If you are interested in the Emerging Church stuff, this might be well worth your time. In this article, a well known theologian, supporting the movement (well, some say
conversation), Scot McKnight talks about key elements of the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today.
It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don't really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they've got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.
Continue reading
here (there? I'm confused) and come back to comment here. :-)
1 comment:
I had read the article previously, but reread it just now.
First Stream: Prophetic (or at least provocative)
I am glad that people are shaking it up a bit! We need it!
Second Stream: Postmodern
McKnight captures well the various possibilities for ministry in postmodernity: We can minister to the postmodern, with the postmodern or as a postmodern. Clearly the first one has problems. The second one is where I am at, given my age and background; though I am on a train that has left the station and it is uncertain where I will end up. (Hence the name Kelyje). The third is ahead of me at this point, but I am not too far from them. I need to do more studying and practicing.
Third Stream: Praxis-Oriented
There were sub points that were very interesting.
Concerning Worship:
You could say we at "Kelyje" have funky worship. Though given my brief experience I am certain that candles, dim lights and coffee are not the essence of this whole thing, though we do it for a purpose.
Concerning Orthopraxy:
A notable emphasis of the emerging movement is orthopraxy, that is, right living. The contention is that how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes. Many will immediately claim that we need both or that orthopraxy flows from orthodoxy. Most in the emerging movement agree we need both, but they contest the second claim: Experience does not prove that those who believe the right things live the right way.
These then are the questions for me: How should we then live? What part does belief play in our actions? How should we be? What should we do?
This is where for me the confusion comes. What is it that we can do on a practical level, as a small church, that will be significant. I am not too concerned about being orthodox. (I can handle the wild and the crazy). To me it seems that we are just having gatherings, small groups, and lots of coffee. We are loving people and growing as a followers of Jesus. Perhaps it is the modern in me that wants to see results.
Concerning Missional:
Well, now we are talking about activities again. What are we doing, being, living, etc.? I think McKnight has to say about being missional grasps the essence of what I have read about the emerging church. That is my goal. I want to have a missional church. Again though, how does that work out in Vilnius?
Fourth Stream: Post-evangelical
I liked his assessment of the idea of being "post-evangelical" in general and being "post-systematic theology" in particular.
Hence, a trademark feature of the emerging movement is that we believe all theology will remain a conversation about the Truth who is God in Christ through the Spirit, and about God's story of redemption at work in the church. No systematic theology can be final. In this sense, the emerging movement is radically Reformed. It turns its chastened epistemology against itself, saying, "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong. What do you think? Let's talk."
As someone who has credentials with the Assemblies of God (A/G), in the past I have thought that we had the "best" theology. (Thus, Pentecostal churches often refer to themselves as "full gospel." The implication is that other traditions are "less than full" or incomplete. God forgive me! I must admit that I don't think the A/G, or anyone else, has it all figured out perfectly. So, I concur with and adopt McKnight's assessment of the emerging church and say "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong. What do you think? Let's talk."
I say a big AMEN! to the "in versus out section," with one caveat. I think the wall between the sacred and the secular must come down. If he is referring to the idea that we must keep the wall, then I disagree. If he is saying that we need to continue to share the message of Jesus (without doubt via orthopraxy) then I am with him.
Fifth Stream: Politics
Well, I am fairly confused at moment politically. I am being pulled in both directions, left and right. Most of the article relates to US politics, which is irrelevant to this cohort. Yes, I know that what the US does affects the world. But this is not the place for that discussion.
Blessings!
David
Post a Comment