Keith Drury has written a great piece on why he likes the emerging church. He also adds two cautions at the end that are written with clarity and insight.
from “Dear Emergents” on DruryWriting.com
1. Keep Jesus Christ. We Christians could find great common ground among the world’s religions and gain wonderful unity if we would just be willing to give up some ground on Jesus … [snip] … Giving up Jesus Christ could help us bring great unity in world religions—but you just can’t give up Jesus Christ and be a Christian. I’m not so worried about keeping Christ in Christmas as I am about keeping Christ in Christianity. I hope you’ll be sensitive to the already-present trends toward the generic God of civil religion that assigns Jesus Christ to a private-god category while we join with all in prayer to the “real God of whom there are many prophets.” Without Christ there are no Christians. To be prepared for this temptation read Karl Barth.
2. Keep the church. You are going to be tempted to abandon the church and go off into solitary spirituality … [snip] … Be wary of any who claim to “love Jesus but despise the church.” Refuse to walk away from the assembly of believers into a privatized self-centered spirituality. If you are practicing privatized faith on your own apart from the assembly you are not being a Christian at all—you merely practicing spiritual masturbation. There is no such thing as a solitary Christian any more than a solitary marriage. Christians come in clusters. I hope you emergents will reinvent all kinds of new ways for the church to be the church, but none of them should include a church-less Christianity. For a church-less Christianity is essentially a Christ-less Christianity and thus not Christian at all. To be prepared for this temptation read Bonhoeffer.
I like his recommended reading list on both of these points. Barth and Bonhoeffer offer perspectives on Christ and Community that manage to be at home in the historical stream of Christian tradition, and yet tangible and transformative in new cultural settings.
On the second point, I think the issue is not so much that emergents are leaving The Church, rather they are leaving the churches, those existing bodies of faith that lack the values central to how emergents view transformational communities. I think, though, that in it’s own way this is just as much a concern. We’ve seen what happens when a group of people decide to break fellowship with other believers in order to adhere to distinctions in creed or practice. I’m not sure what Christ pictured when he called the church his body, but I’m pretty sure his vision wasn’t a bifurcating series of cultural ghettos. Surely, there is some value to staying in place, and working out those values in the midst of existing churches.
ht: Upward Way
blind beggar 3:11 pm on 9 January 2006 Permalink
Good observations both.
Regarding the church, when I hear some say that they are leaving the church I can only reflect that they have a non-Biblical view of the church, i.e., the church is not something a Christian can leave. We are the church when gathered regardless of the physical place – church building, coffee shop, community center, etc. Hence I like your statement, “rather they are leaving the churches, those existing bodies of faith that lack the values central to how emergents view transformational communities.”
(ed: there were some additional comments that ended up in the URI for this comment. Not knowing how to format them correctly, I deleted them. Blind Beggar, please feel free to add those comments back in another post if you like.)
Larry Edgar 9:09 am on 10 January 2006 Permalink
There may be a number of reasons why people seek solitude in there spiritual lives, perhaps because they are strongly introverted, or various other reasons. The author of the excerpt probably should try to understand these people instead of just dismissing them by declaring they are all nonChristian.
Chad 11:56 am on 10 January 2006 Permalink
Larry,
I think your comment is sensitive and thoughtful. I want to push back gently and suggest that what Keith is suggesting (and I happen to agree) is that Christianity is a communal faith, as well as solitary. I would go so far as to guess that a solitary Christian is most likely a struggling Christian, that perhaps one of the essences of Christ’s ministry was to get us out of ourselves and our lonliness.
Keith articulates two of my greatest fears about throwing in with Emerging, although I fear I am too late, and have already given myself to the dark side.
I am ready to look at Genesis (for examply) with a harder look and perhaps draw some different conclusions then my spiritual grandmothers and grandfathers, but I am not at all prepared to release my grip on Christ for the sake of pleasing the world. I feel this tension more and more as I get older. I think the Gospel is still potent and offensive, and to declaw it is to make it no Gospel at all.
There must emerge some sort of neo-fundamentalism, I believe. A creed that allows for this generosity that we’re all looking for, but acknowledges that there still remains a line of divide.
aly hawkins 5:52 pm on 10 January 2006 Permalink
Chad,
I strongly agree that following in the Way of Jesus is a communal endeavor, not a solitary one…on Ken’s point #2, I’m sold.
I’m also sold on #1 (since I trust in Jesus, which makes me a Christian), but I don’t think clinging to Christ necessarily demands a “neo-fundamentalism” that tries to keep clear the “line of divide.” My disagreement is NOT because I think Jesus is one of many Ways to the Kingdom of God–if I believed that, it would be sillly to call myself “Christian”–but instead because I’m beginning to like the idea of pointing to Jesus in places where the Kingdom of God is already making inroads. I know this sounds like backward, circular reasoning…but perhaps that is because in our evangelical tradition we identify too strongly with the idea that WE are the ones who bring Jesus to places which God just hasn’t been able to crack without our help. I can’t help thinking that “evangelism” in our global, relativist milieu has to change from “You’re evil and outside the line, you need Jesus” to “I can see you desire God and Good, look…here’s Jesus!”
I’m all in favor of a creed, since it is partially by ritual and proclamation of belief that we learn (together) to follow in the Way of Jesus. But I’m NOT in favor of using that creed to measure what we have no right to measure: when someone’s In and when someone’s Out.
Chad 8:34 pm on 10 January 2006 Permalink
Aly,
I sure do hear you on the issue of, “You’re in, you’re not… You’re good, you’re bad… Eeenie… Meenie…”
Yech.
I guess what I am talking about is the struggle of people who might call themselves a Christian, yet jettison certain essential… elements of the faith. I am all in favor of ending nearly every conversation with something like… “You’re where you’re at and I love you here and now and so does Jesus!”
I guess it’s that I am not going to relinquish the private right to draw some conclusions from time to time about folks based on what both The Bible and my own growth in Christ have taught me. I want the right to say that I love a person, and know that Jesus is calling and reaching towards them (perhaps even through me), but perhaps they just don’t quite… well… get it yet.
I do not believe that I am in a position to make a difinitive call on a person’s present or future salvation, but I think it’s lame to have to pretend I don’t have an opinion in the interest in being “nice.” I think the grave error of the evangelical church is to make public opinions about this sort of issue.
I think concerns about an issue as serious as an individual’s salvation is far too important to be had between two or more human beings. This should be a one on one conversation with the maker, on behalf of another.
aly hawkins 9:15 pm on 10 January 2006 Permalink
Man, I guess that’s cool. Discernment is a really important gift. But if I’m honest, the language of “rights” really puts me off. Yeah, of course you have the right to draw some conclusions based on the Bible and your experiences about other people’s not quite getting it…but I don’t see how that right does anybody any Good, including you.
I’m not trying to be all PC and I’m not suggestion anything wishy-washy in the interest of being “nice.” (Because that would be wrong!) Again, I think discernment is very, very important. But I think it’s a spiritual gift, not a right, and it’s to be used to draw people closer to Christ.
I feel like I might be splitting hairs here (and if I am, I apologize)…but language and how we use it is important too, especially when it comes to communicating about God to people looking for Him.
Larry Edgar 10:09 pm on 10 January 2006 Permalink
Well…I guess I’m not making myself very clear what I was trying to say. Maybe I need to think about it a bit more.
Chad 10:44 pm on 10 January 2006 Permalink
I think you’re correct in that “right” is too loaded a word.
I guess I am reacting to the notion that I would have to check my brain at the door, as that’s my main beef with the EV church at this point. I know that you’re not suggesting that, but that’s my reaction, for better or (more likely) for worse.
If discernment really doesn’t do me (or anyone else) any good… then what the hell does? I am not talking about allowing a lack of love to judge against people here! This goes both ways. I fear that often in the Evangelical Mega Church environment, a real lack of love and discernment says that Suzie Q. Awana-mom is totally down with good ole JC, when in reality she’s far far far far away from Him and either hurting herself or others.
That’s the kind of discerning heart I am talking about.
Chad 12:19 am on 11 January 2006 Permalink
I confess that I have just now read your post about your Grandmother.
I think you know that above all things, I hold love. I’m so sorry for the pain of these temporary losses, which we all must endure from time to time. Jesus is always waiting, and he is the wisest and kindest of judges, is he not?
Blogs are a crap place to lead with love, dear friend. Sleep well.
Morphea 9:22 am on 11 January 2006 Permalink
It’s funny – we deal with this in Life as well as Church (since I don’t attend one, I’m calling it Life, though don’t mistake me and think I mean that there’s Real Life and Church Life and never the twain shall meet. No, no, no.). I mean, you’ve got your siblings and family and significant other and friends and they’re all making mistakes and screw-ups and so are you all the time. And sometimes it’s good to watch each other flounder along and say (to yourself), “Well, this is probably just some sort of psychological stage they’re going through and boy does it suck for them, but I’m just going to love them and cheer them on and pray they come out all right” or “this is who they are and they’re probably not going to change. On with the loving and cheerleading.”
Sometimes you have to grab them by the lapels (like on TV), get in their face (in a loving and nurturing fashion) and say something like, “Man, I see you doing this, over and over, and it’s KILLING you and I’ll help any way I can but you’ve got to STOP.” And I can’t for the life of me figure out when to do one or the other. And I still haven’t decided that I even have the “right” to do any lapel-grabbing in a loved one’s life, anyway.
I know that ties into how we deal with each other in the church somehow…
Cerise
Larry Edgar 12:53 pm on 17 January 2006 Permalink
I’m not rejecting the role of community, I’m just trying to say there are those who need some
amount of solitude (some more, some less), and perhaps the churches they’ve attended havn’t
really been willing or able to support or even try to understand such a need. Not everybody is a Type-A
Extravert. I sometimes wonder whether the church in the near future will see the need for
solitude as deviant or as sinful.
There is a tradition of solitude in the Christian faith, stretching back 1700 years or more.
From what I understand, those seeking solitude seek it in the context of a monastery, so they have
more opportunity for solitude, but they are in a community with varying amounts of solitude. Probably
the most extreme in terms of solitude in the Western tradition would be the Carthusians, who live as
hermits but worship in community, meet with spiritual directors, etc. Note there has been a recent
foreign documentary “Into Great Silence” about life in a Carthusian monastery.
From what I understand, eremeticism (true hermits) is discouraged, even in the writings of the Desert
Fathers, and when it occurs, Eremeticism is suitable only for those spiritually mature who have
spent considerable time in a monastic community, spiritual direction, etc. And even so, hermits
were available to others in the form of providing hospitality, spiritual direction, etc.
Thomas Merton, who ultimately wanted to be a hermit, was part of a Trappist community, and
was involved with others throughout the world through his correspondence and his writings. And
I think he who valued solitude so highly understood the need for community.