My Small Corner

Early Christmas Present

Those of you who know me outside of this blog (and sometimes in it) know that I am a big fan of sarcasm, parody and wit.  Today my attention has been drawn to a new blog called Slice 'o Laodicea, a parody of another site with a similar name.  The by-line is great:  "Exposing the naughty trends of the contemporary church and finding news ways to be jerks for Jesus!" The author is a little risque, but it is overall fun.  So far my favorite is the post titled Thank God for Ted Haggard, but the sex god post is a close 2nd.

When the Internet Lets You Down

It is rare that I can't find what I'm looking for on the internet.  I have a knack for finding obscure facts and lesser known articles.  Yesterday, Dan Kimball of Vintage Faith posted (very well) about a anti-emerging letter published and mailed out by a well-known conservative pastor, one with whom I have had issue with before.  Kimball never mentions the pastor by name, but within 30 seconds or so, I had that information. 

Kimball's post is a response to this letter, of which he only publishes excerpts.  I can't find the letter on-line.  The pastor's website contains similar articles, but no copy of the actual letter being referenced.  Several other bloggers reference the letter, even quote parts of it, but nobody has published the whole thing.  While I respect Kimball and generally find him to be an even voice in the emerging conversation, I am disappointed that we have to take the parts he published without seeing their context.

I have googled this letter every direction, but have come up empty.  If anyone gets a copy, or finds one on line, please let me know.  While I am likely to accept Kimball's version of the letter, I would prefer to read it myself.

Yeah, What He Said

I'm reading through an interesting discussion over at Camponthis regarding what it means to "contextualize the gospel" and is should or shouldn't be done.  A commenter named Phil had a great quote in the middle of his comment:

"I think the issue is that we (Christians) do not just present the gospel; we present this whole bag of Christian cultural trappings that come with most churches. It gives people the idea that in order to be a Christian you have to be a white, middle-class Republican and drive an SUV (ironically, all of which I am except the SUV part) to be a Christian. I’ve actually had international students confirm this to me. They say they respect Jesus, but to them Christianity is an American religion."

As I have gone through youth ministries at conservative churches, read up on all kinds of Christians blogs, studied various texts, Phil sums up my concerns with the current church body here in America.  How much of what we use to define "Christianity" is Bible-based and how much is cultural additions?  Well said Phil, well said.

Where the Emerging Conversation Goes Right and Wrong (reposted)

Note:  This is a repost of a post that needed severe format correction.  When I re-typed it, I did change a few typos, some that actually changed the meaning of a sentence.

There has been a pleasant discussion over on Bill's blog regarding weakness in the emerging church and it's strengths.  The question has been asked if the ec is liberal and I posted some of my thoughts over there, but really (of course) I had more to say that should be put in a comment. So here are my thoughts.

From what I understand, the ec started as a bridge between denominations and wasn't originally supposed to be about doctrine.  The conversation was supposed to be between people who believe different (non-salvational) things, about reaching more people for Christ and living a more holistic and missional life.  The result would be people who don't just do church on Sunday, but are the church everyday.  An interesting interview with Scott McKnight about the ec can be found here.

It is funny because it occures to me that if that is the truth about what the original purpose of the ec is, then I was ec long before most of the big names were.  I can remember sitting around after youth group discussing differences in theology and what points really matter - which are salvationa in nature.  And within that context, how can we be more effective in ministering to people?  I was reading "Dangerous Wonder and thinking about how we let the organized church take the mystery out faith and instead box God, long before I'd heard of a prayer labrinth.  It turns out there were a lot of people in church basements having the same conversations late at night, and it amazing me how many of them started in youth ministry.

Now as soon as a group forms that says they don't want to get into the details of their own doctrine, certain other groups start jumping up and down and yelling ecumenicalism and liberalism.  I know because I have been in church meeting whee this literally happened, it is kind of fun, like a backwards pentecostal celebation.  In fact, so many churches are so afraid of what others believe that their own statements of faith end up being 10 page, mulit-point dissertations.

I don't have that much of a problem with ecumenicalism.  There are salvational issues that (I think) are vital to the Christian faith, I personally beieve most of what is listed in the apostles creed, with the exception of the line "he decended into hell".  Now there are churches/christians who believe that it is not acceptable for women to wear pants.  Do I agree with them?  No, but I don't think that they are going to hell for believing that.  In fact, one of us is wrong, either pants are okay or they are not, but whoever is in the wrong is not going to hell.  This is where some of the fundamentalists really get it wrong.  Often they believe that an issue like wearing pants is salvational or at the very least will lead to other salvational problems.  I just can't make the connection between wearing pants and believing that Jesus wasn't the son of God.

I think that the charge against ec'ers about being too liberal is because (mist) people in it don't actually talk about what they personally believe (IMHO).  Therefore, they are seen as believing nothing.  The point of the ec is to work together to further God's kingdom, regardless of differences in belief.  Now there were Christians in the first church (Acts) that were Pharises, and there are Christians today who designate themselved as "keepers" who are really just modern day Pharises.  Sometimes their hearts are in the right place when they see problems, but when they call Christian bands whores of BAbylon, then they are just being legalistic.  They are so in error themselves as they try to point it out in others, that they are blinded to their own arrogance.  In their hurry to keep people from taking away from the Bible, the fail to realize that they themselves are adding to it.

Why don't most people in the ec give their own beliefs?  Sometimes,if you take a stand for or against something that the person you are working with is on the opposite side of, the point becomes proving your position right and theirs wrong.  Whatever you were working on becomes irrelevant and forgotten.  It is easier to quiet your own personal views to work together.  This is why we are called, so often in the Bible, to love each other, and not to be a stumbling block to other Christians.  Now I can see a problems with my last few statements.  In the case I am speaking of, both people are Christians, and the belief in dispute is non-salvational.  I do believe that Christians must always be willing to take a stand in front of non-believers about what makes them different. 

Here is where I have a problem with the ec:  they fail to take into account the witness they present to those outside the faith.  In their zeal to cross doctrinal beliefs - in a reaction against statements of faith that were/are becoming more and more dtailed, the ec'ers seem to have thrown out acceptance of any statements at all (the baby out with the bathwater).  As the ec becomes more organized and starts has started looking more like a denomination, they do need to define what they see as salvational beliefs, and how those beliefs should be carried out.  Many non-Christians are on the outside and looking in, thanks to all of the books, interviews and blogs, so they are seeing these "conversations".  (and if people in the ec can't agree on what it is, what does it look like to someone who doesn't belive in Christ?)  I have said on other blogs that if a person is a Christian, then they should be willing to say it - on their blog, at the start of the interview, in the introduction of their book.  It should not be difficult to find a statement of belief/testimony from a public Christian.  It is part of the responsibility of being well-known.

Now, please don't misunderstand me, I think that there are vocal people in the ec who believe stuff I disagree with, who believe things that are wrong.  Ec'ers get painted with the same bursh as those more pbulic individuals, what McLaren believes must be what you believe because you are both into the ec. But at the same time, I am still somewhat of a fundamentalist, and it scares me to death that people see Pat Robertson and think that because we are both fundamentalists that I agree with everything/anything he says, which I have addressed previously on the blog, but will do so again:  PAT ROBERTSON DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME!  The same can be said for other big names in the evangelical and fundamentalist camps.

I also think that the big names in the ec are often deliberately evasive to spur conversation, and should take a stand on some points of doctrine.  I don't believe that the ec in inherently left or that the people in it or conversing with it are automatically liberal, because I'm not.  Are there levels of liberalism?  I think so.  There is a spectrum between the conservatives and the liberals, just like in politics, with a wide grey area.  I am take some points from each of the many Christian groups to form what I believe.  There are people who think that by doing that I am automatically a liberal, but the liberals don't want me because I don't agree with them 100% either.  So what am I?  Where am I on the spectrum?  I don't know, I'm still working on that.

The bottom line is this, I don't have all of the answers, none of us do on this side of heaven.  I want to be a part of a church that isn't defined by the thinks they don't do.  I want to be part of a church that doesn't just "do" church on Sundays.  I want to be part of a church that sees Jesus not just as a means to salvation but someone to be more like, someone whose work we should be continuing.  I want to be part of a church that has hands and feet, not just a mouth and blinders.  I want to be part of a church where people matter more than a broken coffee pot or stained rug.

I want to be part of a church where they realize that THE church is not a building or denomination, but a collective body full of different people and opinions.  If that makes me liberal, then be careful, because Jesus was one too.

Where the Emerging Conversation Goes Right and Wrong (deleted)

This post was deleted due to formating issues and reposted here.

Is Emergent What You Do?

I went to a church service that advertises itself as an emergent service.  Their marketing is geared toward the upper high school and 20 something crowd.  The nice lady on the phone said it was really for the youth group, and asked me if emergent was "like another denomination, like Presbyterian"?  (Isn't emergent something you do instead of being something you are?) I went to the service anyway.

Not wanting to go alone, I waited in the car for about 8 minutes waiting for the rest of my group to arrive.  I watched as a lot nicely dressed families got out of their cars and went right (from my vantage point) into the "real" church.  I watched as a few blue-jeaned kids went left toward the building that hosted this special service.  It struck me as odd, this two churches on the same-property-but-at-opposite-ends-of-it idea.  Are we catering to special interest groups within the church body?  Is that good?  Is that bad?  Is it so far from the Acts church, meeting in all sorts of people's houses?  Is it out of my comfort zone because it is wrong or because it is different?

Eventually, I went inside, by myself (no reflection on those I was waiting for, I have this nasty habit of being way too early).  The lights were dim and there were candles.  It smelled kinda nice, not like carpet shampoo or the stale smell of the last potluck meal.  My favorite thing was the coffee.  Real coffee, not the kind that we find in the fellowship hall of the typical suburban church, but real coffee, with real flavored creamers.  Paper cups-not plastic, which will be here for the next 500 years after I spend my 10 minutes with it.  Nice lids too, for the general idiot like me who likes to spill theirs (I spilled mine anyway, with the lid on!).  They had tea, and brewed hot chocolate and donuts and danishes oh my.

The praise band played a few songs, pretty good band, vocals were a little too low for the instruments but better than the church I go to.  One of the pastors came right up, stuck out his hand and made introductions.  Having been primed by the nice lady on the phone, went right into question mode:  How long have you been doing this?  Why do you call it emergent?  Who is it geared for?  Who attends?  The summary is that they aren't emergent in the way that people who are emergent would consider themselves emergent.  They are geared for younger Christians who are looking to "do" church differently.  They consider themselves experimentally experiential, trying new things.  It is part of the youth group, but they do get adults and some families.  Next time I'll ask how they define emergent, what their long term plan is, and if they aren't emergent, why do they use the name?

Everyone milled around.  Kids that I knew came up and said hi.  The rest of my party arrived.  We looked at the bulletin, picked some seats (the kind you sit on, not with).  Other than the ministers, only one other adult came up to say hi, and I knew her from elsewhere.  The majority of attendees were high school kids, but we weren't the only adults.

They did announcements.  Then the talk, on Philemon.  It was really good.  The topic was forgiveness, and slaves to holding a grudge to becoming free in forgiveness.  The floor was opened to the people, to answer questions and ask a few, very interactive.  Everyone continued drinking their coffee, including the speakers.  I like that, informal, less structure, comfortable, just don't worship the coffee.  If this had been my current church, the sermon would have consisted of a 3 point sermon on how God forgives us, why we would forgive and the benefits of forgiving.  Not here.  This was a down and dirty teaching of how to forgive, including personal stories from the leaders of the situations they find themselves in.  It is hard to forgive, there are instructions on how to reconcile and they aren't fair because it is up to the person who has been wronged to fix it.  Sometimes forgiveness is something that must be given each and every day.  And lastly, that we don't forget, don't have to forget, but need to make a conscious decision to go on anyway.

There were some meditation portions, sit quietly and think about how this impacts you.  Then we had "worship" and sang a song.  There was a prayer, and some more speaking about the topic.  Not in an arrogant way (the way that tells God specifically what he is to come down and do to us) but in a truly humble and beseeching manner, full of silence.  Then we had some more "worship" and sang a few more songs.  I put the word worship in quotes because of the way it was said.  Like worship only happens when we sing.

The songs were good, the band was good, although they looked like poster children for emergent.  I have to say that I really like the music.  I liked the fact that the leader, who looked like he was in high school, really led this group, and they followed him.  It was obvious that the music selection was changed on the fly to fit the mood and moment but the band, and more importantly, the PowerPoint person picked right up and went with it.

The ending was a little abrupt, but is that because I am used to the traditional dismissal of the churches?  Once, a few years ago, we had a service where the speaker ended with:  "well, that's all I've got".  Nothing is wrong with it, but it isn't what I am used to.

They had communion.  You had to get up and walk to a side table and just eat and drink (I think white bread and grape juice).  Each person could decide when to get up or if to go at all, it was VERY informal.  I didn't go, I am still working out why.  My personality is such that I always feel like people are watching me, and my mind was more focused on the differences between usual services and this one, and therefore not really right for communion.  Is taking communion supposed to be such a holy and sacred experience or have we made is so?  Are we any closer to God at that moment than when we are singing, or praying or meditating?

Overall, it seemed just like a general session from a Youth Specialties Youth Ministry Convention that was smaller in scale.  I like that.  I liked the practical application of the message, I liked having the chance to talk back (although I didn't).  It was not all about the great speaker imparting his wisdom to me.  It felt like we were all on this great spiritual journey together even though we may be at different points on the road.  I wish it wasn't marketed to teens and 20somethings.  Why is that?  Is that they only ones they think will go or is that who goes because that's who is expected?  It is difficult for people with small children to go because the nursery and Sunday school rooms are at the opposite end of the campus and across the road.  Should I be concerned that is is only young people attending - implying that this kind of service is for only immature Christians?  Or is it more like Joshua and Caleb returning from the promised land and saying "look what we have seen, look what God can give us, we need to go there" in the face of the older, more mature and more fearful people, who see only the change in what is and has been?

I would like to go to a church that is more holistic than this one.  The young people who go there can find fellowship in the other activities geared for their age.  Those of us in our 30s or above were welcome to be there, but were not their focus.  Unfortunately, real emergent churches are not in this area.  We would have to go into New York City or down to Princeton to go to one (if I'm wrong and you've got one in North Jersey let me know).   I don't have a conclusion, or a nice winding up quote.  Sorry, but that's all folks!