Sunday, December 28

Alan rants a bit about "emerging"....

Alan Creech writes:
"December 26, 2003 >> 11:43 PM
emerging
Liz just came home. I used my new knife tonight - I think it's so sharp I could shave myself with it - I won't. Listening to my new Radiohead CD - The Bends - amazing stuff - there will be more. Matt and Brian came over tonight - pleasant surprise - just hung out for a while. I love those boys.

I've also read a little in blogdom and heard a little talk lately about the term "emerging," referring to the emerging church. Also used is the term "emergent" as well as "postmodern" - wow. Are you still really using the term postmodern a good deal? Seriously. Anyway, I don't really give a damn what you call it - it's not that important. I just know what I am doing (yes, DOING) and what I've been tracking with and seeing happen all over the world. There are different phenomena out there - it's not all the same. This doesn't equal that doesn't equal that over there. Generally, and this is brief surface scratching here, the term postmodern church, as I see it, refers to churches that tend to keep many of the same trappings as ever: buildings, budgets, staff ministers, sermons in front of silent audiences, a "come to church" mentality, programatic "ministry," etc. Only this - they do it cooler. They have cool haircuts and cool worship songs and the setting of the same old stuff is just plain cool. I suppose that'.... never mind - I just don't think that's very helpful. Root causes are not being addressed. Problems that cripple the Body are left untouched really, covered with makeup and band-aids. Are they sincere and Christian and do they love God and love people?? Yes, yes, yes, ok, ok. I'm not saying they don't. I don't know if going on with this post much further is even fruitful. I wonder.

Things are changing. What I've seen in this underground sort of "emerging church" whatever it is, is (and seriously, labels here are pointless and it really doesn't matter) something far more radical. More radical (to the root) than models of how to "do church" and music styles and whether we reach "young people" or not. It's more a wholesale questioning and redefinition of why we are doing what we are doing and what it has or has not - and what it is or is not accomplishing - and whether or not "accomplishing" anything in this arena is even what we need to be talking about or concerned with.

The question for me and for many church planters - people who have jumped out of the boat to find another island - are doing is trying to get to the heart of the matter - what IS the church? Why is it here? All the answers we have EVER been given are on the chopping block - they won't do simply because they are there. So, we lay them all down and we pick them up one by one and ask, "why is this here?" - "is this legitimate?" - "does this harm or help?" - and the big one - "does this or that help to effectively form me and those whom I am bound together with into the image of Jesus Christ?" The answer to this question is what causes me to "be the church" how I be it. The question, you understand me, is NOT, "does this or that effectively communicate the gospel to the postmodern generation around me?" If that were the question, I would not be asking deeply enough. I would be asking within my former framework of thinking. I would still be wondering how best to get people to come to church and how to make that church service relevant to them when they do come. That would be to stay the same with makeup on.

So, I am not talking about one model over another. I am not advocating "house church" over "cell church" or whatever. The only reason I would ever suggest anyone look at any model whatsoever is if I thought somehow, part of that model caught a glimpse of the core of the matter better than another perhaps - so look at that - please! But don't just look to find things that seem cool and copy them - damn! Jump off the cliff and hit the freakin' rocks below and die a bloody death to everything before! Do it now!!! If you do not, you will never ever know if any of it is good and healthy and formational or not. You will not know because you will have stayed in the land of assumptions. So, you may come back alive from that death and realize, for instance, that liturgy IS good and DOES help to form people effectively into the image of Christ - and then you will do it because of that and not because you never questioned it and you assumed it was just good. And you will not do it because you were desperate to reach the young people and you found out they like that cool, mystical crap and so you cranked up some candles and incense and did it, and they came, and declared, "it is cool."

If you die that death, allow God to slowly resurrect you, and then end up with a building - awesome!! But DO NOT simply refuse to question whether or not it is legitimate to have a building as a "church"! Don't do that. Don't simply refuse to question paid staff ministry because "that's all I was ever trained to do" and you're afraid you won't be able to support your family - DON'T do that! Wow! We can't get past the front door to see the street! It's NOT about models or labels or styles of worship - crap, crap! It's about busting it all down because it really, really has not worked very well - a good deal of it - and allowing God to rebuild it - ALL of it - for us, through us, in us. So, doing it the same old way with new garb on is not going to cut it. Not allowing yourself to question pretty much everything because of fear will not get it done. This is it. This is what is "emerging." I'm sure other things are too, but this is what I'm seeing and hearing and doing - trying to do. OK, I'm done for now. I wasn't even sure I wanted to get started on this tonight. I guess I did though, didn't I? Oh well. Peace, Grace, and an open heart be with you."


posted by Charlie Wear | 10:38 PM | |