Archive - December, 2005

Some closing thoughts on Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures.

So I just finished reading Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures by Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs.

emerging churches.jpg

And I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the “emerging church”, whether you are a critic of them, interested in them, or in favor of them. Does that cover the bases?

Let me leave you with a couple of different paragraphs from their conclusion:

This study sought to identify the essential practices of emerging churches in the U.K. and the U.S. As explained, after five years of research, we identified nine practices of the communitites that are engaging postmodern culture. To clarify, emerging churches are not young adult services, Gen-X churches, churches-within-a-church, seeker churches, purpose-driven or new paradigm churches, fundamentalist churches, or even evangelical churches. They are a new expression of church. The three core practices are identifying with the life of Jesus, transforming secular space, and commitment to community as a way of life. These practices are expressed in or lead to the other six: welcoming the stranger, serving with generosity, participating as producers, creating as created beings, leading as a body, and taking part in spiritual activities.

For a number of reasons, this has been a difficult book to write. In the first place, we are not the authors of much of the material. We wanted emerging church leaders to be heard in their own words. Our roles have been that of interpreter and commentator. We refrained from acting as censors or critics when something was said about which we have our own opinions. We sought to include leaders who had walked away from their previous ecclesial tradition out of frustration and disillusionment as well as those who continue to work within a tradition, seeking its transformation.

I leave you with those two quotes for a couple or reasons. One, it gives you a sense of their findings, and what the nine characteristics they found that defined “emerging churches.” You may agree or disagree with them, but these are the facts of their research. Second, it gives you a sense of their humility, and their ability to work with those that they both agreed with, and disagreed with, while presenting their findings in a respectful manor to all those involved.

You will also hopefully find their Appendix B, Research Methodology chapter extremely helpful and interesting. A lot of books present material that doen’t often have any data or research involved with them, but this book allows for the research and those involved within the “emerging church” to speak in their own words. This is what they say about their methodology:

Our approach to this study was exploratory. As opposed to testing a particular thesis we investigated the nature of emerging churches and movements. Through our first set of questions, we sought simply to better understand these communities. Who participates in these innovative forms or church? How different are these churches and leaders from one another? To what extent do they differ significantly from their predecessors and prevailing models of church? Will they play a significant role in the future of the Western church? Are they groundbreaking frontiers, or are they diversionary fringes?…………..We employed interviews, observations, and document analysis to achieve our aims.

The bottom footnote 1, to the above, closing sentence says this: We triangulated our research using multiple methods (interviews, observations, document analysis, video, and personal experience). Triangulation involves using more than one research method in a study. This is done to minimize the weaknesses in any one particular approach and to provide a more comprehensive picture.

I learned a lot from this book and will be thinking and talking a lot about the book, and what I read and discussed with others. Reading this book reminds of what might have occurred in earlier generations when new forms of church, theology, ecclessial structures, music, technology arrived upon the scene. What must have my grandparents thought when guitars and drums where introduced into a church service? Or what might have those before us thought about the arrival of the overhead projector, Powerpoint, etc.? What did those before us think about the move away from denominationalism, and towards non-denominational, bible churches that stressed their own independence? As you know these questions are endless and can go on forever. I think that the lesson I learned from this book is a need for a sense of humility as people continue to explore ideas and ways of church. I didn’t read the book and walk away with a sense of fear regarding the future of the church, or that it is falling apart. Rather I walked away knowing, and learning more about the “emerging church” movement and that there were some things I learned and am interested in exploring, and there are some things that didn’t quite sit right with me, but I realize they might be reaching others that we are not. Some may see me as being quite relativistic from that statement, but I assure that I am not, but I don’t feel that the “barbarians are at the gate” either. Rather I think new ways of church have, and are always being explored in an attempt to improve on things. Some fail, and others cause a reformation. Only time will tell.

And I was bummed that I was really sick this morning and missed Ryan Bolger speaking this morning at Fuller to the emergent Southern California cohort. I look forward to dialoguing and interacting with this group as I hope we can learn from each other, as I continue to learn and dialogue with my church, the college group I pastor, and all of you.

Questions and thoughts for emergent and traditional churches, and their like-minded adherents, and can we not grow, guide and learn from each other? Here’s what I’m wondering….what do you think?

As the college director at The Quest, I oversee, disciple, guide and minister to a large number of college students. Within this ministry I have two interns, one which is in college and oversees our musical worship, and a Fuller student which oversees our women’s ministry. Besides us, we have a servant leadership team of about ten students who oversee vital areas of our ministry like retreats, socials, outreach, Wednesday night set-up and tear down, technical, computer and sound issues, and so on. On top of that, we have about twenty bible study leaders who lead and facilitate bible studies on the campuses of UCLA, USC and LMU. On top of that, we have student volunteers that plug into what areas of need that we have. I say all this to point out there is a lot of structure, but there is also a lot of empowerment and the use of people’s giftings. A certain amount of structure and leadership is vital to our ministry, as well as people taking responsibility and using their gifts.

Within our community we try and create, or allow for a safe place for people to worship, explore, question and affirm their relationship with Jesus Christ. And for those who do not have a relationship with Christ, we hope that they feel welcome and that we can lead them into a relationship with Him. We try to be a community that is life giving, grace giving, and freedom giving, while challenging, encouraging, correcting and pointing people to the person of Jesus Christ. We allow for people to be a part of our community no matter where they are at, but we are encouraging them and teaching them to grow in their faith and to be more and more spiritually formed in the image of God.

We teach the bible, using different methods of preaching, mixing it up with exhortation, questions, small groups, etc. And we hold to a very orthodox Christian faith. Though we are a ministry of Bel Air Presbyterian Church, which is a PCUSA church, most of my students probably do not follow or ascribe to a strict Reformed faith. It is a community of college students from all parts of the country who come to our ministry most likely because it is a college ministry, and not because it is Presbyterian.

I love being the Director of College Ministries, and I love the freedom and empowerment that the pastors and the church gives to me.

So this is what I am wondering.

Can we not be a part of church communities that provide structure and leadership, yet at the same time are very empowering, and encouraging to people to use their gifts?

Can we not be a part of church communities that allow for people not having all the answers, and who are wrestling with God and their own theology, yet still provide them with guidance, direction, discernment, etc. that is theologically sound?

Can we not be a part of church communities that are gracious and affirming, yet challenge us to become disciples of Jesus Christ and be conformed in His image?

Can we not be a part of church communities that are creative and push expression in ways that may not be normative for everyone, but still allow for some type of creativity?

These are some of the things I am wondering about, because I believe that “emergent churches” are lacking in some areas (at least from what I know of them so far). And I believe that some of our more traditional churches, mainline, non-denominational, bible, etc. are also lacking in some areas. I guess that’s a pretty obvious evaluation of anything!

What I admire in “emergent churches” is creativity, space, expression, some leadership styles, empowerment, etc. Things I try to bring to our college community. What I admire in traditional churches is historical faith, committment, responsibility, a developed theology and ecclesiology, diversity of generations, etc. Also things I try to bring to our college community.

I am wondering where we can learn from each other and grow and improve, rather than completely discounting, or throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have the luxury that many directors and pastors do not have. I am supported, funded, empowered, encouraged, discipled and affirmed by a church that allows for me to think outside the box and to be creative, but still provides a certain amount of structure, leadership and guidance.

The journey continues but this is what I am wondering right now, and these are some of the questions I have.

Closing question: Is Mars Hill Bible Church and Rob Bell an anamoly, in the sense that his style, teaching, questioning, creativity, etc. resonate with “emergent thinking people”, yet he does it all within the ecclesiastical structure of a large and growing bible church?

Where I am at right now in regards to the “emerging church”, and a good critique by Fuller professor Ray Anderson (his insights are worth reading, so at least skip to the bottom of this post if you want and read him)…..

If you have been following my blog for a while, you know that I have been talking quite a bit about the “emerging church” and a lot more recently about Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, of which I’m about 230 pages into.

This book has been very challenging so far, even if I already had my mind made up in certain areas. There are some things that I find myself resonating with, and saying a “yes” to. There are some things that I find myself disagreeing with, and saying a “no” to. And then there are some things that I neither disagree, or agree with, and they just are. Either I have not forumlated my opinion on them, or I don’t consider them to be a critical issue of which I have set the views down in stone.

Here is a brief rundown so far of what I have read, and where I come out:

Resonate with:
the “emerging churches’” view of leadership and empowerment; its view of consumerism in Christianity, especially in how it relates to seeker-driven churches; its willingness to allow for space, doubts, questions, etc., within its community; its emphasis on relationality, rather than efficiency, production and numbers; its emphasis on narrative and storytelling, and not just rationalistic, systematic theology……..

Disagree with:
some of their views on a “leaderless” church; some of their views that focus primarily on the Gospels exclusively (though I think they are quite good with looking at all of Scripture, and more so than some churches, there is a tendency to only look at the Gospels); some of their animosity, or reluctance for seminary trained leadership (not because you need to be seminary trained, but do they see this as a handicap instead, or not a good thing; and this is probably a bias since I am one of them); what I perceive as a hesitancy to maybe developing or discussing theology, in regards to how it relates to the praxis of “emering churches.”


Wrestling with:

how relevant does one need to be to culture? (meaning: what’s informing what? is the culture informing the “good news”, or vice-versa); what role does a community play in interpretation? (this is not saying anything goes and it’s all relative, but what is the function of community in interpretation, in light of the word of God); the role of paid clergy, or the professionalization of clery (of which I am currently)

This is just a write as you go rundown as I am reading this book. Once I finish it, I will have some more time to reflect on what has been said, and how I feel about some of these issues. But for now, the book has succeeded in not allowing me to simply believe I have everything figured out. For some, having everything figured out is a necessity, almost as if winning a Biblical quiz contest allows one to be a part of the right group. But for now, I am conent re-working, wrestling with, and journeying through these things.

One of the most influential figures in my theological development was my Fuller professor, Dr. Ray Anderson whom I have linked on the left column under influential thinkers, etc. He instilled in me my love of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer specifically. And he taught me how to wed theology and ministry together. I had the privilege of reading a working manuscript of his soon to be released book, “Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches” (Intervarsity 2006). It is going to be a great book, and I believe, one of the most informative and important in addressing these issues. But for now, I will post below the comment that he left on Ryan Bolger’s Blog regarding some of his concerns on the “emerging church”:

Great book Ryan! Congratulations to you and Eddie for your new book, Emerging Churches (Baker). Outstanding piece of sociological research into the emerging church movement. I admire the way that you were able to allow the voices of the persons you interviewed to speak for themselves without intruding your own critical analysis and perspective. This is a must read for all interested in this movement. Having said that, the book, while a good read, begs for response and dialogue. Here goes! The chapter on “Identifying with Jesus” (3) was provocative. I had already been alerted by a reader of my own manuscript on an Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (InterVarsity, 2006), that my heavy reliance on Paul would not sit well with many in the movement, who preferred Jesus over Paul. In fact one of your participants in the project stated that he had given up on Paul and turned back to Jesus. I guess that Paul has been used to proof text a good bit of systematic theology (e.g. Calvin and Luther!). On the other hand, to turn away from Paul is to turn away from Paul’s Christ. The Christ of Paul is the crucified, resurrected, ascended and present Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. While Paul certainly had first hand reports of the ministry and teaching of Jesus prior to his death on the cross, the Christ that he met on the Damascus Road had already ascended to heaven and was present now through the Holy Spirit. The church that emerged out of Antioch through Paul had spread throughout his world (including Rome), by the time of his death, not by identifying with the Jesus of the synoptic gospels (which had not yet been written!) but by the power of the crucified and risen Christ through the Holy Spirit. The absence of the cross, resurrection, Pentecost and the eschatological imprint of the coming Christ upon the emerging churches as reported in this research project is stunning, to my mind. I came away with the impression (just an impression!) that for many who are active participants in emerging churches, the cross and resurrection were more of an historical accident than a theological necessity. It is as though Jesus could have fulfilled God’s mission in the world through the Kingdom without death and resurrection as a means of overcoming the human dilemma of sin and death. But now I realize that I have introduced theology into the discussion, which, I gather, is to be part of the ‘modern world left behind!’ -maybe a new series? Fascinating book! Ray Anderson

Posted by: Ray Anderson | November 19, 2005 at 08:44 AM

Page 5 of 5«12345