when tracy and i were visiting san francisco we decided to take a day trip up to napa to see all of the vineyards and tour the town. one of the first things we saw when entering the town was the sign above and i felt compelled to stop and take a picture of it. i was mainly compelled by 3 different things: the fact that “emergent worship” was being used in a way of marketing; the usage of “love wins”; and possibly the most compelling was that it is a baptist church in the emergent stream—this especially compelling considering the harsh words coming out of the missouri baptist convention towards all things emerging.

i read this from the churches website in how they describe their worship:

What is emergent worship?

Emergent worship, as a postmodern expression of worship, is difficult to define. Emergent worship for us may be different than emergent worship for other churches. For us at FBC , emergent worship is more about approach than style. The service intentionally taps into ancient elements of worship to connect us to our faith history which dates back thousands of years. At the same time, God is always doing a new thing, and so we have extremely new elements of worship as well. That’s what makes emergent worship emergent – it is emerging from a rich heritage even as it is creating the new heritage that will be remembered for years to come.

the other interesting thing is that this is the only worship service that this church has… so, then is this truly and fully an emergent church or do they follow along the stream of dan kimball’s emergent worship stream as found in his books: the emerging church and emerging worship? whatever the case may be it’s interesting that what seems to be an older more established church (based upon the look/feel of the website) is completely reinventing itself… and i find that to be rather inspiring.

grace, over at emerging grace has come up with a series of “motivational posters” that explain some of the terminology used in the emergent/emerging church conversation. i think they’re very well done and accurately portray the terminlogy.

i’ve never really thought about how big of a gap there is in communication between the emerging church and the rest of the church, but these certainly show that gap in a very vivid display. i think this is a good first step towards “educating” the rest of the church of the emerging church’s “lingo”, but there needs to be a lot more done in order to bridge the gap that exists. part of me is hopeful that the gap will eventually close, but the realist side of me says that it won’t…

this article was too humorous to pass up (yes i’m taking a break out of my vacation to post this), unfortunately it’s not meant to be comedic, satirical, or found in any other vein of humor—it’s a serious issue…

why al qaeda supports the emergent church

(ht: bob hyatt)

How (Not) To Speak of God
Peter Rollins

Paraclete Press—Theology/Emerging Church
137 pages

I must say, I haven’t interacted with a book this much in quite some time—in fact, I can’t remember the last time I interacted with a book this much. Scrawled throughout this book are underlines and highlights, questions and thoughts, boxes, circles, squares, etc… I really chewed on this one for a while and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Peter Rollins gives us a very insightful and “meaty” theological insight into the underpinnings of the emerging conversation especially in how he fully integrates his own postmodern perspective and theology into the realm of our commonly held notions of truth.

If you’re looking for a challenging book that opens your eyes to looking at things from a different perspective, I would highly recommend picking this up. Rollins tackles the realm of doubt within faith as he encourages us to embrace that doubt as a prime component of who we are and what we believe. He takes very postmodern, yet insightful positions on the nature and person of God, the nature of Scripture, ethics, theology, and love all the while deconstructing and reconstructing new thought patterns surrounding each. There are no conclusions (except love) and at times I was a little uncomfortable with where he was heading in his thought patterns, but I appreciated the different perspective.

The book is divided into two segmens Part 1: Heretical Orthodoxy where you’ll be able to wrestle with some of the meatier portions of his writing; and Part 2: Towards Orthopraxis. His “thesis” statement for the book (I believe) is:

… the emerging community is helping us to rediscover the more Hebraic and mystical notion of the orthodox Christian as one who believes in the right way—that is, believing in a loving, sacrificial and Christlike manner. The reversal from ‘right belief’ to ‘believing in the right way’ is in no way a move to some binary opposite of the first (for the oopposite of right belief is simply wrong belief); rather, it is a way of transcending the binary altogether. Thus orthodoxy is no longer (mis)understood as the opposite of herresy but rather is misuderstood as a term that signals a way of being in the world rather than a means of believing things about the world. (emphasis mine)

The second part of the book moves away from the idealogical/theological/philosophical and into the realm of praxy where Rollins details 10 distinct services from the Ikon Community in which he is a part of across the pond. There are some rather intriguing discussion that take place, and many beautiful themes that emerge from these services that I have gone back to time and again to reflect upon in my own life, and have consistently been challenged and encouraged along the way.

I would highly recommend this book—especially if you’re looking for something challenging and something that will get you thinking along some different paths. I think this is an important book, and one that will help us understand the post-modern/post-Christian society that is increasingly coming into existence in North America.

»part 1
»part 2

as i fade away in my thoughts concerning the current state of atonement theology i would like to leave with these words from peter rollins in his book “how (not) to speak of God”

For the contemporary Christian it is all but impossible to reflect upon the curcifixion without simultaneously bringing to mind the resurrection. While separate temporal events, they are so irrevocably intertwined in our minds that to consider one without the other, if even possible, would seem to be tantamount to falling foul of a fundamental trespass against the radical singularity of the (two) event(s). In short, to consider the crucifixion in isolation from the resurrection would amount to fracturing the radical unity of the Easter narrative: for the crucifixion without resurrection would seem to signal the death of faith. Consequently the Easter story, if it is to be understood at all, is to be understood as an irreducibly complex singularity—to tear one part away from the whole would be to effectively destroy both the parts and the whole….

To imagine that the horror of the cross is exhausted in the physical pain or profound injustice that it symbolizes is to misunderstand the true horror of this symbol. While the image of suffering is truly harrowing, it is not the only or even the central horror of this central event. Such reflectiosn can still offer the believer a safe, cathartic horror that is wrapped in the nderstanding that everything works out well in the end. In contrast to this, the true horror of the cross allows no such shelter, for if considered in itself, it signals the seeming abandonment of God by God and the possible victory of an all-embracing nihilism. (p.77-78)

« part 1

what our unbalanced focus on the cross is doing to the church

as stated in part 1, we’ve reduced the atonement to “cross only” theology to the detriment of the resurrection (missing out on the other half of the story). my fear is that by doing so, and narrowing in on certain aspects of the cross—reducing the story of the cross itself to a select few themes—we have done a great deal of damage to the church in how it lives, acts, and responds to the world around us. it’s time for us to embrace the entire story, not just the themes that benefit us.

1. focusing on the cross over the resurrection emphasizes the plausible over the miraculous. it’s not a hard thing to believe that someone died on a cross, let alone that Jesus was crucified on the cross, however it’s extremely difficult to believe and understand in the miraculous that God raised Jesus from the dead… it just doesn’t fit, it doesn’t work in our minds—it’s absurd. by focusing on the cross, we limit the expectations of the miraculous in the church and therefore limit our faith only to the plausible.
2. we tend to zero in on the theme of injustice found in the cross. as christians, i think we like being the underdog—or at least coming across that way. we enjoy being “persecuted” (if you can really call what north americans go through as persecution), and we constantly rant and rave about how we have been unjustly treated, unfairly dealt with and how our rights are slowly melting away. i believe that our attitude of ourselves is directly proportionate to how we view the cross. because we seemingly focus solely on the cross—and more specifically in the injustice and unfairness that Jesus experienced on his way to and upon the cross, we tend to see ourselves in the same light. and as a result, this is all the rhetoric that you hear coming from the church: that we have somehow been mistreated, that we are unfairly characterized, that our rights are being stripped from us, etc, etc, etc.

   however, if we were to view the story (and communicate the story) as a whole to include the resurrection regularly, i believe that this type of attitude would slowly begin to cease. if we end the story at the cross, then the attitudes of unfairness, and injustice are rightly pursued. however, the story ends in hope and these attitudes do not coincide with the hope that the resurrection brings.

3. by leaving out the resurrection we leave out a big piece of what it communicates. i wonder if the reason we leave the resurrection out so frequently is because of what it communicates. the resurrection clearly proves, and clearly communicates that Jesus is God—an extremely controversial and difficult subject in our pluralistic culture and society. do we leave this out (subconciously—i want to give the benefit of the doubt) because we are afriad of offending people with this hard truth? i ask this and come to this conclusion because i cannot honestly remember the last time that i ever heard a preacher or teacher clearly say that “Jesus is God.” i don’t think we have a problem communicating that Jesus was a man—people like Jesus the man… but when we get into the realm of Jesus as Deity, we hit a rocky and difficult path that we are seemingly unwilling to walk down.

   now, you can say that this is pessimism, but i’d rather see it from the standpoint that this is an observation that i have made which leads me to this conclusion. are we fearful of communicating the resurrection because of what it clearly implies?

**a personal note
recently parts of emergent have been vastly criticized for diminishing atonement theology, and i would have to agree with those critics, however this is in no way the majority of emergent nor is it widespread. (in fact, i just recently heard a sermon upon this very topic in which the preacher laid out his own idea of atonement theology—minus the resurrection of course.) so, i would have to turn the tables back upon those same critics and question them for how they too have also diminished atonement theology by leaving out the resurrection. let us stop bickering over our own reductionistic ideas of atonement (emergent vs. non-emergent) and come back together around the table and around scripture to explore and journey through the whole story.

today is good friday, the day that we mourn (read: celebrate) the death of Jesus… but my question is, do we really treat this day any differently than the other 364(5) days of the year? now i’m not going to begin a rant on the fact that in many protestant churches/christians don’t seem to give a second thought to Christ’s death on Good Friday—we much rather prefer to go about our lives, enjoying this wonderful day off shopping, eating, spending time with family, traveling, etc—now granted we should look to become more intuned, more connected with the even of Christ’s death, especially on Good Friday, however, this is not my point.

atonement theology, plainly put, is the theological doctrine that communicates the reconcilliation between God and man through Jesus’ death on the cross. now, before you jump to conclusions as to where i’m heading because of the title of this post let me set the record straight and say that i agree with this statement…

over the course of time it has come to my attention, and more recently become more blatantly obvious that we spend the majority of our time in the church focusing on the death, the crucifixion, of Jesus*—not that there’s anything wrong with that, i just feel that we’re not communicating the entire story week-in and week-out. for so long in the church we’ve succumbed to and subscribed to a sort of reductionistic theology as it relates to the atonement, and in fact this reductionistic trend is continuing as many within certain circles are trying to write off the atoning death of Christ altogether. instead of continuing to diminish atonement theology, what if we went the other way and began to expand our understanding of atonement including more than just the cross?

it seems that each and every time i hear about the cross, that’s exactly where it ends. it seems that we celebrate the cross and elevate the cross far above anything else while maintaining that it is the event of the cross that “saves” us**. although there is some truth to it, i don’t feel that it is the entire story… and unfortunately it is only 1 time a year that we get the conclusion to the story. we leave Christ in the tomb all year, except for 1 day—easter sunday. and i begin to wonder why it is that we do not link the resurrection more closely within the scope and idea of atonement theology? paul was clear (1 corinthians 15.14) in stating that it is through the resurrection that we have hope, that without the resurrection there would be nothing. the cross of Christ that we preach and teach is incomplete without the resurrection, because without the resurrection the cross is worthless.

now, there is a flipside to this as well—the resurrection would not have happened without the cross, so there needs to be some balance in our communication… but we cannot and must not ever leave the resurrection out of the story of the cross—and no, easter is not enough of a celebration of the story—(especially in those churches that spend more time and energy of the 4th of July than they do on easter sunday!)

as i thought about this more and more i began to wonder what some of the possible reasons for and implications of leaving the resurrection out of the story has done to our churches—especially in north america… i’ll share those with you tomorrow monday.

»part 2

———
* when we’re not concerned with the 5 steps to financial success!

**you only have to look at the fact that it is crosses that are displayed throughout our buildings—in fact, in a conversation with a muslim man some years ago his statement to me was, “i think Jesus will be upset with Christians because they worship the cross more than they do him.”

scot mcknight (blogger/theologian/professor) recently submitted an article to christianity today entitled Five Streams of the Emerging Church. it’s a great article helping to clarify and bring about some of the nuances within the emerging movement. i very much appreciated his brief definition of postmodernity:

Postmodernity cannot be reduced to the denial of truth. Instead, it is the collapse of inherited metanarratives (overarching explanations of life) like those of science or Marxism. Why have they collapsed? Because of the impossibility of getting outside their assumptions.

althought this is a briefer version of his lecture ‘What is the Emerging Church?’ given at Westminster Theological Seminary, it is still a valuable piece that will certainly bring the thoughts contained in that lecture to a broader audience.

if i could “push back” for a moment, i was a bit disappointed in his section on ‘missional’ located in the broader context of the third stream “Praxis-oriented”. he said all the right things surrounding it, but stopped just short of mentioning the idea of “new creation theology”. although this could have opened up “pandora’s box” in the article it certainly would have helped readers to search for this idea in understanding and also truly help them understand the “why” behind being missional.

for a while i had been intrigued with the idea of missional (and even would consider myself “in” on that idea/concept/practice) but couldn’t place my finger on the “why” so to speak until after having several conversations with breeze and listening to tom wright clearly spell it out. i think this would be a valuable add-in to the article and would provide a great deal of understanding into the idea and purpose of missional.

this is my question, and this is my quandry:  can people with a modern mindset co-exist with people that have a postmodern mindset–specifically in the church? 

now this question presupposes that postmodern people can co-exist with modern people but the question becomes ‘at what price?’  i find myself wondering what types of ideologies and desires, dreams and visions, plans and actions that postmoderns give up (sacrifice) for the sake of unity and in the sake of communing with the church.  however, as time goes on and more and more people come into the church with a postmodern mindset, i wonder just how easily this will be done in the future.  what types of rifts and divisions will be seen within the church as it becomes harder and harder for the moderns to “silence” the postmoderns?

even though the original question presupposes that postmoderns can co-exist with moderns, it also presupposes that in some way modern people cannot get along with postmodern people (and in fact that modern people are the problem–with which i am not trying to portray completely).  and it is for this reason that i fear that the postmoderns will continue to be thrust out from their number through their silencing resulting in a  severely weakened church, inadequately prepared for the future.

the more that time progresses and the more i think about this issue, the more i feel that this will be one of the greatest tests of the church.  maybe i’m biased, but i don’t see christians with a modern mindset willing to relinquish control of the the church, nor even willing to peacefully co-exist in the church with postmoderns with their ideas and thoughts–unless postmoderns are willing to be silent, especially in how they see the gospel.  this leads me to believe that the future of the church is in church planting, done by postmoderns who can inject their own ethos into the plant instead of having to reinvent and reinvigorate countless churches with the modern ethos that are unwilling to bend (read: “compromise”).  eventually (read: a long time from now) the “modern” churches will die out and all that will be left are those that have been planted with a postmodern ethos.

in a recent post, rags alerted me of a recent paper on the emerging church that Scot McKnight, a professor at North Park University, recently presented at Westminster Theological Seminary.

i haven’t read the whole thing yet, but it started out interestingly enough and has some very good points in the first several pages.  i’d love to interact with this paper a little more, so for those of you that have read it, what did you think?

the paper is entitled, “What Is the Emerging Church?” and you can view it as a .pdf.  here’s a little taste:

Here’s the urban legend:  The emerging movement talks like Lutherans - which means they cuss and use naughty words; they evangelize and theologize like the Reformed - which means, in the first case, they don’t do much of it, and in the second, they do it all the time; they confess their faith like the mainliners - which means they say things publicly they don’t really believe in their hearts; they drink like Episcopalians - which means - to steal some words from Mark Twain - they are teetotalers sometimes - when it is judicious to be one; they worship like the charismatics - which means with each part of the body, some parts of which have tattoos; they vote liberal - which means they all move to Massachusetts come election time; they deny truth - which means Derrida is carried in their backpacks.  Each of these points is wrong, but they are frequently repeated stereotypes that sting and bite - but, because they are wrong, as the emergents would say, they “suck.”  In order to define this movement, there is a correct method to follow…

recently i’ve begun to ask myself this not so simple question, “can one really emerge from the emergent church/emerging church?”*  is it possible to move beyond the conversation and into a new realm of understanding and/or conversation?  can you simply slap a label on it and say you’re post-emergent… post-emerging church?  and if so, what’s the point of that?  or is asserting that this is a possibility naive and thus reveal a profound lack of knowledge or understanding of all things emerging?

i’m not really sure i know how to explain it, nor am i sure that i truly understand where i am finding myself in this journey of thinking, this journey of praxy and this journey of formation but recently i have found myself unable to fully identify with emergent and/or the emerging church.  i say this not because i am finding myself regressing backwards in thought to a state of “naivety”** or because i think emergent and the emerging church have nothing left to offer.  rather, i am finding the conversations old and tiresome never coming to conclusion but rather doing nothing more than continuing in their circular logic in an attempt to keep the ball up in the air for those that may come along later.

it’s almost as if emergent and the emerging church are good in the beginning process of helping people sort out the thoughts, questions and concerns that are not allowed in the traditional church–but once that is over with you’re left out on your own (not that this is a bad thing).

maybe, however, i just have a limited understanding of the emerging church… maybe through all of this i am unaware that there really is no end–that there is no way to truly emerge from this conversation and the rabbit hole keeps on going.  i suspect that there are new rabbit holes forming in the depths and the conversation is continuing, just outside of the realm of the emerging church.

i believe that the emerging church is really good at helping people get through the paradigm shift from traditional to whatever may be next, and maybe that’s all their role is and should be… and for those that have made it through the shift to turn back and help others along. 

//epiphany–maybe that’s what i’m feeling/sorting through: my role has changed, no longer am i the one being helped through the paradigm shift but rather am now one of the ones helping people through.  and if this is the case, then there probably is a new rabbit hole forming that continues in conversation and thought, just with a more limited grouping of people as together we plunge forward while reaching back to help pull people along.

maybe there are those that have “emerged” but who continue on with the understanding that we too are still in process, yet to fully arrive–the post-emergents.***

* i am using emergent church synonymously with emergent village and emerging church synonymously with all other forms of emerging churches.

** i don’t mean for this to be taken negatively, but rather to be understood in the sense of innocence.  innocence to the way in which the world is, works, thinks and feels at this particular moment–something that at times i truly long for–i think life would be easier that way…

***it’s so hip to add “post” to things nowadays, so why not in this instance?  actually, i don’t think there really is a need for the label or category as i’m finding it rather asinine, but i guess it helps to some extent–to some degree.