This past week, my church denomination had a big, multi-day event. Lots of activities such as trade booths, information exhibits, workshops, and worship services took place for three days and nights. Interestingly, I noticed three streams of philosophical thought (in terms of doing church) with a strong presence there: (1) Traditional, (2) Emergent, and (3) Church Growth. I believe all of the camps thoroughly love Jesus Christ and desire to serve His kingdom... but they all have have unique perspectives on just what that means in practice.
The mostly older (in my estimation) Traditional folks love and honor their rich heritage. They continue to attend and support the denomination-wide events with gusto, even as they look bewildered by all the changes in methods and philosophical shifts they encountered a wide variety of workshops and public services. Over the nearly 100 years of our church's existence, our primary doctrines have undergone some pretty severe criticism, and have been minimized (or rejected) by many of it's own churches and church members. But of the remnant that prefers a more traditional church model, they continue to powerfully influence the denomination through strong verbal and financial support, as well as a firm power base at the top levels.
Meanwhile, the Church Growth folks had a very strong presence at the conference as well, continuing a trend that has been building steam for some time now. Essentially, the philosophy of this camp is that our old fuddy-duddy churches need to get out of their traditional rut and wake up to the new methodologies that attract unchurched people and transform communities. Rather than just continue to be a small, obscure presence in our cities and towns, we need to become market savvy... we need to meet the needs and desires of young families - because if they aren't attracted to come to our churches, they won't hear the message of salvation. Therefore, Church Growth folks would have pastors learn better marketing strategies and management techniques, rearrange their worship services to be more seeker-friendly, and follow a basic business model which have proven to be effective in countless mega-churches around the world.
The Emergent crowd seeks to be more missional, more organic in it's connection to the local community, and more concerned with serving God's kingdom than with building His church. This camp - in a moment of rare agreement with the Church Growth crowd - puts less emphasis on traditional doctrines and practices that came to full development somewhere around the 1950's. Emergents simply don't believe in placing an over-emphasis on the individual. Important as that may be, the gospel speaks more of corporate sin and salvation. Therefore, a major emphasis is placed on living in authentic community together, reading the stories of God and allowing His Word to shape our character.
Why am I writing all this? Since the conference is now complete, I've heard or taken part in several conversations about how splintered things are becoming within our tradition of faith. Rather than finding a way to affirm the good in the other streams of ecclesial thought... people are choosing what "side" they're on, and criticizing the other two with a subtle (or not so subtle) air of superiority. However, call me weird, or spineless, or attracted to the squishy-middle... but I think all three camps have at least something to offer. Obviously, if you've read any of my previous posts, it's very apparent that I fit most comfortably in the Emergent camp... but not completely. I went to a Brian McClaren seminar a couple of years ago, and that was the beginning of a major paradigm shift in my Christian faith. Since then, I have read numerous books and blogs, had countless conversations with Christians from all walks of life... and wrestled with God in my continual search for authentic Christianity. The result is that my faith in Jesus Christ has been strengthened, my calling to pastoral ministry has been reinterpreted, and my faith in the future of His church has been radically restored.
But does the Emergent crowd (or any other) have a patent on Truth? Are Emergents better Christians than those from the Church Growth Movement? Are Church Growth folks closer to the kingdom of God than the more Traditional folks? Whatever your opinion of the answer to those questions... only God knows the answers for certain (and I have a feeling we're all way off base... Aren't you glad for grace?) As a potential church-planter, someone who's been a member of a whopping two churches in my 13 years as a Christ follower (a Church Growth kind of church, and a more Traditional church)... I can tell you that I have encountered Christ in both communities numerous times. I have not ever yet attended an Emergent church... but something tells me the church I will serve as pastor will reflect much of that philosophy. However, just like I never fit in to any particular social labels in high school (the jocks, stoners, and rednecks)... I don't fit exclusively into any of the three streams of thought swirling around my church denomination either.
Frankly, I want the best of all worlds... I want to find a way to honor the traditions and doctrines upon which my church denomination was built (Traditional)... I want to be a good communicator and place a premium on doing things with excellence as a church should (Church Growth)... and I want to live in authentic, missional community with my friends and neighbors (Emergent).
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:17-19).
4 comments:
I believe all forms: (traditional, contemporary, church growwth, emergent) need to be missional.
I see missional as function not form.
I absolutely agree, Jerry. If my post seemed to indicate otherwise (which it very well may have) I stand corrected. Missional discipleship is not a methodology, but a bibilcal philosophy which should permeate all forms of ministry. All I meant to communicate is that the Emergent church has done a great job of calling the local church back to compassionate kingdom living, i.e., missional, Christlike practice of our faith at all times. Much of what I have seen in the more traditional and contemporary models of doing church have focused primarily on the thought processing of God in Christ, rather living out our beliefs in Messianic practice. My interpretation is that both are equally important according to the life and teachings of Jesus.
I remember when the Denomination of which you speak created their three core values. Dr. Bassett hated the word "missional" being one of the core values because he believed it was inherent in the purpose.
He definitely wasn't saying the church should not be missional. He was saying that being mission driven should have been a "no duh" moment for the church.
Yes, well not only do we have "missional" as one of the core values, but the way it's presented is more about worship and support of international missionary work (thought processing), rather than getting our hands dirty in the messiness of our local context (Messianic practice), i.e, giving hope to the hopeless.
Post a Comment