Pastor Scott's Thoughts

Pastor’s FAQs File: The Emerging Church [Part 2] Key Themes

What are the common themes in the EC?

 

Because those who name themselves as “emerging” are so diverse, and because there is no shared statement of faith among emergents, it is difficult to point to the primary identifying factors in the EC. But groups of thinkers have tried to find common themes or threads in the emerging conversation. One book that I have found particularly helpful is called Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community it Postmodern Cultures by Fuller professors Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger. Gibbs and Bolger point to ten common themes, but let me sight just a handful.

 

The EC conversation is postmodern. I recognize for some people the word “postmodern” is anathema. For many it is equated with the denial of absolute truth. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case. The cultural and philosophical thought of the last century has been deeply shaped by Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity.” Einstein’s theory essentially says that as humans we do not see reality as it is, we see reality as it is AND as we are (and both are in motion). Because we are always in motion and what we observe is always in motion then we never see things completely as they are. This doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist, but it does mean that we always see the truth from some kind of temporal perspective. Thus although there certainly are some extreme forms of postmodernism, most postmodernism does not reject the idea of absolute truth but it is simply more humble about our ability as humans to know it completely.

 

Personally, I don’t see this postmodern humble view of truth as unbiblical. The apostle Paul reminded believers that, “For now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12). The EC in response to postmodern sensibilities is trying to find ways to embody the truth of the Christian faith with humility and grace rather than argue for the propositions of the faith or carry the Truth as a kind of baton of certainty with which to hit others. Part of the reason we find the culture at large shifting from modernity to postmodernity is because of the harsh and violent way many who claimed to know “the Truth” carried it through the modern time period. One could argue from a biblical perspective that it was those who were most certain of their absolute knowledge that ended up killing Jesus. Again, this does not mean that absolute truth does not exist, or that Christ does not reveal God’s absolute truth, but it does mean that we must carry our human understanding of that truth with humility and openness rather than with harshness and a closed-mind.

 

The EC conversation is Christocentric. Most of the writers and pastors who label themselves part of the EC are trying to take the person and ministry of Jesus very seriously. In particular there are many within the EC that see Protestant Christianity as having adopted a strange (and perhaps poorly interpreted) version of Pauline faith bearing little resemblance to the community of discipleship that Jesus proclaimed and embodied. In particular American Protestant Christianity tends to emphasize the substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross whose merits for salvation are then accessed by faith on the part of the believer.

 

There is nothing wrong with understanding Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, but many in the EC argue that this is just one of several aspects of the cross’ significance. For example, Jesus told his disciples that they must take up their cross and follow him. Certainly the cross the disciple is called to carry does not serve as atonement for sin. So what is it? Many in the EC argue that the substitutionary view of atonement (which was most clearly articulated by Anselm in the 11^th and 12 century) is one important way of understanding the cross, but the Church also needs to embrace other ways of understanding the cross as well. For example, the cross of Jesus serves as the moral example for the disciple’s responsibility to overcome evil with good. The cross also serves as Christ’s victory over sin, death, and violence. The EC wants believers to live into the moral influence and what is called the “Christus Victor” understandings of the atonement as well as the substitutionary understanding.

To state it more simply, the EC wants the Christians to not only focus on what Jesus saves us from, but also what he saved us to. In short the EC wants to make disciples who live as part of the Kingdom of God and not just believers who have received forgiveness.

The EC conversation is recovering the language of the Kingdom of God while also reacting against the politicization of the Church. Many young people who were raised in the evangelical Church during the 80’s and 90’s experienced what some have called the “conservative co-opting” of the evangelical movement. It is not unusual, for example, in the last few decades for many people inside and outside the Church in America to equate being an evangelical with also being a Republican. For many reasons that have been written about recently in places like Time and Newsweek, there seems to be a strong reaction taking place among many young believers.

Although it may seem that many young evangelicals are moving to the left politically, the EC is actually part of a conversation that advocates the Church being a third alternative beyond the politics of conservative and liberal. Some quasi-EC groups like a group that calls themselves the “Red-Letter Christians” would argue that they belong to no political party and are just trying to live out the ethics of Kingdom of God as articulated by Jesus. Red-letter Christians argue that there is much that Jesus would like about the Republicans and the Democrats and much he would dislike. But what the Church is called to be is a community that embodies in its life a radical alternative to either the right or left. The EC conversation calls for faithfulness to the unique political vision of the Kingdom rather than effectiveness in political maneuvering within the system.

 

Because of this reaction the EC tends to want to bring new issues to the political table that they perceive to have been left out of the Church’s conservative agenda: in particular the issues of poverty, violence, and the environment. The EC is certainly still committed to issues of life and family, but those who are a part of the EC – especially the young – have little tolerance for what they perceive to be the harshness of the political rhetoric that dominates much of the political discussion for Christians (in particular that which dominates talk radio).

 

The EC is post-liberal in theology and post-Christian in structure. Post-liberalism is a movement that approaches the Bible as God’s inspired Word but is also willing to wrestle with the work twentieth-century textual and historical critics accomplished. Post-liberalism attempts to maintain a high view of the Scripture’s authority in the life of the believing community while bridging the gap between liberalism and fundamentalism. In this way the EC holds a view of scripture that is identical to the Church of the Nazarene since its founding. The Nazarenes have a very high view of Scripture’s inspiration and authority but have always been open to the critical work that recognizes the human instruments through which the Spirit spoke.

 

The EC takes for granted that the Church is fulfilling its mission in a largely post-Christian culture. In particular in EC forms of worship and ministry it is trying to address the fact that fewer and fewer people have a “churched memory.” The world is increasingly post-Christian and because most forms and places of worship were developed during a “Christianized” era, most churches do not know how to reach those who are completely un-churched. EC thinkers tend to assume that the average person is spiritual but not religious and so are trying to find methods, locations, and themes that speak to the hopes, fears, and needs of post-Christian generations.

 

The EC is ancient as well as modern. Many in the coming generations have had little or no rooting in extended family or stable community systems. Even those who have grown up in the Church have largely grown up in independent mega-churches with little or no history or rooting. There is a hunger on the part of believers to be connected to historical aspects of the Christian faith. A few years ago the late Robert Webber noticed this trend (and its significance) and called it the “ancient-future” movement of the Church. The EC is not the only Christian movement that is trying to move forward while also reaching back but it is certainly common among EC leaders for artistic creativity to be used to fuse together ancient Christian practices with modern technologies and modern sensibilities.

 

The modern Church in its reaction against Catholicism tended to deny various forms of artistic expression. One way in which the EC moves forward while moving back is by trying to recover artistic expression as an act of worship. Dance, artwork, poetry, music, and theater are often emphasized as part of the EC’s forms of worship. The coming generations seem averse to simply being spectators during worship, the EC seems to be tapping into the desire people have to participate and give back part of their abilities to God in worship.

 

There are several other themes I could point to. Gibbs and Bolger also point to the EC’s desire to live in community, the transformation of secular spaces to places of worship, the desire to transform the world through service, etc. but I would argue that the four or five that I have given you here are fairly common and give you a taste for what the primary aspects of the EC conversation are.

Pastor’s FAQs File: The Emerging Church [Part 1]

Every once in a while I need to empty out my “Frequently Asked Questions” file and try to address some of them here. Far and away the questions I am asked most frequently these days has to do with what has been labeled the “emerging church.” Here are the usual queries. What is the emerging church? Are you pastor, part of the emerging church? Are Nazarenes a part of the emerging church? And is the emerging church a good or a bad thing? These are all good and important questions. 

 

This is highly unusual for me but rather than write one super long blog that addresses all these questions I thought I would take the next few days and address some of the questions about the emerging church one by one. This may mean that your BIG question about the emerging church doesn't get answered for a day or two, but please be patient and I'll try to get to the questions I consider to be the important ones. I also will probably not post comments or questions on the blog until I'm done with all the parts, but I would encourage you if you are interested to read each section.

 

Here are the questions I plan to cover:

Part 1: What is the emerging church?

Part 2: What are the common themes of the emerging church?

Part 3: What are primary critiques of the emerging church?

Part 4: What do we need to hear from the emerging church?

Part 5: Is the Nazarene Church (and PazNaz in particular) becoming or part of the emerging church?

 

I hate to give away the ending before the last chapter but let me say from the get go that I do not consider myself part of the emerging church nor am I trying to make PazNaz an emerging congregation. The emerging church is such a new and amorphous movement it is difficult to nail down exactly what it is, but nevertheless I do think there are some themes that we Nazarenes have in common with the movement, some things that we need to hear from them, but also some concerns that we want to raise. Whatever the case, I agree wholeheartedly with those who are doing what they must to reach the coming generations with the gospel. So to that end, let me deal with the some of the questions. Here's part one:

 

Part One: What is the Emerging Church?

The movement which is being called the “emerging church” (from now on I’ll abbreviate it as the EC), is very challenging to define because it is a very young movement and it intentionally has no central institution, no primary spokesperson, and no unifying statement of faith. It is important to distinguish between the EC as a movement and the Emergent Village which is a particular organization (primarily organized around a website by the same name) that has attempted to unify some of those who have taken on the label of an “emerging Christian.” Although many people who think of themselves as part of the EC are members of the Emergent Village, most are not.

Although what is today described as the EC began, as a conversation, about two-decades ago outside of the United States, the movement is only about a decade old in the US. The emerging conversation began among young Christian leaders for two primary reasons. The first is that, like the Boomer and Buster generations before them, Generations X and Y had grown disillusioned with and had begun leaving the churches in which they were raised and were not returning. So the conversation began with the question: What kind of church and worship practices resonate with the spiritual passions of the emerging or future generations? This is not a new conversation. In many ways this conversation has taken place at the end of every generational shift since the Reformation (and perhaps before).

What is new is the second part of the conversation. Not only is western culture going through continuous generational changes, but uniquely there seems to be a massive philosophical shift taking place in the culture. Most often this shift is described as a shift from modernity to postmodernity. If one adds to the philosophical shift taking place the fact that Generations X and Y are the first global (meaning they are not only used to cultural diversity but celebrate it) and post-Christian (meaning most of them have grown up outside of Church and with a secular worldview) generations in US history, one can see how the practice of the Christian faith might take on very different forms among them then it did in previous eras.

Thus the question that dominates the conversation among those who call themselves part of the EC is: What will the practice of Christianity look like 25 years from now? Is there a different kind of Christianity emerging that has many similarities to the way the Christian faith has been practiced in recent decades but may also have many differences as well?

 

Therefore it is critical to recognize that the EC is not a “thing” or a new denomination as much as it is an on-going and building conversation across many, many, denominational and theological lines. It is primarily a dialogue of “kindred spirits” with very little theological, ideological, or pragmatic uniformity. So to talk about emerging theology or EC practices is sort of tricky because there is so much divergence among those who call themselves part of the EC.

I would add one more thought to the definition. In the same way the Reformation would not have happened without the invention of the printing press, I don’t believe the EC would be an identifiable entity without the advent of the internet. Imagine if in 1517 the great reformer Martin Luther would have posted his 95 Theses on-line rather than on the door of the WittenburgChurch. Thousands and thousands of other young discontents with Roman Catholicism could have instantaneously joined in on Luther’s reforming conversation. Some would have agreed with his theology but not his politics, others would have celebrated his ideas about the abuses of Church authority but not his ideas about the authority of scripture. Also, rather than one Pope excommunicating one monk, there would have been thousands of websites in support of Luther and a thousand more from Catholic priests and laypersons denouncing Luther and those in conversation with him for their heresy and their destruction of long-standing theological principles. I certainly don’t think what is happening in the EC is on the level of the great Reformation, but whatever is going on in the EC conversation could not have grown to its current size in less than 10 years without the help of the internet and email.

LA Marathon

It took me forever yesterday, but I did finish the marathon. It is my fourth one but my first in 14 years. I had been sick for a couple of weeks in April and so my training had not been good at all, but I survived.

It is such a trip to run with thousands of runners. Close to 15,000 runners finished the race so I'm not sure how many started it. One of the cool things about the LA Marathon is that they encourage people to run for various charities. It seemed like every other runner was running for World Vision, Save the Teachers, Cancer Research, etc. The weather was perfect - not too hot and not too cold.

Thanks to everybody that helped sponsor me as I ran for Child SHARE. I'm still tallying and receiving support but I think Pastor Selena and I both were able to reach our goal.

There were several PazNaz'ers out there. It was fun to see the folk helping out at the Child SHARE booth at mile 14 and also several friends along the route.

I hope to do it again next year. (Next year I'm not going to let Selena beat me). But today I am really hurting and care barely walk. I also smell distinctly like BenGay.

Looking Forward to General Assembly

June will be a very busy month for a few of us around here because it is packed with assemblies. June 10-12 Nazarenes from around the Los Angeles District will be gathering at PazNaz for District Assembly. During those three days the seventy-or-so churches that make up this district will be celebrating what God has been doing in the areas of missions, discipleship, and worship this last year as well as voting on representatives for the various district leadership teams.

June 24-July 3 Nazarenes from around the world will be gathering in Orlando, Florida for General Assembly. Every four years delegates representing the denomination from every part of the world gather to celebrate but also to vote on leadership, issues of polity, and sometimes even issues of theology. This will be my fourth time to attend General Assembly and my second time as a delegate. Being a delegate is an honor but it is also a tremendous amount of work. There is always a sense of excitement when the global church gets together but here are the issues that I think will be the most interesting.

 

Election of General Superintendents

The Church of the Nazarene has six General Superintendents who serve as the primary overseers of the denomination. They travel separately during much of the year officiating at District Assemblies around the world and ordaining ministers into the denomination. Three of the current General Superintendents will be retiring at Assembly and so delegates will be responsible for electing at least three new leaders. It is not unusual for an assembly to have to replace one or two retiring Superintendents, but after this assembly at least half the board of Generals will be new.

 

At the last General Assembly in 2005 delegates elected the first woman GS – Nina Gunter. This was a very significant boundary broken and an important leadership statement for the church. There is a very good chance that a couple of other barriers might be broken in this year’s assembly. Many assume that at least one non-American will be elected. This would be the first time that someone from outside the States would serve in the church’s highest office. There is also a chance that a non-Anglo could be elected. Either or both occurring would make powerful statements about the multi-cultural nature of the Church of the Nazarene.

 

The International Delegates

Each time the Nazarenes gather for General Assembly the number of delegates from outside the United States increases. There are more members of the denomination outside of North America than inside. Although many of the international districts are not self-supporting yet and therefore are not granted delegates to assembly, and although it is sometimes very difficult to get international delegates into the States for assembly, the perspective and power of Nazarenes outside of America continues to grow.

 

The perspective of Nazarenes from around the world is vital to the church’s future and it is always fascinating to hear various global voices during debates in committee and on the floor of the assembly. But there are also unique challenges for every different world region. There has been some talk about creating different Manuals (books of order) for each world region. The idea is that the first section of the Manual which covers our theology would remain the same but that each world area would be allowed some latitude in how they form their congregations and what polity they use. I don’t know if that will happen this year or not. But the unique challenge of being one church in over 150 different countries is a fascinating one.

 

The Financial Crisis

Every time General Assembly rolls around there are resolutions that come to the floor that have to do with financial resources. For example, for the sake of saving money, there are always resolutions to move General Assembly from every four years to every six, eight, or even ten years. There are also resolutions regarding reorganization at the district level in order to save resources. Most of those resolutions have to do with merging districts in order to make them larger and decrease overhead costs for local congregations.

 

Usually these kind of proposed structure changes are discussed for a bit on the floor but gain little traction. However, in the light of the global financial crisis some of the resolutions for major structural change may gain steam. People around the world are extremely sensitive right now about how resources should be spent and so it will be interesting to see if major cost-cutting resolutions will be popular with delegates this time around.

 

Denominational Budgets

For many years local Nazarene churches have given back to the denomination based upon a formula derived from the amount of money spent on ministry. This has meant that money spent on land or facilities serves as a deduction from a local church’s denominational budgets. The formula has always been a little complicated and has often not been equitable because it favors large churches paying on buildings while hurting small churches carrying little or no debt.

 

A new formula has been proposed that would move denominational responsibilities away from a tax on ministry money spent to become a tithe of all money raised by the local church. There are various formulas for how that tithe would be divided between the four areas denominational budgets cover, but the basic idea is to shift from taxation on expenses to a tithe on what is raised.

 

This has the potential to be a very lively debate. The change would greatly benefit small churches. For example a small church that owns their building and raises $200,000 a year probably pays about $43,000 in denominational budgets currently because nearly all their resources are put back into ministry. Under the new system they would pay $20,000 to $23,000. On the other hand, if a large church raises $6,000,000 a year and has a debt on their building of $8,000,000 they probably pay about $400,000 in denominational budgets under the current system because they are able to deduct their facility expenses. Under an income system their budgets would become $600,000 to $720,000 a year.

I think everyone agrees that a new system needs to be put in place that is easier and more equitable. But as you can see in the examples I gave above, it also has the potential to be quite an explosive issue.

 

Generational and Theological Shifts

The church is also dealing with changing demographics and an increasingly post-denominational culture. It seems that as each General Assembly goes by fewer people in the local church are concerned with what takes place at the denominational level. What will General Assemblies look like in 20 years? Who will attend?

 

It is always the case that there are theological conversations going on in the church. But the rise of the internet has given some Nazarenes, who I believe exist at the fringe theologically, an accessible voice. Blogs and websites have allowed attacks on various individuals to take place in very visible ways before Assembly. It will be interesting to see if coalitions have been created on-line that will try to have influence on the Assembly.

It should be a very interesting time in Orlando. I will confess that my favorite part of Assembly is not in committee or on the floor but drinking coffee in the hallway and being part of the worship service on Sunday morning with 40,000 to 60,000 folk. It should be an eventful and fascinating gathering of Nazarenes in Orlando. I promise to represent PazNaz well and to give those who care about it a full run down when I get home.

ABC Report on Young People and Religion

ABC News released a report today by Dan Harris entitled, "Young Americans Losing Their Religion." I have copied in the bulk of the article, but the full article can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7513343&page=1

New research shows young Americans are dramatically less likely to go to church -- or to participate in any form of organized religion -- than their parents and grandparents. "It's a huge change," says Harvard University professor Robert Putnam, who conducted the research.

Historically, the percentage of Americans who said they had no religious affiliation (pollsters refer to this group as the "nones") has been very small -- hovering between 5 percent and 10 percent. However, Putnam says the percentage of "nones" has now skyrocketed to between 30 percent and 40 percent among younger Americans.

Putnam calls this a "stunning development." He gave reporters a first glimpse of his data Tuesday at a conference on religion organized by the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life. The research will be included in a forthcoming book, called "American Grace."

This trend started in the 1990s and continues through today. It includes people in both Generation X and Y. While these young "nones" may not belong to a church, they are not necessarily atheists.

"Many of them are people who would otherwise be in church," Putnam said. "They have the same attitidues and values as people who are in church, but they grew up in a period in which being religious meant being politically conservative, especially on social issues." Putnam says that in the past two decades, many young people began to view organized religion as a source of "intolerance and rigidity and doctrinaire political views," and therefore stopped going to church.

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come. "That is the future of America," he says. "Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future." This data is likely to reinvigorate an already heated debate about whether America is, or will continue to be, a "Christian nation."

...Putnam, author of the book "Bowling Alone," which tracked the decline in civic and community engagement in America (exemplified by the diminution of bowling leagues), fears the reduction in religiosity could have widespread negative impacts. His research shows that people who go to church are much more likely to vote, volunteer and give to charity.

However, he says, it's possible that the current spike in young people opting out of organized religion could also prove to be an opportunity for some. "America historically has been a very inventive and even entrepreneurial place in terms of religion," he says. "We're all the time inventing new religions and reinventing religions that we have. It's partly because we have a free market in religion. That is, we don't have a state church."

Given that today's young "nones" probably would be in church if they didn't associate religion with far-right political views, he says, new faith groups may evolve to serve them. "Jesus said, 'Be fishers of men,'" says Putnam, "and there's this pool with a lot of fish in it and no fishermen right now."

In the end, he says, this "stunning" trend of young people becoming less religious could lead to America's next great burst of religious innovation.

Harris' report affirms what I have sensed at an anecdotal level working around college students for the last 18 years. To borrow a line from Dan Kimball, most young people today seem to love Jesus but hate the Church. Whether true or not, for them the churches they grew up in or around felt co-opted as a political pressure group while at the same time seeming to care little for global social justice and experiencing horrific public failures in its leadership.

It is also my sense that Harris is correct that churches will either (a) react against these folk and hope that something changes dramatically; (b) enter into conversations with this coming generation and try to find areas of understanding and mutual agreement; or (c) see this as an opportunity to repent of the ways the Church has been co-opted and use their energy and convictions to re-narrate what it means to be the Body of Christ in the world.

Those who know me well know that (at the front end of Gen X) feel caught in the middle of these dramatic shifts culturally. I have a great deal of empathy for those who want to do (a), but it is more my passion to find a way to accomplish (b) or (c). Your thoughts are welcomed...