The Death of the “Emerging Church” – Not A Conversation Killer

It did not take a prophet to predict that one day the term “emerging” or “emergent” will likely outlast its usefulness for many people. Those who have been part of this conversation, even early on, knew that as it gained popularity and as the marketing gurus got their hands on it, they would try and milk the term for all it was worth. This is one reason so many tried to constantly remind people that the “emergent/emerging church” is not the next church growth fad, or a new plan on how to do church from a box, but a conversation. Conversations grow, change, and evolve. Marketing comes, make’s a buck, and moves on.

Last week Christianity Today Blogger, Url Scaramanga, declared the emerging church dead. Scaramanga said he felt like a character from the Godfather that was just delivered a message of a hit when he met with an “informant” two years ago – apparently the emerging church was soon to be “sleeping with the fishes”. Now that the two years has passed, the Emerging church is apparently dead; right on schedule. And who was this “informant”, which I am surprised did not come with a cool code name like “deep throat”? It was someone who worked for a book publisher, who said “their marketing plans included dropping the ‘Emerging Church’ brand within two years.”

Apparently what we are talking about is a death of a “brand”; a “brand” that many in the conversation resisted from the beginning; not wanting the conversation to ever take on a slick marketing image and campaign. The book publishers aren’t the only guilty party. Plenty of predominant voices of the conversation cashed in with publishers and got their piece of the pie as authors and catalyst of much of the conversation. I don’t really want to disparage these authors, books, or even the publishers that printed them. I think a lot of good has come out of these things, but we knew that as a brand and in the terms of marketing there was a limit to its lifespan. But we also knew, that as a conversation, the ideas and dreams we are hashing out together, as we continue to journey toward Christ could, and would, outlive whatever “brand” the marketing experts would attach to it.

For those of us who are taking part in the conversation, and understand the “emerging/emergent church” as a conversation, we are a bit surprised to hear that it is dead because we are still both listening and talking. The conversation continues, it is going new places and more are getting involved. The term “emerging/emergent” does not always go with it, but the substance of the conversation is there. That is all that has really matters; it is what has always mattered. Frankly, many of us who spend a lot of time in the conversation are glad that the marketing side of things may be near the end.

While the books and press helped stimulate the conversation on some level, at the same time it became harder and harder to help people understand that it was just a conversation as some demanded that “we” state what “we” believe. It frustrated many who had not engaged with it as a conversation that no one wanted to own what the collective “we” believed. This is because it would cease to be a conversation when you set it in stone. If you listen to a conversation, instead of just one person, you find people believe a lot of things. Some of what people in a conversation believe resonates with one another, some of it does not. People involved in the “emergent church” conversation certainly have many areas and topics where they find some affinity with one another, and like any community there are some common values, but no one is ready to declare these things definitive and keep it from growing and evolving. Perhaps now with the apparent end of the marketing side of things, we can get back to the grass roots of it all and see where the conversation will take us next.

When I started “Emergent Nazarenes” two years ago, it was never to start a “brand”, but rather participate in this larger conversation while keeping in mind our own traditions as Nazarenes. What I found out was that there were lots of other Nazarenes who were also having these conversations. I even found out that there were Nazarene’s having these kind of conversations long before there was a name for it like “emergent”, just like many others from various Christian traditions over the years. A few of these Nazarenes are contributors on this blog, and/or have their own blogs, and some don’t even know what blogs are; but they are out there. One great benefit of the term “emergent/emerging” was that it helped people find each other. Though the term is still hard to define, using it was enough to draw people into dialogue. I never once thought that being an “Emergent Nazarene” meant anything more than a Nazarene who engaged in some level in the conversation about what it means to follow Jesus in the world we live in today.

So the conversation will continue. I am not sure how much longer our small part of the conversation will have a blog that says “emergent” on it, or even a blog at all, but I don’t think as a whole anyone is really done talking. If anything, I think we are still just beginning as we become better at listening and not just talking. I think we are beginning to listen better to one another, to our various Christian traditions, to different cultures (even those in different religious traditions), to our own church history as followers of Jesus, to our holy scripture, and yes- to God. Because of this our conversations are just getting better as they continually point us to Christ.

So, I say to you at the apparent death of a “brand” according to a marketing campaign of book publishers, long live the conversation!

Peace,

James

The Caretaker’s Trial

I just read the prologue from Peter Rollins book, “The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief". I haven’t read any more of it yet, but I thought the story of “The Caretaker’s Trial” in the prologue was a great starting point for conversation. Read this story and tell me what you think?

The Caretaker’s Trial

There was once a small town filled with believers who sought to act always in obedience to the voice of God. When faced with difficult situations the leaders of the community would often be found deep in prayer, or searching the Scriptures for guidance and wisdom.

Late one evening, in the middle of winter, a young man from the neighboring city arrived at the gates of the town’s little church seeking refuge. The caretaker immediately let him in and, seeing that he was hungry and cold, provided a meal and some warm clothes. After he had eaten, the young man explained how he had fled the city because the authorities had labeled him a political dissident. It turned out that the man had been critical of both the government and the church in his work as a journalist. The caretaker brought the young man back to his home and allowed him to stay until a plan had been worked out concerning what to do next.

When the priest was informed about what had happened, he called the leaders of the town together in order to work out what ought to be done. After an intense discussion it was agreed that the man should be handed over to the authorities in order to face up to the charges that had been made against him. But the caretaker protested, saying, “This man has committed no crimes, he has merely criticized what he believes to be the injustices perpetrated by authorities in the name of God.”

“What you say may be true,” replied the priest, “but his presence puts the whole of this town in danger. What if the authorities find out where he is and learn that we protected him.”

But the caretaker refused to hand him over to the priest, saying, “He is my guest, and while he is under my roof I will ensure that no harm comes to him. If you take him from me by force then I will publicly attest to having helped him and suffer the same injustice as my guest.”

The caretaker was well loved by the people, and the priest had no intention of letting something happen to him. So the leaders went away again and this time searched the
Scriptures for an answer, for they knew that the caretaker was a man of deep faith. After a whole night of poring over the Scriptures the leaders came back to the caretaker, saying, “We have read the sacred book all through the night seeking guidance and found that it tells us that we must respect the authorities of this land and witness to the truth of faith through submission to them.”

But the caretaker also knew the sacred words of Scripture, and he told them that the Bible also asked that we care for those who suffer and are persecuted. There and then the leaders began to pray fervently. They beseeched God to speak to them, not as a still small voice in their conscience, but rather in the way that he had spoken to Abraham and
Moses. They begged that God would communicate directly to them and to the caretaker so that the issue could finally be resolved. Sure enough, the sky began to darken, and God descended from heaven, saying, “The priest and elders speak the truth, my friend. In order to protect the town this man must be handed over to the authorities.”

The caretaker, a man of deep faith, looked up to heaven and replied, “If you want me to remain faithful to you, my God, then I can do nothing but refuse your advice. For you have already demanded that I look after this man. You have written that I must protect him at all costs. Your words of love have been spelled out by the lines of this man’s face, your text is found in the texture of his flesh. And so, my God, I defy you precisely so as to remain faithful to you.”

With this God smiled and quietly withdrew, confident that the matter had finally been settled.

Gay Marriage - The Last Stand?

On September 2nd a letter was issued to the ministers of the Nazarene denomination by J.K. Warrick on behalf of the Board of General Superintendents specifically addressing the issue of gay marriage and the relevant position of the Church of the Nazarene.

Click here to download and read it. (pdf)

After having read the document I have to say that I am disappointed. I am not disappointed for the reasons you might initially think (one way or the other). In fact to the four points made in the letter I wholeheartedly agree that:

1. Marriage is biblically defined as being a covenant between a male and a female.


2. We must challenge subversive cultural messages.


3. We must Fearlessly declare biblical truth.


4. We must participate in local democracy by casting votes.

Over the last 30 years evangelicals have waged war on the the fronts of abortion, public prayer, evolution, gay rights, public displays of religious symbols to name a few. And while the Nazarene Church has stayed out of the fray in regards to some of these issues, as individuals and leaders within the church we have often been influenced by the likes of the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the late James Kennedy, James Dobson and others. The 'Religious Right' long ago drew several battle lines on these most contentious of social issues and have worked to systemically change the face of our political and judicial landscape to firm up the foundation of a 'Christian Nation'. However time after time they have been handed defeat in every single one of these areas. Wide scale acceptance of gay marriage may very well be the final death blow to this movement, and it is here that the final and maybe fiercest battle will be fought. It is with this narrative as my backdrop that I will begin to voice my disappointment with the heart of this letter.

I want to ask a question. Why would homosexuals want to be married?

The answer is: they want the same civil protections and rights as heterosexual committed couples. I would argue that this is acceptable, not from a biblical or ethical standpoint mind you, but from a purely pragmatic one. You see Homosexuals only want what we enjoy as heterosexual Christians right? But what marital bliss do we enjoy?

• 35% of 'born again' individuals have experienced divorce. 1


• 23% of 'born again' individuals have experienced more than one divorce. 1


• 49% of 'born again' individuals believe co-habitation is morally acceptable. 2


• 35% of 'born again' individuals believe it is morally acceptable to have a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. 2


• 28% of 'born again' individuals believe it is morally acceptable to look at pictures of explicit sexual behavior. 2


• 20% of 'born again' individuals believe having a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex is morally acceptable. 2

Yes indeed there is a biblical standard for marriage however it does not seem that as human beings let alone the most fundamentalist of Christians that it matters much or that we have set the practical standard that high. It only makes sense to me that Homosexuals would want to take a crack at being married, especially when we don't tend to do any better at it as a whole than society at large.

I agree with the letter, the American family is being subverted; not by the efforts of a very small minority, but by the actions of a plank-eyed plurality.

The single greatest threat to the sacrament of marriage in America is the rampant and wanton abuse of divorce by heterosexual Christians.

The next greatest threat to the sacrament of marriage in America is rampant and wanton abuse of sex in all it's forms by heterosexual Christians.

To put it in metaphorical terms; as Christians we have taken a Monet and spray painted it with red and blue stripes, reducing it's value. We are now griping when someone else wants equal ownership in the painting we have defaced. We claim that what we have is the penultimate standard for Monet paintings, and we should be the sole owners, in fact we have staked our reputation on it.

Despite what some may want you to believe the worst cultural enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ isn’t a left-wing, homosexual, anti-american, anti-10 commandments, anti-prayer, anti-creationism agenda. When writing to Titus, Paul knew the worst enemy of the Gospel is hypocritical and dysfunctional Sunday-Christians that do not do what Jesus said. When the world does not see Christians exercising self-control, living worthy of respect, living wisely, taking care of and nurturing their children, and living chastely it reflects very poorly on the body of Christ.

It is time for Christians to reclaim marriage, reclaim it from what we have made of it. It is time to begin the long and tedious work of letting the Holy Spirit remove the red and blue paint stains that we have allowed to be spread over white pages. We must reclaim the Trinitarian language of marriage and it's impact on the marital covenant. I say If they want a 10 cent bobble-head version of marriage let them have it. I say, if they want a perverted and defaced Monet let them have it.

Forgive me if I just don't see how preventing homosexuals from marrying will suddenly cause more heterosexual Christians to do what Jesus said to do.
----------
1. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=170
2. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152