this is Ken's comment to the last post (below):
"D.G., not having read the book, my comments are more about the whole "emergent" movement and are probably a bit out of context with your post -- BUT... With regards to point #1, I think that is my biggest issue with some of the writers/leaders of the emergent movement. Regardless of how the established Church (or denominations) have or still do miss the point -- the Church was God's idea. I don't think that just means some loose confederacy of people who make vaguely the same confession about Jesus Christ and then just stop worrying about the rest of orthodox belief. I believe that the organized Church is a vehicle of Christian community, of orthodox truth rooted in Scripture and Christian conversation, of commissioning and equipping people's calls to ministry, and of engaging the world in corporate mission and witness. I also believe that right belief is critical to right action!(I added some links to the books you suggested) (oh and here is another post talking about the Peterson book from a friend of mine Todd)
I've been reading a book called "Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail" by Robert Webber and another called "Working the Angles..." by Peterson. I think both of those books offer a healthy counterbalance to the McManus, Easum, McClaren, Sweet etc. crowd. ~Ken"
And here is my response:
Awesome Ken! Now I will have to add two more books to the shelf that I will never get to read, heh. But I see your point and that is kind of what this book (and you will find out in the next posts) is dealing with,and says that we need to stop thinking about emerging church, and see that the emerging church is just another expression of a larger deep church. Thanks for reading and please keep up the discussion..... but here is my thoughts to your point....
I do not think that "emerging" movement is doing away with the church....it is just putting it's focus on Kingdom...and not church...they realize that the church is a part of the Kingdom, but not vice versa. And when you realize that the kingdom should be the main focus, then you realize that the church is not the end, but it is a means with-in the Kingdom to be (all the things you listed: "a vehicle of Christian community, of orthodox truth rooted in Scripture and Christian conversation, of commissioning and equipping people's calls to ministry, and of engaging the world in corporate mission and witness"
And when Kingdom language is used it does promote a larger sense of the place of the church in the kingdom..and in my mind promotes more of an understanding of living missional in this world.
As a (loose) quote from Reggie McNeal says, "Christ did not say that he came to bring church and to bring it in abundance, he said 'life'...people do not wake up in the world and think to themselves, "man I need more church"', ha ha ha... Christ came to bring life in the world...and the church is not the end result of being in the kingdom, it is a life lived in relationship with allowing Christ to be your king. Now sure we all need support, equipping, encouraging, being help to our full potential, and that is the place and role of the church, but the church is in existence to take us to the next "place/level" in the Kingdom. The church is not the desired location for the end of the journey, it is just the airport hub (image from Reggie again) to help us get from here(our current faith/depth of relationship with Christ) to there (a deeper relationship with Christ that is missional at the very core of our being....i.e. Wesley would call it, entire sanctification)
But with all of that said, I do think that we are all saying the same thing, but putting the emphasis on a different terminology.
ALSO, Ken seriously keep reading the posts I put up from this book,because they are proposing that we should be seeing much larger in these regards (i.e. I read Kingdom mindedness) and think of the church in a much larger context, and they call it "deep church" (including all of church history, and high church, and house churches)...so anyway... anyone else want to add to the conversation?
Hey you! Jump on in! The friendship is warm and the discussion deep, welcome to growth! KUTPs!!!
Vblog!
6 comments:
Interesting discussion. It is often a matter of semantics for the same desire for the Christian church to find renewal. Love, Mom
I actually disagree with you Momma! It really is a matter of being able to think differently. Words are a large part of that, but the semantics must come with knowledge and action.
D.G., I agree that we both have a respectful view of the Church, but I believe the Church is more mystical than an airport hub. I often got theological papers corrected by seminary professors because I kept referring to the church with the female pronoun she/her. I did/do this because the Church is the Bride of Christ. I believe the Church is the literal Body of Christ that actualizes the ministry of Jesus in our world. The Church (empowered by the Holy Spirit) is how the Kingdom is being brought into human experience.
My critique of some of the leading writers in the "emerging" movement is that they view themselves as independent of the Church. That is the crux of The Barbarian Way by McManus. He even suggests that he prefers not to be called a Christian, but a barbarian or Christ-follower. I presume that this is to distinguish himself from all those "Christians" in the Church who don't "get-it" as well as he does.
I have no doubt that there is a LOT of missionary work to do inside of the organized Church (in fact I believe that is a significant part of my own calling), but I am not ready to distinguish myself as distinct from the Church.
Baptism was a gift that was celebrated in the community of the Church. We were commanded to celebrate that as part of our salvation journey. I believe that it was in that spirit that some Church Father made the statement, "There is no salvation apart from the Church."
Another thought... what I'm trying to get across here is that I get tired of the kind of criticism that seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of other people's faith, just because somebody has what they think is a novel idea to advance. This isn't new...the protestant reformation did it to the Roman Church a few hundred years ago. There were some pretty ridiculous things going on, particularly in Rome, but that didn't mean that the Church had become apostate and devoid of God's commitment to the Church and to act through the Church (even the Roman Church).
I believe some of the "emerging" church voices are acting as if they are embarrassed by members of their own family (specifically the Church). They think that if they change their own name, people won't get them confused with the other Christians that aren't as winsome, free, and enlightened as they are. That smells a bit like gnosticism to me.
Hey Ken...I was wondering if you were OK... I am very glad you came back to continue the discussion. (you know I love you man! ;) ) anyway..OK let me see if I can remember my thoughts when I first read your responses:
Of course the church is not an airport hub, just like the Kingdom is not a mustard seed, ha ha... and I know what you meant, but I had to give you a hard time... but the point of that was to show that the church has a purpose, and that it main purpose in this world was to grow people deeper into relationships with God, each other, and this world. And I thought his point was to say that sadly often most Christians stop at the point that it is there for them (and some even do a great job of there for God, but we must bring back a broader spectrum of the purpose of the church to the church and this world.
i totally agree with you and can not believe that they docked you for the feminine language of the church it is perfectly biblical..sorry about that... at least you can spell, that is what most of them docked me in my papers, heh heh.
And yes, the church empowered by the Holy Spirit is the embodment of Christ and the greatest means to bring people into relationship with God (i.e. read here
bringing people into the Kingdom").
but while my first views of the emergent church were what you say, "that they view themselves as independent of the Church" (or especially when I read some of Bryan McLaren's stuff) I feet like since it is so much based off of the deconstruction of the institution of or practices of the (big "c") Church, that they were coming across as desiring to be independent of the rich history and passion of the Church.
But, the more I got to read more and even meet a few of them I felt it was more of a desire not to be disassociated by the church, but a desire to put the emphasis on attempting to be the church, and reaching those that are not a part of it.
And like it or not in some cases as soon as a normal person hears that you are a Christian there is baggage that comes with it. And so they choose to use a different language to be better able to develop relationships with them and get to the deep rich heritage and history that is found in the (big "c") Church.
And of course I see McManus as attempting to encourage the church to be passionate about being a part of the kingdom of God and to live like a barbarian, willing to be sacrificial for this good news and to live the different kind of life that the Gospel offers...i.e. one that is selfless, sacrificial, and stretched beyond themselves into the people God is calling them (his Church) to be.
I have not felt that they are trying to distinguish them selves from away from the church, if that was the case I think that they would stopped pastoring in a local setting...and that has not happened.
And just lik eyou said the church has a history of those that question it, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Paul, Jesus, and this is not because they were attacking it, but they were living it out and passionately following their understood call from God, and to encourage the church to grow deeper in it's relationship with God, each other, and the world.
and as I read your last comment, "They think that if they change their own name, people won't get them confused with the other Christians that aren't as winsome, free, and enlightened as they are. That smells a bit like gnosticism to me."
All I can think about is Paul, "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
I see this passage as one of their influences... and your right we must hold each other to make sure they we stay in the world and not of it! Thanks for your comments and let's keep it up...and I am sure that I will get to hug you @ annual conference in a few weeks! Love you man, and seriously thank you for your thoughts and wisdom, I really appreciate these talks, because i know it forces growth in me and I hope that it does for you and those who read this as well.
D.G., there is a lot of baggage that some people attach to those who hale from Texas -- but that doesn't keep ya'll from proudly wearing the label. (Heh).
I just read the Church of the Resurrection's vision statement on their website. It says: "Resurrection's Vision: To transform lives, to transform our community and to renew the mainline church."
I believe that nothing inspires renewal in the mainline Church like evangelistic and transformational success inspired by the Holy Spirit when we are passionate and obedient.
I love calls for the Church to return to our "first love." I love to be challenged and inspired by the McLaren's and McManus' of the world.
I see a difference in how some leaders are going about offering those challenges. Some seem to be doing so from within the family. They may be a cranky old prophet that makes everyone uncomfortable, but they are still in the family.
Others seem to be questioning whether or not the Church (read mainline organized Church) is still a viable vehicle for reaching our world.
I believe it is, because God is committed to the Church. In fact, rather than referring to the Church as the vehicle and the Kingdom as the people -- I think it is the other way around. The Church is made up of the "living stones" who are the redeemed believers and the Kingdom is what reality is "when God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven."
I believe that when we are faithful to our identity as the Church, becoming the Kingdom will take care of itself.
Post a Comment