, and a proper response. The second man had self doubts, struggled with his own motivations, and wondered which way he should vote on the upcoming elections, just like he wondered if he should give money to the homeless guy that looked hungover. This man didnt watch the news with self righteousness, but felt sad for the people flashing across his screen, wondering if the criminal felt remorse or only anger, wondering if the victim of a crime would ever recover emotionally, and sometimes wondered at the sheer number of hurt in the world.
These two men had a conversation. The first left feeling proud and justified, feeling as if he had set someone straight, and 'really gave it to him'. The second man left wondering if the first man was right, and decided to really pray about his life patterns, willing to change if God led him.

I think you're more like that second man, which is the hero of that story, if you ask me.

Mark Rickards » 30 July, 2004 11:17 PM

I believe that the test of the 'success' of any church is measured by the Life-Change of those who pass through our doors or who encounter us on the street. My church is not an 'emerging' church; we're more of a pragmatic evangelical church. We can't measure how effective we are being without looking at how Christ is transforming people. We don't do "programs" either, as a rule. We try facilitate a connection between those who come and God.

How do we measure success? By evaluating whether or not we are accomplishing the purpose for which Christ birthed our church? Our Purpose Statement is "Bringing people to Jesus to build a community of fully devoted followers of Christ."

Ronnie Whitehead » 31 July, 2004 5:47 AM

one thing nobody ever answers when I raise it is that the gospel calls us to be in the world but not of it, yet emerging church bases it's theology on postmodernism, a cultural worldly trend. How can you justify such a move?

Lucy

Lucy » 2 August, 2004 3:03 AM

I just love that question. Where are the converts? Hasn't anyone read Barna's report that the number of unchurched has DOUBLED in America since 1991 to 72 million. And with Gen Y just entering their adult spiritual journey, every trend seems to indicate that this number will increase rapidly.

WHERE ARE THE CONVERTS?

Great question, maybe that is why there are some people who are trying something different. I believe that the SAME techniques that grew enormous churches in California and Chicago are the SAME techniques that cause the mainstream evangelical church to NOT see the increasing numbers of unchurched in America.

Isn't it possible that the two are connected? Is it possible that building larger churches has the unintended consequence of also creating larger number of unchurched.

I think this is a fair question.

Tim Bednar » 2 August, 2004 11:37 PM

Hi Lucy. That's a good question, and I wouldn't want it to go unanswered. I can't speak for "emerging church" people in general. (My experience here is pretty minimal.) But as a philosopher (that's my day job) I see it like this: the best stuff in church doesn't 'base' its theology on postmodernism or anything else. Its focus is on Jesus, and its heart is for God's community and God's work in the world.

Now, if your mission involves working with and talking with your community, it helps to talk in a language that fosters communication. It's rather like Paul in the Areopagus quoting the Greek poets as a point of contact with his audience there (Acts 17).

Being aware of your own cultural context is also important when it comes to understanding your own habits and current practice. Which of our usual ways of 'doing church' have been swallowed whole from our own cultural context? Which are serving the needs of God's kingdom well and which would have worked in a different context and in different communities? It's good to ask these questions, and to be truly in the world we're reaching, but not captured by it. The possibilities in these experiments in church life are exciting!

Greg Restall » 3 August, 2004 10:08 AM

greg thanks but the lads who we help have probably never heard of postmodernism, and they are human beings so it involves just talking like humans talk.

Thanks for your explanation. I am not being facetious, but seriously in our everyday mission it's probably irrelevant.

Lucy » 3 August, 2004 10:12 AM

We've been doing stuff in the community for 7 years and never studied anything about postmodernism. It's new on me.

Learning is valuable in it's place, but I just wonder how much of this in the church is due to a need to have everything neatly planned out, when actually it's just a simple process of relating one human to another?

Lucy

Lucy » 3 August, 2004 10:20 AM

Sure thing! I think we don't disagree. I don't know of anyone saying that everyone doing church has to go out and read up on "postmodernism," but like I said, I don't have a comprehensive view of the scene. For some people, it helps them think about what they're doing.

Greg Restall » 3 August, 2004 12:43 PM

Good questions Lucy,

I would suggest that perhaps studying 'Post Modernism' may or may not be helpful depending on your context. What I find more useful is to study the culture we live in. Try and get your head around the world view of those you're working with, understand the pressures they face, the symbols they use, understand the places they gather, the values they have, the way in which they think. If we want to do good mission then we need to have this sort of understanding so we know how to respond with the gospel of Jesus.

That is what Paul does in Athens when he notices there is the idol to the unnamed God. He found a connecting point in the culture and worked from there.

The thing is that our culture is changing - in some places its changing faster than others but culture is changing - what people who talk heaps about 'post modernism' are really saying is that the way people think, live, make decisions etc is changing and that we need to understand these changes in order to be effective in mission and responding to the world we live in.

I don't know too many people who are doing this 'emerging church' thing that base their theology on Post modernism - I think Jesus is a much better place to start - what many are doing however is doing some cultural analysis and considering that as they think about mission and church.

Not sure I've made that very clear... interested in your thoughts.

Darren Rowse » 3 August, 2004 4:51 PM

Well it is the way it comes across I must say. The gospel appears very mixed up with postmodernist thought.

I would concur with your points, but I tend to discover about people's worlds in interaction with them, rather than studying them from afar. People's lives struggles joys interests are something I find out about by asking them. And living in the community I only have to look around me to see the hangouts of people. I think we are on similar wavelengths, but the style is different.

There is an importance though on not preempting people. A need to take each individual as they are, and not compartmentalise them on the basis of our preconceived ideas. It seems there could be a danger of that in the approach you outline. Striking a balance seems important.

And also experience. Reading about someone's ideas on something won't help me know how to deal with someone who comes in in the early hours distressed or whatever situation arises. That calls for the power of God.

Lucy

Lucy » 3 August, 2004 5:02 PM