Imperishable Inheritance

I've been reading/listening to Emerging thinkers for the past year or two. That hasn't given me a really deep understanding of the "movement" --most prefer to call it a conversation, which I'm sure you'll think sounds flaky, but is intented to convey that it's not about causing more divisions, but thinking about how those of us who aren't ministered to by the modern church can find ways to follow Christ -- but it's given me enough of an understanding to say that you'll need to look a lot deeper and with a much more honest approach that just reading an article by Carson (whose book and articles have generated a lot of good responses from EC leaders) and noticing that a modern megachurch has started a "postmodern service" (most likely because they have absolutely no interest in the EC, but want to look cool) if you want to start discussing the pros and cons of the EC. (By the way, this is a much more balanced article of Carson's).

The EC isn't about returning to the apostolic period and no one has ever claimed the apostles were postmoderns. There is a lot of interest in using some of the ancient practices that the modern church threw out, but no one is trying to create a carbon copy of the ancient church. The whole point is discovering what works for us today.

McLaren -- who is only one of dozens of leaders in the movement, and one that many others in the movement disagree with on significant issues -- has a good refuation of the doctrinal relativism charge here.

The argument that the EC is just trying to conform to postmodern culture is also misinformed and unfair. Here [MP3] is an example of that being refuted.

How much of the Bible is narrative? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Revelation and pretty much all of the Old Testament. If narrative preaching is a lesser form of communicating truth than exposition of systematic theology then why did Jesus use it almost exclusively? Both have their place.

Not "what works" in the sense of whatever we feel like and makes us comfortable. That's a much better description of the Seeker Sensative movement than the Emerging Church. What works in the sense that, there are a lot of ways in which Christians in the modern era conformed Christianity to the culture around them. Some of this was good (e.g., developing apologetics in response to Enlightenment thinkers charging that christian belief was foolish) and some was bad (e.g., those same apologetics, which were created by fallen minds, being held up as absolutes as if they were divinely inspired instead of just fallable interpretations of divine revelation). And those kind of things have influenced how we think about and practice following Christ.

So, since we're moving out of the modern era, a lot of those things that are tied to modernity need to be reevaluated because they're no longer serving the body or the kingdom (and in several instances, are hurting it). It isn't about changing the heart of the gospel or making the Bible say whatever we want it to say (Pot, meet Kettle...); it's about figuring out how people who are living in a postmodern context can continue the Christian tradition in a way that is faithful to the gospel but also contextualized to the present time. The modern church did this very same thing 500 years ago. But now it has confused the gospel with the system they built around the gospel and is refusing to let the actual gospel break out of the system and continue the work of redemption in a new era.

This isn't about relativizing truth. The only reason I'm interested in the EC is because I wan't to know the truth. I want to understand how all of this works and how I can better follow Jesus. And in the EC I've found other people who have some of the same doubts and questions and hope and devotion that I do.

As far as I can see from this arguement, maybe a modernity approach is valid in some circumstances, but postmodern approachs are also needed to read the postmodern people in today's society. I don't know all of the arguments or whatnot behind this, but in my personal experience - I have seen both work. Aren't we all just different parts of the same body anyways? Why not have different approaches to presenting the gospel?

Modernity: I went to this church on the Isle of Lewis (it was a small church- maybe 15- 20 people?). The service was very traditional. It wasn't catholic, but there were litergies, hymns, standing up/sitting down, but you could still feel God in it. You could feel the reverence that the people had for God, and how even though everything was very structured (and totally strange in my eyes- I'm not exactly used to it), they were still worshipping God the whole time. The pastor got up and gave an awesome message, and afterwards all the church gathered together in the kitchen for tea and biscuits. Although it was really different, every one was very nice and friendly..and very much cared how we were doing, and why we were there.

Post-modern: I guess "The Gate" would be a good example of this. They have a huge church in Dundee(which normally makes me feel uncomfortable), but an absolutely amazing service. They start with very contemporary worship (the worship band was awesome- it reminded me almost of Hillsong or something- they were very passionate), and they webcast the sermon as it is being teached. It's a church that has several different people who come and speak (although they do have a set pastor)..... missionaries from Africa, missionaries to Europe, the Youth leaders, visiting Evangelists, etc. After service they have a cafe thing where you can go and get free coffee and hang out with people. During the week they met in cell groups of about 10 people- each cell group was catered to different types of people (college age single men, college age single women, high school age men, high school age women, married couples, a senior group, etc. ) And Sunday nights they have a youth/young adult service held in the church basement- which is a cafe complete with Karoake machine and a dance floor. Anyone who comes gets free coffee, tea, or hot chocolate. They have a youth worship band, and testimonies are given, then either someone from the youth leadership gets up and speaks or the youth leaders come and speak. And afterwards everyone hangs out and the worship band plays some Christian rock music or something. But you felt God there too. And it was a great opportunity for most of the church kids there to bring in friends who may not have come to church if the cafe thing or the music wasn't so appealing.

Two different approaches, save the free coffee/tea thing- since that is a staple in Britain, but both reaching to different types of people. The people on the Isle of Lewis are very traditional and tend to be a bit older, but they still love God. The people at the Gate tend to be younger (it attracts a lot of college students/military/young married couples) and more culturally relevant, but it also works, and they still love God and are bold enough to get up and still preach the gospel and God's word.

So I think as long as you are preaching God's word and truth, why does the method matter? It just about what works to communicate God's word to the people you are trying to reach. As long as you do not lose the message in the translation, God is still there, and He is still being glorified.

I can give you examples of apologetic approaches too if you'd like.

Hey..it only took me 15 minutes to post that big long response ;)

Kat is a record-fast typer, especially when I know what I want to say. It's from years of computer stuff and office work/paperwork. :P

A modern approach is still valid for modern people, but not really for postmodern people.

One example would be leadership. Modern churches are very hierarchical, with pastors many times acting like CEOs. Postmoderns are typically distrustful of authority and prefer more democratic structures. Someone saying "I have all the answers. Follow me." might be appealing to a modern, but it isn't to a postmodern. Therefore, in churches made up of postmoderns the power tends to be distributed more equitably.

I don't have time for any more right now, but here are some more examples of how the approaches differ. I'll check back tomorrow.

"Overseering" in the 1st century was nothing like a pastor today. Formal hierarchies in the church didn't even really start until the 2nd century and didn't start to become as defined and rigid as they are today until the 4th. Paul didn't have today's type of pastor in mind when he wrote that. The early church was very decentralized. You can argue that the type of positions that developed are good, but you can't argue that they're some perfect model set in stone by God. They may be good and helpful for the modern church, but not as much for the postmodern church.

Ha!!! I got the last word in.