Emergent, see?
Any of you keeping up with the 'emergent church' movement? Brian McLaren (author of "A New Kind of Christian," 'The Story We Find Ourselves In," "A Generous Orthodoxy" and many others) is kind of the public face/primary spokesman for this somewhat nebulous network. In a lot of ways they are 'rediscovering' a number of things that we 'rediscovered' 25 years ago, in reaction against the dominant church sub-culture of the times. I'm interested because I've been fuddy-duddied a couple of times recently--you know, treated by someone younger and more 'on fire' as something of a fuddy-duddy. for example, there is a great deal of interest in and desire for "authenticity"--which kind of implies that I must be into something like...phoniness? Beneath the normal carnal aspects of my response to being fuddy-duddied are two things I'd appreciate some help in thinking through. First, how do we not only protect/preserve what's been deposited in us, but more importantly hand it off to the rising generation? Second, is there any way to avoid/escape from the relentless reduction of everything to demographic groups? You know, I'm a boomer, so I think and feel about things in boomer ways. GenX-ers have a totally different take, and Gen-Nexters their own unique take, etc., etc. Sure, every generation is encountered by God in unique ways--the world really does change!--but it seems like we just get locked into these demographic groups not by the Spirit of God but by the dynamics of the marketplace. In other words, our demographic imprisonment is simply another sign of our worldliness.
Ahh, the solaces of Ecclesiastes...!
posted by Brian Emmet @ 10:37 AM
20 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
GREAT questions, Brian! I don't have time to give them the good and proper response that they deserve, but I would like to contribute two additional thoughts. Frist, it seems to me that we must recognize that the second half of the 20th Century brought fourth in the West cultural changes that had never been as dramatic or radically differnt at any other time or place in history. I realize that this may appear to be a strong statement, but if we think about it, for centuries, even milliniums, young people followed in the footsteps of their parents . . . vocation, dress, entertainment, etc, etc. When Elvis came on the scene (seriously), the record companies said that there was NO market to teenagers. They were wrong, and next came the Beetles, and so on, followed by clothing, then TV shows and movies, even automobiles, later iPods, MySpace, and so forth. What began in the late fifties with the "Baby Boomers," has continued, and I believe WILL continue . . . creating generational distinctives and differnces. I see it clearly in teaching a class of seniors this year Psychology and comparing and contrasting their views with the seniors that I taught in the first few years of our school more than twenty years ago! I am not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad or wrong thing. It simply is REALITY (in my opinion). Therefore, this gets back to the question of an earlier blog, like missionaries, how do we invade a culture within our culture(s)? At the risk of sounding trite, I know the Spirit of God has to be at work. A true confession here: Saturday I was doing the dishes in the kitchen while watching on the computer a video of Jimmy Hindrex at Woodstock, 1969. Not kidding, I was actually having a worship experience! The Spirit of God was strongly present, as I pondered the darkness of those days . . . height of the Vietnam War, drugs, free love, anti-cultural, rock music, etc., etc. and how GOD invaded that mass of young people and birthed the Jesus Revolution, which I believe that one day church historians will label as an authenic revival! I was overwhelmed by the grace and power of God! More LORD . . . . ! ERR
Golly, Randy, what would your comment look like if you had the proper time?
I couldn't help but read Brian's post and wonder if I was one of the young ones who "fuddy-duddied" you!
You touched on what seems to be a very difficult challenge in "passing on" faith to the next generation. The older generation's words talk about how their desire is to help other generations go even further, however, when these "youngins" show up they are missing many of the important things that make your generation what it is. This seems to provoke a crisis. Do you pass the baton to a bunch of yo-yos who seem to either not know how to run very well or who even seem to be running in the wrong direction.
In a previous post, Brian, you touched on the "Our Father" focus of Jesus in teaching them how to pray. I read your words as a warning against individualism.
This issue of passing on faith to a next generation confronts us equally with the challenge of the tendency towards collectivism. We can so avoid any individual experience with Jesus that we start baptising babies into the Kingdom before they have had the opportunity to know Jesus and be born again. The Tower of Babel work crew used the word, "Our" alot but were missing something, weren't they?
Bob Mumford told us that the Kingdom is about looking outside of ourselves. However, there does seem to need to be a starting point that can be missed if we try to get to "Our Father" before we have individually heard, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased."
Alot of churches that struggle to love outwardly...evangelize...seem to do so because they are an "us" with each other but have lost connection with the "us" between them and Him.
So many kids I meet today have grown up in churches with amazing previous generations who have met the Father and now work together in community to follow Him. These kids have not met the Father. The older generation works on them being a good "Our" when they have never become an "us" with the Father.
Worse, I am starting to see alot of the older generation lose some focus on the "us" focus of Jesus. Unctionless preachers with an overly externalized focus then get up each week and display the disconnect in lifeless messages to a lifeless congregation.
Jesus certainly set a pretty good model, didn't He? And yet He repeatedly slipped away quietly to maintain that connection with the Father.
We can hide in the crowd and it's momentum as much as we can get trapped in self-referential individualism. I can not help but come out of "us" time with the Father without Him filling my heart with a deeper sense of "Our."
I am starting to wonder if that younger generation will have to be reached by a guy like Brian who is connected deeply enough individually and corporately with the Father to not be challenged by the excess of a younger believer and who can "educere" or lead him out into what you so exquisitely experienced 25 years ago.
Hey, fellow "Fuddie Duddies..." I have a bit of a different slant on some of this. It is important to hold on to our biblical, apostolic foundational mourings as believers, but we can possibly use that as an excuse from embracing something fresh and alive God is doing that is beyond our sphere of comfort. Example: Thirty years ago when our charismatic leanings offended many traditional, mainline believers(leaders). Same with Covenant Movement. What we were hearing and seeing was rejected rather than seeking to help manage what may have been excesses or just wrong. I think it's important to determine if there is legitimate cause for alarm or are we governed by fear. So afraid of latching on to a fad at the expense of missing an exciting, flourishing move of God others are experiencing. I think church history reveals that when renewal broke out there were always those who threw out the baby, not because of solid biblical truth, but of being threatened on many other levels.
Blessings.
For the record: Jamie has never "fuddy-duddied" me, and even if he had, it would only have been because I needed it! And, should I ever need it at any point in the future (a metaphysical certainty, eh?), have at me!
This is a lively exchange! We're all wrestling with what it means for us, personally and corporately, to be faithful, to live faihtful lives. What from the past must be kept, guarded, handed on? What must be kept but modified? What let go of? And, looking forward, how do we hear and see what Father is saying and doing now, and respond to that, faithfully and in faith? Maybe we could acknowledge that "being faithful to God" encompasses more than any of us could ever know or do, individually or corporately! This does not mean that we toss everything up in the air and say "pick what you like!" Instead, it can free us to be...faithful. Not only with what's been given to us to steward (truth, experiences/history, living practices, etc.), but also faithful to the Lord, whose ways are past finding out. This should also drive us more deeply into community--I need Jamie's faithfulness to complement and supplement my own limited and incomplete faithfulness, just as I need Robert's, Randy's, John's...Bob's, Charles'...the faithfulness of the cloud of witnesses who are cheering us all on from "the stands" and the faithfulness of all those around us, and those to come after us, who also have a place in those stands.
Hmmm...our comments seem to be getting a bit longer, more thoughtful...wouldn't it be lovely to have some time together to thrash this out a bit more! But until then, this kind of conversation is a great gift. Thank you!
This is good stuff! Another two cents from my perspective. . . I have done a lot of study regarding the characteristics of baby boomers. In my limited opinion, those who were at the beginning of this boom (i.e., folks like Robert, John, LeRoy and others) have fewer characteristics than those who were born later, especially the ones around 1956-58. Two folks immediately come to mind, Dave Fritz, who serves with me as an elder and whom I count as a close personal friend, and my brother in the flesh and the LORD, Greg. Their values, life-styles, habits, etc. are the core of baby-boomer characteristics. If we were to create a list of ten characteristis for BBers, then they would have all ten. My generation (c. 1951), would probably show 5-7, and Robert and co. around 2 or 3. I realize that this is not very scientifc; however, my argument is that the emerging generation born to those earlier baby boomers reflect less of a difference; however, those born to later ones are becoming increasingly opposed to their parents' values. A good example is my brother, whom I deeply love. He and his wife are believers, small group leaders, and part of a fantastic church, which numbers more than 10,000 folks in Louisville. They live in a very nice, large home; my sister-n-law bought a new Lexus SUV about a year ago, and she just bought my brother for his 50th birthday, a new Saturn roadster sports car (~ $30k)! Bear with me, those of the postmodern, emerging cluster would ask, "Why not buy two used, reliable, less expensive vehicles, and give the difference (~ $30 -40k) to the poor (or missions, Jammie and LeRoy!)! They (PM) find such affluence to be exsessive, selfish, and sinful. They are crying for us to show our faith by our works and not just our words. They are searching for authentic faith, authentic lives. A couple areas that we have done well in that are appealing to this group are relationships and strong marriages. The former is a high value to them. The latter is a mystery. Growing up in a society where the divorce rate is more than 50% (I only knew one couple who were friends of my parents growing up who were divorced, ironically, they were my god-parents). Therefore, they are hungry to learn from those of us who have maintained thriving, loving, whole realtionships as couples. Interestingly, their search for authenticity has also taken many of them to the ancient church. My roomate at Annapolis, who was instrumental in leading me to the LORD, and who some of you know (Gary Samuelson), was shocked when his son, and the youngest of his children joined the Orthodox Church. I was shocked when one of our leading young men, who had just completed a year of training with Mike Bickle's folks in Kansas City, became engaged to a Catholic and is now converting to the Roman Church. For the folks in our parents' generation, this would almost be unheard of. It did happen, but it was seldom. One last observation: many are saying that this generation is very special. In a nation where more than 1.5 million babies have been aborted every year since 1973, they are born into this world as survivors. When it comes to prayer and spiritual warfare, they have a warrior mentality, hence the incredible 24-7 Prayer that the folks in Kansas City have created. Because, they are not so attached to "stuff," apart from a laptop and an iPod (!), they are willing to make great sacrifices, and I believe will be powerful forces on the mission field. Well, this might be more than 2 cents! . . . ERR.
Well, it seems like each new generation needs to discover for themselves the mistakes of the past! (That was NOT directed to anyone's comments, just a general observation on my part.)
Dare I say that we are thinking evolutionarily? (Hold on, hold on!) As the environment (human culture) keeps changing, some adaptations (= 'ways of doing church') work better in the developing (emerging, 'postmodern') environment, some worse. What enabled an organism (church) to be successful in one environment may not prove very helpful in a new environment; in fact, it may prove counter-productive. At the same time, every new mutation (= 'great new ideas from God!!!') isn't helpful either; in fact, the vast majority of mutations prove fatal to the organism. As our culture is undergoing rapid and possibly unique-in-history changes (Randy's point), it should make sense that some organisms will fail to adapt to the new environment (John, Jamie), and some new mutations will actually enable the genuine DNA (our Father's DNA, as it were)to move forward and outward (Jamie)... while at the same time, certain characteristics prove both durable, flexible and adaptable to a wide variety of environments (Robert).
So: do I get a gold star or a hail of rotten tomatoes?
Great summary, Brian, no tomatoes from me, lots of gold *****s! Just a brief comment that may serve as a catalyst for further dialog. Speaking of which, where is LeRoy? We need to hear some of his gems! I am beginning to realize that when I read the Old Testament, I feel very good about my faith. I especially can relate, as I am sure everyone can, to the Psalmist, "Oh, LORD, why . . . . ? Likewise, when I read the epistles, I generally feel like the ship is on course (e.g., I genuinely try to love my wife as Christ loves His church, etc.). HOWEVER, as I have been reading the Gospels, I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable! This morning I read in Luke, Chapter 11 (NLT, in fact, the one Robert gave us as a gift when we were all in COS a few years ago!) where Jesus made the statement six times, "how terrible it will be for you," (in most translations, the six "woes") in an account that in its entirety only covers 28 verses. One example, "you tithe" (I have done so faithfully since I met the LORD almost 35 years ago), but "you completely forget about justice and the love of God" (11:42b). Ouch! When addressing the issue of the postmoderns and related questions, rather than asking how the church should look, should we be asking how the Kingdom of God looks? All for now . . . ERR
I wonder if one facet of this current conversation has to do with the fear of death. I don't mean that we doubt Christ's saving work; the "death" I'm wondering about is the possibility of the death of what we've given our lives to building and nurturing--churches, schools, ministries, etc. I wonder if part of what animates the sometimes heated exchanges between the "old" and the "young," the "old" and the "new", is the old's fear of obsolescence and death. Our churches may not make the transition to the next generation of leadership. Our schools may succumb to market forces and realities. I don't mean to gainsay the temendous value of the intellectual kind of conversation we've been having around the current post, I'm wondering about whether there are additional hidden emotional aspects to it as well.
Some more questions...
Is it the whole modernist thing that makes everything a polarized discussion?
In other words, it seems that we are always taking great care to avoid the extreme of things...as if we know for sure that things will always end up there if we are not very careful.
I really think this has something to do with what we are talking about.
Part of that post-modern ability to walk away from perceived absolutes does allow for getting closer to absolute truths that our human perspective has painted until this point as overly simplified.
It is as if some modernists touched the large mountain peak of a truth during a time of revelation...like forgiveness, community, devotional life, discipleship...and immediately mapped out the mountaintop and put a flag on top of it saying, "This is how this is and it can't be any different!"
While some people, post-modernists or not, will wander recklessly away from the map and the mountaintop to their emotionally-driven, unbalanced and doctrinally unsound doom…others actually go deeper into a Biblical truth by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
This is a bit of high-stakes poker…do we dare go deeper into what certainly isn’t a new truth to God but is also certainly deeper than what we got in our first pass at it 25 years ago.
The modernist focus on propositional truth gets in the way of this sometimes. You can sense that you are hearing an old take on something. A subject where the Holy Spirit brought the Word to life in an older leader years ago and it has now become their recurring sound byte on the matter. Not that truth could change…but is it possible we are saying that we have figured entire truths out to their utmost depth and have them down pat? Any theology that begins with the concept that we have God figured out seems to be amateurish at best.
I am starting to think that we are missing in this discussion that while there are the extremes of both modernism and post-modernism, there are also the real believers of each generation in the middle of it all and God can use both generational tendencies in these individuals and even keep them safe from the extremes they tend toward by His grace.
I have a dream…sorry…always wanted to say that….of the two working together. The younger set can start rock climbing down the side of the mountain peak toward a deeper understanding of the mountain ALONGSIDE the older set. Both are necessary to make the expedition work. The older’s heart for deep truths embedded in “biblical legacy” and an earnest Cristology and Pneumatology can be a very much needed anchor while the younger generations agility in pressing past the propositional to “what works” can play a lesser but important part. The two need each other. We can only get there together.
Okay…blow me away and reveal me for the post-modern punk that I TEND to be!
Hmmm... is this Modernist Robert reasserting himself over Postmodernist Robert? [insert smiley face winking in a friendly and good-natured manner] Seriously, let me know if you think this string has run its course, or if you'd like to see us work on some sort of summary...
Silence! mmmmmmmm, catching our breath? Waiting for the next profound blog? Watching the snow fall? [Doing that here now!]. . . .
May I call our attention back to a portion of Brian's intial comments that launched this series of stimulating entries: "You know, I'm a boomer, so I think and feel about things in boomer ways. GenX-ers have a totally different take, and Gen-Nexters their own unique take, etc., etc. Sure, every generation is encountered by God in unique ways--the world really does change!--but it seems like we just get locked into these demographic groups not by the Spirit of God but by the dynamics of the marketplace. In other words, our demographic imprisonment is simply another sign of our worldliness." Interestingly, yesterday I spent about 30" of my psychology class (8 girls, 7 seniors, six of whom are National Honor Society, outstanding student types), disucssing this! They were clueless! Two factors have contributed to this phonomenon (the cultural gaps): WWII and the subsequent baby boom, coupled with an economic boom. This started the ball rolling. YES! Economics plays a huge part . . . young people can afford their outlandishly priced torn jeans (I have offered to tear my kids jeans for FREE!), the $300.00 video iPods, cell phones with seemingly unlimited minutes, their own TV's, computers, CDs, DVDs, and even automobiles. HOWEVER, the net result is a cultural identity apart from their parents. My appeal, for our consideration, is that this is unparalleled in the 6,000 year history of mankind, AND primarily a product of Western Civilization . . . although it is spreading . . . check the latest on the youth culture growing in China (once more economics plays the major part . . . China will soon have more millionaires than the U.S.). At the risk of sounding redundent, it seems to me the challenge is that there is no precedent to draw from, no historical example to study and glean pearls of wisdom from . . . we indeed are pioneers in a new day! Plus, this new day is a moving target. As I shared with my psychology students, their challenge will be insuring that their children are doing their homework and not watching a video on their wristwatch!!!!! ERR, out!
I've been thinking about stones and settings as a way to summarize our discussion. stones, as in precious stones, are the enduring, durable, valuable things of God; the settings are expressions of human culture, i.e., how the eternal things of God get set/expressed within human cultures. For example, Robert pointed to some gems: "This is My Body... Love your neighbor... Go into all the world." We are not free to disregard any of the gems--to do so would only tragically impoverish us!--but we do need to wrestle with how the Spirit of God intends to set these stones in the context of our cultures. The settings can change, and may, in some instances, even be discarded, but the precious stones must be kept at all costs. So anyone think you've spotted a gem or two in all this ore we've been throwing around?
One quick comment and more later. . . Another snow day here! Yes! After I had made yesterday's entry, I was doing my prayer walking at the mall. As I rounded one corner, I noted a new basketball jersey in the store window for "Champs." It is for team USA. On a subsequent lap, I noted the words on the sign advertising this new product: "Respect the past. Represent the future." WOW! I thought, could this be what we are saying? . . . ERR
Hmmm..."Respect the past. Represent the future" may be something like we're saying, as long as we're clear about the future we're representing: Father's everlasting kingdom ushered in by the glorius appearing of His Son. My problem with the Champs marketing slogan is that "the future" to which it appeals is a future that we are creating for ourselves. But I'm sure I'm being too picky, and I do think I understand what Randy was getting at.
I'd be open to opening our blog to some other contributors. I think what we're after is ongoing engagement, dialogue, discussion. However, if there are too many folks involved, I'm concerned that it becomes merely a lobbing of positions back and forth. Any ideas on why more of our crew isn't involved? Are the posts too heady, too impractical, or are guys like Thom, Mark and others too busy (I know Thom is and imagine Mark is as well). I'd like this to not only serve our need to do theology together but also to maintain some kind of meaningful relational contact in between our face-to-face meetings. Maybe what we're doing is "too intellectual" and not personal/relational enough?
Yes, to your questions, Brian. The theological, philosophical comments are interesting...but haven't we made it clear we don't want to forget the eternal truth's God has declared in His word, what He has deposited in our hearts all these many years, what we owe to the fathers of our faith, including the great doctrinal issues fought and died for that have been handed down through the centuries...I love all that, yet,it seems we should, at the same time, be looking for the extravagant, outrageous, awesome demonstrations of God's presence and Kingdom being demonstrated on the earth even as we speak. What would we have thought seeing Jesus making mudballs and putting them in the eyes of a blind man, or touching His tongue to a mute's tongue? Much less the acts Jesus did that were too numerous to be recorded? Again, What Jamie is doing appeals to me...what Dave and Marilyn have and continue to do in Kingston, Thom, would love to know, Mark, would love to know, LeRoy, would love to know, Jim, would really love to know etc. Blessings to a great bunch of comrades.
I am just here, realing, as it were, with the amazing insights presented by brothers whom I love and respect. Maybe heaven isn't 72 virgins, but an endless dialogue between ourselves and our Lord????
hi guys,
good discussion... I got in on it late, so I just scanned through it after reading Brian's initialt posting.
I personally have enjoyed Brian McLaren's book and his perspective, particularly his emphasis on both "post" conservatives and "post" liberals...He seems to be helping evangelicals to move away from polarities and positionalities in which we define ourselves by what we don't believe and by what we are against. I especially like his book, A Generous Orthodoxy.
Personally I am tired of angry evangelicalism and the culture wars. I feel like the guy from Cold Mountain who decides to dessert from the Civil War (in our case perhaps the "uncivil" war) to go home to the one he loves.
I am much more interested in learning how to communicate truths of God's love to post-modern young people, even if it means that I start sounding like a new ager.
The other day, Deb and I were in the Tampa airport (I think it was on the way to ACM) and I felt that I was discerning God's grace on our waitress. I asked her if she was a Christian, and she immediately put up walls and said "no, I am not religious'.... I prayed, and when she came back, I told that that I had not intended to make her uncomfortable, but that I had sensed a lot of "postive energy in her aura" (translation: The grace of God resting on her). She immediately warmed up and started talking with us and eventually gave me her email address to stay in touch.
I am really excited about our journey into the future. I just hope I don't get crucified by church folk.
joseph
by-the-way, as I am responding to these comments, I am attending an International Arts Movement conference in New York. It is pretty interesting and represents a different type of emergence... perhaps "emerging kingdom"?
This is an organization that was started by a young and highly successful Japonese artist named Makota Fujimura.
http://www.imagejournal.org/aom/fujimura_mako.asp
http://www.makotofujimura.com
there are a couple of pastors here who are speaking, but most of the leadership and speaking is coming from people in the professional arts world, which gives it a fresh flavor for me. We have a branch of the organization that meets in Miami twice a month and draws a lot of 20-somethings who are creative types.
I am here with some friends from Miami who are moving up in the art world, and my son, John, who is a celloist and song-writer. Good stuff!
I believe that God is going to move in the neXt generation, and I am watching and waiting, and scanning the horizen to see where the kingdom will begin "emerging" among them. I believe one of the places, at least in Miami, where the kingdom is flowing among 20-somethings is in the art world.
Tom Bergeron would love this!
If you are interested in IAM (the International Arts Movement) you can check it out at
http://www.makotofujimura.com/index_iam.html
He is a bio on there, plus several good essays, one of which is one the Twin Towers and 911 (his art studio was next to ground zero).
By-the-way, I enjoy the kinds issues you are raising in this blog...but I should apologize for crashing your team discussions. Feel free to let me know if you need privacy. I think this is a great idea!
j
Post a Comment
<< Home