HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Listening On The Porch Of The Emergent Village

Orginally published on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 8:00 AM
by Todd Rhoades

In a guest article today, Tony Myles gives his impressions of the Emergent Church movement from a recent conference he attended. Read Tony's thoughts and see if you agree...

A little over a month ago a buddy of mine and I did a road trip over to Minneapolis for The Summer Institute. The event took place at Solomon’s Porch, an innovative congregation headed up by lead pastor Doug Pagitt. Doug has been one of the many voices on the forefront of Emergent Village (formerly called Emergent). Long story short, he’s highly relational, notably intelligent, and extremely counter-intuitive in his thinking. All that logistical mumbo-jumbo aside, I want to share a few insights from my trip. First of all, my buddy and I had a BLAST driving over. And by that, I mean quite literally… his air conditioner didn’t work and so we drove 10 hours or so with the windows down and the air blasting (the only thing louder was the cheesy 80’s music we kept listening to). Normally I like this kind of a drive, but because my voice at the time was suffering some mild laryngitis it ended up creating a major case of laryngitis. I’m not kidding… the only way I could talk in discernible tones was to lower my pitch to sound like a pro-wrestler.

Oh yeah… did I mention I was a speaker at this event? God has a sense of humor.

As both a receiver and giver of the seminars or “offerings,” I found the loose structure quite interesting. In fact, the titles alone of each option indicated a lot about the diversity of the gathering, from those who presented concrete ideas to others who hosted open forums about philosophical issues. There wasn’t any particular target group, although many in attendance ranged from young adults to those who have a history with the established church in some way and have been itching for “something else.”

The night we arrived we had a great dinner with a dozen or so people, gathering at one of Doug’s favorite local Mexican restaurants. Consequently, we missed out on a forum regarding homosexuality in the emerging church. The next day I popped into the classroom and copied down these notes off the board from that offering - whatever they mean - listed under the heading “COMPLICATIONS”:

There may be unrevealed parts of life
Element of choic/commitment
Role of circumstances
Fluidity of idenity
Feels/desires drives category
Developmental/Emergent
Nature and nurture
Capacity to be gay or straight
Stories behind a present moment
“Celibate gay”
Influences on feelings/identity
“Posing”
Self denial
Confusion of no fit with category
Hormonal factors
Health issues

One of my favorite offerings was the one that may have irritated people the most - “God and the new sciences.” Here are a few paraphrases from the deal…

We have a common idea that God has a job description and humans have a job description. And we don’t mix them because if we do people will criticize us of “playing God.” From birth control to seeing a doctor, we’ve moved from them being ethical dilemmas to being normal now.

The new sciences stir up all kinds of new ethical questions. In the last century we do things that humans never had to consider doing. The way that we travel… hold understanding… record moments in history… is all mind boggling. We play with time like it’s nobody’s business. What did he know and when did he know it? When you listen to a voice mail, when was it said to you? When you say something on an airplane and hear it, your relationship of time to people in the airplane is different than those outside of it. If something can be known, should it be known?

One of the guys I spoke with had a hard time sitting through it and eventually got up and left. His thought was that “the motivation isn’t to know God better… the motivation is for knowledge.” I understand his point, and even sensed it in a couple of people. Honestly, though, what was fun for me was watching the way people talk with each other versus what they actually said. In many cases, being too fundamental was looked upon by the progressives as being small minded; on the flipside, the progressives were seen by the fundamentals as lacking any stable structure.

I’d been praying all along on this trip that God would allow me to listen and enlarge my heart for the church. Given the fact that I couldn’t talk much, I think he did exactly that. Overall, Emergent Village has well exceeded my expectations even though it is a bit flawed (as are all things run by humans). There were some moments in the science discussion, for example, that I was a bit bothered by a few people who seemed to have a “Tower Of Babel” mentality that we can create a scientific pie in the sky. As it’s been said, we create because we are like Him, but we cannot create like Him.

In some ways I get a sense like we often face the temptations in this great postmodern conversation to fix everything that bugged us in the past wave of ministry. Maybe so, and maybe not. Maybe there is something more.

Relevant Magazine recently shared this in one of their articles:

“For a generation raised on televangelists, pedophile priests and megachurches, Emergent [Village] seems like a pretty good deal. It represents ‘a new kind of Christian,’ a phrase coined by Emergent’s unofficial patriarch, Brian McLaren. To those who have been burned by the Church, this kind of Christian is more open-minded, intelligent, loving and sophisticated than the Christians who came before.

But this is sacred territory, and it’s easy to see why this makes many Christians uncomfortable. To Emergent’s critics—and it has many—the group is off base at best and heretical at worst. Emergent has no formal doctrine, and, thus, the group is quite mixed. ‘We have Texas Baptists who don’t let women preach, and we have lesbian mainline pastors in New England,’ says Tony Jones, Emergent’s national coordinator. ‘Emergent is an amorphous collection of friends who’ve decided to live life together, regardless of our ecclesial affiliations, regardless of our theological commitments. We want to follow Christ in community with one another. In a very messy way, we’re trying to figure out what that means.’”

Personally, I’m into this because I’m a tension lover.

Often we end up waxing over concepts that to many have a “biblical basis” - regardless of what side you fall off the fence. For instance, some see it as absolutely “essential” to keep men in leadership over women in order to honor the verbatim of the Scriptures, whereas others hold it more important to understand the “spirit” behind the Scriptures and show how women in leadership is a biblical issue after all.

You can pick any issue, for that matter - slavery, women in leadership, homosexuality - and you will find people claiming one biblical truth at the expense of the other. Proof-texting is a lost cause (as we all know), but then again… so is issue-texting. By this I mean often we come into the Bible with a favorite passion and hope it says something we’d like it to say… and if it doesn’t we fold it under a principle of “grace” or “holiness.”

What I find absolutely amazing is how two people who proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior can come to two amazingly different conclusions.

So… how is this possible?

Perhaps on one side of the camp you have people looking at the Scriptures through their own unconscious personal lens of personal experience, present day barriers, and future hopes. Then again… might the other side be doing the same? The real issue is to wrestle over the Scriptures together… together… together.

To me… this is the real “emergent” issue - honoring all of the Scriptures… including the tensions that fly against our personal hot button platforms… and being able to dialogue all over the place in order to find a *balance of tensions* that honors the Bible in its disorderly coherence. This will probably look differently from local church to local church, for some issues will quickly cause division in one context that won’t in the next. And if God is as concerned about unity in the body as the Word proclaims, then maybe we should, too.

Unity… that means parts of our passions need to not be in the spotlight so that someone else’s may share that space, too.

Many people are drooling for Emergent Village to define itself theologically, from “this belief” to “that issue.” Their intent, of course, is to be able to critique it like a politician who has run out of their own things to say and has to resort to shredding the platforms of others. Perhaps in knowing this there has been some intentional ambiguity in order to promote a spirit of conversation.

Or maybe… they aren’t being silent at all. Maybe they’re just deciding it’s better to listen than to speak. Coming from a guy who was forced to not do a lot of speaking and a whole lot of listening, I think that’s a good move.

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” (Proverbs 17:28)


This post has been viewed 4703 times so far.


 TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 59 Comments:

  • Posted by

    Ahh, but in the seeds parable, there are different kinds of soil, different kinds of experiences. But your point is good. I have no doubt that God “has it all together” when he makes this separation, but WE often do not when we try to.

    And there are many kinds of people who are blessed by God, not just one. For instance, peacemakers, the poor in spirit, those who hunger and thirst, etc…

    I do not believe those who are truly Christian in their outlook in the “emergent church” are promoting other paths. But neither do I believe that the weternized/americanized version of Christianity that places a higher value on a “personal relationship with Jesus” (a phrase not found in scripture) than on matters such as God’s sovereignty, the communion of saints, and the inner life, et cetera is anything like the biblical ideal of the life of discipleship. Am I saying we can’t or shouldn’t know Jesus “personally.” Heaven forbid it! But my relationship with Jesus is beyond personal, it is communal, part of the church I worship in and the church in the world.

    Consider this… this version of Christianity that has appeared in our consumer culture is a very western religion. Judaism and Christianity are, in a sense, “eastern” religions. Jesus was not an American. I wonderf if these kinds of thoughts and reactions against the status quo are what has led to this “emergent division” in the church in many cases. At least the “emergents” have the humility to admit that they don’t have it all correct, all right, all straightened out, theologically. I for one, think that is not such a bad thing to admit.

  • Posted by

    Greetings Guys!
    Help me out here, if you could.  I re-read The Secret Message of Jesus after several weeks of pondering Mr. McLaren’s ideas.  The things that are of concern to me are the following:

    #1 - His definition of Repent being to “re-think”.  I believe that this is very much flawed after
    going back to the gospels.  If I were to use words like Mr. McLaren, I believe that Jesus is saying “confess your sin, then re-think”.  Jesus never simply tells people to “re-think” (or change your ways) without first telling them that they need to confess their sin and be forgiven first.  When I consider the audience that he targets with this book, I am beginning to fear that this is a major error - both in this book, and what I have gathered through my participation in the emergent conversation.

    #2 - Mr. McLaren seems to portray Jesus as One which should be an example to us on how to live and to follow Him.  He also repeats throughout the text the notion of the Kingdom being here and now, and shelves the eternal Life after death Kingdom.  Jesus dies a horrible death on the cross and then is raised from the dead.  He ascends into Heaven.  This is an example to us that the Kingdom is not of this world.  We can begin living a life following Christ right now and for eternity, but Mr. McLaren seems to confuse the true definition of the Kingdom.  If the mission of Jesus was to come here and model a process to re-think and change our ways, then His death on the cross and his resurrection teaches us nothing.

    I believe that Mr. McLaren’s target audience are those who are in need of milk, and maybe not ready for meat.  However, these topics are certainly not those that can be satisfied with milk.  Any thoughts on this?
    Thanks

  • Posted by Daniel

    Yes!  I do have thoughts on this.  grin
    On your point # 1, I wouldn’t mind seeing quote of where McLaren states that ‘repenting’ only means ‘to rethink’ (although hopefully we can all agree that that’s at least a part of repentance).  It’s been a while since I’ve read ‘secret message’, so I’m having trouble remembering that part.  I think a better way to think of repentance is turning around.  Stop, do a 180, and go the other way.  I’m told that the Greek word for ‘repent’ was the same as was used in the military for ‘about-face’.  So that would be the connotation… and I don’t think ‘emergents’ are afraid of such a drastic understanding.
    On point #2, I think you’ve got it exactly wrong.  I think if we transfer Jesus’ Kingdom parables into the ethereal afterlife world, they lose all meaning (as does most of his death and resurrection).  If, instead, the Kingdom has come NOW, as Jesus claims, then his death is an embodiment of what it means to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to refuse to live by the sword, lest one also die by the sword.  His death is in continuity with his life.  Jesus’ resurrection then, become his vindication by God, and the true inauguration of his Reign.  We live how we live because Christ reigns; and we know how to live in that Reign, because Jesus modeled it for us in his life, death and resurrection. 
    For more on this last point, I recommend Walter Wink’s very short but very provocative “Jesus and nonviolence”.
    Hope that’s helpful.
    Cheers,
    -Daniel-

  • Posted by

    Daniel,

    Nicely put… I might add that when you look at the current standard Greek lexicon (BDAG p640)), metanoia (the word for repent) means primarily “a change of mind”, sometimes “remorse”, and, in the biblical record, “repentance, turning about, conversion.” I’ve seen nothing in my lexicon or in Kittel (the really big and scary theological dictionary) that indicates the military idea of “about face”. I’d like to know where that reference comes from, there might be something to it. Kittel calls it a “change of heart”. I think I like that better in context I think, but I’m no greek scholar.

    Much has been made of this on these pages and others, for me, I think I’d like McLaren’s voice on repentance to be a touch stronger, but I do not find the egregious error others do.

    What you say about the “kingdom”, Daniel, is great. I’d add nothing to it. EXCELLENT!

  • Posted by Daniel

    Thanks Peter.  Metanoia as ‘about-face’ comes from my pastor (Greg Boyd).  The version of the Bible I read (the French ‘Bible Segond’) translates metanoia as ‘radical change’… which seems to be in the same vein.  My primary caution with ‘change of heart’ translations (apart from any lexical considerations) has to do with people thinking that if they ‘feel sorry’ for their sin, they’ve repented from it.  I think John the Baptizer had something slightly stronger in mind than just feeling sorry… which is why he was (and is) such an interesting figure.

  • Posted by

    Thanks Guys -
    Peter - don’t have the book handy.  Mr. McLaren defines repentance as “rethinking” and repeats this definition several times.  I’ll look them up tonight and give your the page numbers.

    Just a couple thoughts ... before you turn around, you must realize that you’re going the wrong way and admit that you’re going the wrong way.  This turn-around begins with confession that leads to forgiveness. This cleansing is what makes it possible to turn around.

    Ths Kingdom begins here and now for those who accept and follow Jesus Christ as their Lord.  If you accept and follow Him now, your life eternal begins now.  And in a few very short years (when compared to eternity) when our bodies die, we live on forever with Him. 

    It’s the no-emphasis of confession and forgiveness that is frustrating to me, and the emphasis on Kingdom Now is never discussed from an eternal perspective.  To live forever or to die forever defines the Great Commission as a matter of life or death.  This is significant, and seems to be missing in the conversation.  And it seems as though whenever I try to bring it to the table, it is ignored.  It’s interesting.

    Thanks for your thoughts.  I’m really struggling with this stuff at the moment, internally as well as with my group…
    Tony A.

  • Page 3 of 3 pages

    « First  <  1 2 3
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: