Does God need to die again?

In 1957, Gabriel Vahanian's book The Death of God came out. Vahanian was one of a number of the Death of God Movement's theologians, and perhaps the most conservative among them.

The prime focus of his book was that our culture had moved beyond the discussion of the existence of God, and now had no concern to even deny His existence. In essence, God had died to our culture, and even where He existed in the belief systems of traditional churches, the image was so marred with a modern "religiosity," as he called it, that it did not look like the God of the scriptures.

Of course, Vahanian did not suggest that God had really died (and neither am I), but he did suggest that God (in an accurate image) had died to us, and that the image modern religiosity carried needed to die, in order to resurrect a correct, and living picture of the God of scriptures. His approach was far more conservative in its theology than that of his fellow death of God theologians in the 50's and 60's.

Looking back now over the course of these 60+ years since the release of Vahanian's The Death of God three things capture my attention:


1) It seems that the death was not complete enough. 

Churches, as many of us have experienced, still appear to hold views of God and the Christian faith which have harmed generations of people. Either the praxis of religion, or the combination of bad actions and sad theology have driven people away from church, and God has died in them (both in the harmed individuals and often in the theologies of the church).

False views of God, which have marred His public image still need to die more completely (of course, they never will completely until He returns.) Theologies of self-directed or self-serving power have merged the power of a transcendent God with the aggressive immanence of a God Who is out to bless you and crush what stands in the way of your blessing. In other cases our God of awesome power is presented as a self-service God Who appears ready to grant everyone who asks all their wishes. One image pits human against human in a falsely represented spiritual battle, and the other image has left the unblessed feeling left out of the circle of faith. These are just two examples - which come primarily from evangelical and pentecostal circles of theologies, which have re-crucified the Lord, and still need to die in order to allow for a resurrection of a true theology.

Apparently the death of God was not complete enough.

2) There was enough of a resurrection in evangelical circles over that time to foster the need for a recent counter movement of aggressive evangelistic atheism.

Vahanian's critiques and prophetic insights should have evidenced a continuing disinterest in God in the last half of the 20th century, but the wild growth of Pentecostalism worldwide, and the American revivals of the Charismatic Movement, The Jesus People Movement, the Religious Right and religion in American politics, the New Calvinists, Emergent Theology, and a number of other wildly growing Christian movements give evidence to the re-emergence of God in every sector of *American life, and even around the world to a great degree. 

As reactionary as the point 1 appears, I do not think that any of the above religious movements are entirely unhealthy. Each carry some sense of true revival of religion as it ought to be, and each carry elements in need of correction of the death of certain perspectives. As such, the rising and falling of religious concern in our culture over the last 50 years has been dramatic enough that it has spawned a reactionary movement - an aggressive evangelistic atheism. This may well be evidence for and against Vahanian's position: on the one hand the new atheism argues against the God Who ought to die (those theologies which are indeed false images presented by Christian leaders over the last 50 years), on the other hand the reactionary felt-need of the new atheists to battle fundamentalism, and the growth of faith movements is evidence of the power of religion in current culture and society.


3) His solutions would not be my own.

Vahanian called for the death of what he called "radical immanence" - a God so present as to be integrated with all the actions of humanity. I do not disagree with a critique of theologies which justify the sorry actions of humanity through radical immanence. Yet, his answer is the death of such theology in favor of a reformed theology.

The positive elements of revival which emphasized the growth of Pentecostalism in the third world, Charismatic movements in the US, evangelical church growth, the Religious Right, New Calvinism (yes, even new Calvinism), and Emergent theology often emphasize the immanence of God. The movements have come and gone, or continue to grow with a sense of God's activity in my own life, in miracles for the needy, in politics, or social justice.

Though I recognize the dramatic differences in many of the above movements, and I do not personally identify with them all, I still see the emphasis of a radical immanence being a driving focus of their growth and revival. Like Vahanian I believe that this immanence should be balanced with a sense of transcendence and the holiness of God, but for me it is not a de-emphasis of immanence, nor even a gentle balance. What is needed is a radical balance. God is both radically immanent and radically transcendent: holy and active in our lives.

This may call us to consider whether our views of God need to die and be replaced with a more radical Theology Proper.


* Of course, since the re-emergence of God has been most prominent in the US, and many "second and third world countries" it begs a certain consideration of the place of American influence over the folk religious thought, and vice-verse.

Quaking at Transform East

Last week I attended Transform East, a gathering of emergent types organized by Steve Knight and his buddies.  It took place in Washington DC at Wesley Methodist seminary.

My primary purpose for going was to (as I described it to my newfound friends from the conference), "put flesh on pixels."  I had met a number of the people who would be attending through Facebook, Twitter, and as fellow SynchroBloggers over the years.  So, this was an opportunity to finally meet many of them face to face.

I spent time with people I knew like @imageoffish (Callid Keefe-Perry), and Brian McLaren, and with people I was only just meeting such as the Outlaw Preachers, Rick the Zen Buddhist monk awesome Christian dude, and Rev. Vince.

As far as the presentations from the conference, I want to focus on one single moment following a single message.  I think it holds some insight, and reveals a tension within the emergent movement which will only expand if the movement seeks to continue growing in influence.

I have periodically given voice to this tension over the last 5 years.  Whether through occasional posts, or in discussion with people like Tony Jones.  It is the tension of predominantly post reformed evangelical emergents, with their charismatic, Pentecostal, and in this case mystical Quaker brethren who also identify with the heartbeat of the movement.

On Friday evening, Peter Rollins was the speaker.  He was giving a shortened rendition - without the chapter breaks - of his Insurrection Pub Tour.  I had heard this before, because Pete brought his Pub tour to Boston, and I had set up the sound, and ran it for that evening.

I sat outside the doors at the back, in the foyer of the chapel.  I could hear the entirety of the lecture.  Pete's theme was based upon the phrase that "to believe is human, to doubt is divine."  Of course, this is a common thread in Pete's writing and thinking.  He purposely turns things upside down, and creates a dynamic tension and struggle in our faith.  He is filled with paradox, and gutsy philosophical dark battles of the soul.

The evening ended with a song by Padraig O Tuama, an Irish poet/musician who traveled with Pete on the Pub Tour.  It is a haunting chorus, which highlights redemption through struggle, failure and loss.  Rev. Vince performed the song with Amy Moffit.  Between his growling delivery and mad piano skills, and her gorgeous voice it was a an incredibly beautiful ending.  I stepped forward to the back door and stood next to Brian McLaren who had been standing in the back during the message.

The last two verses are the most poignant.  Partly due to the fact that the next to the last verse uses the F-bomb:  "I f***ed it up so many times, I f***ed it up so many times, I f***ed it up so many times, Hallelujah."  I suppose someone would have to hang out with Pete and listen to his Hegelian tension theology to come up with that line.

Then the last verse ended with a line describing going to Babylon and finding a home in exile.

When the song ended there was a brief moment in which the audience did not know how to respond, and everyone sat in silence.  As a Pentecostal, I recognized this as a moment pregnant with a nearly palpable sense of God's Spirit.

Then Pete rose and mentioned that the song was rooted in thoughts from Jeremiah. 

Then everyone clapped.

Steve Knight who was the host for the event stood up to do some "housekeeping."  You know, the boring stuff that every conference requires to transition from event to event.

That's when "it" happened.  My buddy Callid, who is a Quaker with a heavily mystical leaning stood up, interrupting Steve and said something.  Callid was in the front of the room, and I could not hear him, so I had to step forward to Brian and ask him if he heard what Callid said.

Brian replied, "He said something about the kingdom of God having arrived in the room, and that we should stop to acknowledge it."

I laughed softly, and said to Brian, "Well, isn't that gloriously Quaker."

Steve had a bit of an 'I'm not sure what to do here' look on his face, and then we continued in silence for a few more moments.  He then mentioned that it was difficult to move on, and the evening ended with the "housekeeping."

Callid left as the housekeeping was going on, as many people do during conference announcements.

The following day there were was some discussion about the experience.  Some people struggled with what occurred.  Others were glad Callid spoke up, because they felt a holy tension in that moment.  Callid was spoken to by a number of people, including some of the leadership of the conference who had a concern that his interruption might be misunderstood by some of the people at the event.

To view the moment you can go to the transform network page and watch the video here.  The song is played at about 1:23:00 in the event and you can watch to through the end.

My Thoughts:

I have been saying for some time that there is an uncomfortable alliance with the emergent discussion and those who identify with it who are coming from a Pentecostal or Charismatic persuasion.  Tony Jones has been studying what emergent has to say to the Pentecostal church, and vice versa recently, and it is something I have questioned him about a few times over the last few years, but the answers have always been stated in terms of being open to discussion.  This moment at Transform East highlights to unsatisfactory nature of relegating the tensions to a discussion.

Pentecostal, Charismatic, and mystical Quaker experience are just that - experience.  Talking about that experience is insufficient as an agent of transformation.  The experience must be experienced.   It is bound by a mystical union of the church with God's Spirit, and the moment by moment acknowledgements of God's Spirit speaking and acting among us.  The experience is anarchic, and messy, because God arrives at times most unexpected.  These mystical traditions have learned to stop for those moments, and reflect and respond accordingly.

Many of the people who are a part of the emergent discussion do not have experience in these more mystical traditions.  Instead emergent has adopted more easily controlled mysticism, and so they light candles, and place icons around the room.  These things do not necessarily acknowledge an interruption in the order of service from a God Who could often care less about what we were supposed to do next.

After about 5 years of networking with various emergent types, and discussing this exact issue with those from my own Pentecostal tradition who identify with the emergent discussion, I am not sure that we are any closer now to bridging this tension, or even having a sense of how to do it than we were 5 years ago.

5 years ago my Pent-emergent friends were feeling like they did not fit well into the movement.  That light tension remains there still, and this was evidence by the fact that there were people in leadership who did not know what to do with Callid's interruption, and were uncomfortable with it.

Callid said about the experience, "When these things happen, I really don't know what to do with them."

He did the right thing, he acknowledged the moment - that is how I, a pastor from a Pentecostal tradition or over 20 years feel.

I pointed out that none of us know what to do with God's interrupting activities.  I am also convinced that we do not need to know what to do in these moments, we nearly need to know what to do, when we do not know what to do.  If that doesn't make sense to you, then you are still on the other side of understanding the heart of mystical church life found in Pentecostal and Quaker traditions.

There is a plan for creating Transform West in the near future.  I would hope the leadership would lean on the shoulders of some of the Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Quakers who might understand how to ford this river into the uncharted territories of worshiping together with the mystical expressions as part of the experience.  Until that happens those of us from the mystical traditions will probably  remain mildly uncomfortable and feeling slightly outside the circle.

My prayer is that the Quaking may continue in gatherings such as this.  Callid asked one of the leaders how many Pentecostals they thought were present at the event.  The answer was, "maybe 10."  They both acknowledged that something was wrong with that number being so low.  When Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Quakers feel accepted as a group complete with their religious experience those numbers will change.

At least that is what I think.  What do you think?

Peter Rollins' Insurrection Tour hits Tommy Doyle's in Cambridge

'

We arrived at Tommy Doyle's in time to find Pete Rollins standing on a stool to plug his computer into the video projector.  We were there so early, because The Gathering provided the sound for the event.

For a further report of the event go to the Examiner Article about Peter Rollins' Insurrection Pub Tour.

Some more photos of the people and the event follow below.

Emergent in Boston: John Franke at The Gathering and Gordon-Conwell

Theologian, Professor at Biblical Seminary, and Author John Franke came to The Gathering Tuesday night April 6th.  This was the first of three days of Emergent activity in the Boston area.

The event was organized by Jesse Browning, Matt Miller and "The Church which Meets in Beverly."  I did not count the people who came, but it was a little over 15 people I think.  Some of us from The Gathering, others from The Church which Meets in Beverly.  Adonis Vidu, a professor at Gordon-Conwell joined us as well.  Adonis teaches a class on the Emergent Movement, and John lectured there as well.

Before the evening began, we stood around talking about topics such as the people who think that John is a heretic and deserves to be taken outside and stoned (with rocks that is).

Then we gathered on the couches in our little library corner, and John taught for about 45 minutes.  He wandered around a few points, and then followed up with a discussion time.  He discussed the following things (my words not his, because I did not take notes, and my brain is little):  1)  Christians should be learning to serve together in God's mission with people from other Christian traditions - there should be a plurality of witness,  2)  The Mission of God is what we are to be about (and this is "Mission" as a singular word - not "missions." God is about one mission and what we do should be a part of that one mission), and 3) Our enlightenment informed perception of truth and the Gospel is problematic in contemporary society.

At one point during the teaching, John compared enlightenment thinking, and modernity to "The One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them."  This was one of the last points before the discussion time began.  I could not help but laugh - I loved the illustration, but also shared my uncomfortableness with the fact that the illustration was similar to saying that enlightenment/modernity thinking was Satanic.  Hmmmmmmmmmm... not comfortable with that myself.  John admitted he may rethink the use of that illustration.  But, his point was well made that an individual who believes they hold uncorrectable, absolute truth stands in a position attempting to intellectually rule over others - great point.

Once the discussion opened up Megan DeFranza presented a challenging point.  She suggested that perhaps modernity versus post-modernity were not as critical delineations as more important categories as humility and pride.  Jesse jumped in and questioned what the bottom line actions, and motivations of our missional engagement ought to be.

Caroline topped off the evening with a wonderful little testimony/sharing moment.  She talked about not fully understanding the whole conversation, but identifying with the direction of it, and feeling as though it offered her a solid footing for her transition out of the days of a Fundamental Baptist background in which she "could not wear pants."  That might have been my favorite part of the session.

There was about 45 minutes of discussion, and following the event, most of us hung out at Gulu-Gulu Cafe for a couple more hours.  Once again as the last meeting at Gulu-Gulu I was joined by Jesse and The Unidentified Baptist dude.  As well Matt the Pirate, Michael Giobbe, and Caroline.

This afternoon, I also went to see John speak at Adonis Vidu's class at Gordon-Conwell on the Emergent discussion.  This is a photo of Dr. Vidu giving the introduction.

During this discussion John shared his holiest moment in the Boston area:  Going to a game at Fenway Park.  Then he wandered into a discussion, which I am assuming comes from his book Manifold Witness: the plurality of truth.

He discussed his view of plurality as something God is leading us toward, and part of the plan of redemption.  He framed his understanding of truth in Barthian terms, and discussed the difference between Truth and truth.  Some of the gang from Tuesday night were there as again:  Megan, Jesse, and Ben the Tattooed Mystic (as The Prof. Carlos Z. calls him).

There was some good Q and A afterward including a question about Scott McKnight distancing himself from Brian McLaren recently.  John described his position on the issue:  He does not agree with some of the premises of Brian's most recent book, but even more so does not agree with Scott's choice to disengage from mission with Brian.  For some reading on the McLaren/McKnight debate check out John Armstrong' Blog.

After the class at Gordon-Conwell students lined up to talk with john and get his autograph.  Students at Gordon-Conwell getting his autograph - now that's interesting. :-)

Some Thoughts by Jason Callina about Church

Jason emailed me these thoughts below, and I asked if I could post them on my blog. As he says they, "were just me brainstorming a couple of weeks ago. I want to get them up on a wiki so that people can collaborate and refine. Some are better thought out than others. My inspiration was the Cluetrain Manifesto from years ago and how it made perfect sense across disciplines."

This was in response to my Open Source Church post asking for narratives describing The Gathering. This post can be found on the Blog for our church in Salem.

Here are Jason's thoughts. Some good stuff, some provocative stuff, and as Jason says they are open to refinement and collaboration. Go ahead and respond to things you like, things you dislike, things you agree with, and things you disagree with.

* The new megachurch is not some vast resource sucking room. It is hyperlocal and networked. Thousands of people sitting in little rooms talking to each other from all over the world.
* Kindness and compassion need heroes. They can't defend themselves on their own.
* If something isn't broke don't fix it. If it is broke FIX IT NOW.
* Because something has been done for decades or centuries does not make it legitimate.
* if you are doing something but you don't know why, stop until you do.
* Lingo confuses an issue. If you can't explain something in plain language then chances are your logic is flawed.
* Ask difficult questions, don't settle for pat answers and don't give them.
* There are questions where there are no good answers. Be content.
* Be respectful, live with others of different opinons. Defend yourself passionately but be willing to be wrong and open to learning.
* Publish transcripts, videos, audio of services. Bring these things out into the sunlight.
* Worship is holy, sermons are not. Sermons are opinion. Don't confuse this.
* Fact check sermons. Just because someone thinks they are right and speaks with charisma doesn't make it so.
* If your service is unwilling to make a backchannel then make one yourself.
* Tweet, text, email, look stuff up on wikipedia during service, engage.
* Learn the logical falacies, they will serve you well.
* Loving someone is not the same as liking someone or how they behave.
* Differences of opinion are not disunity.
* Some of the best church happens in the hallway outside of service.
* Recapture the meaning of "church", it is you and your neighbors, not your building and the structure of the service.
* We should not be afraid of mistakes or FAIL. FAIL enough and it leads to WIN

Answering McLaren's Ten Questions Before Reading the Book (a SynchroBlog)

Steve Hayes revived the SynchroBlog tradition I started a few years back by asking us to answer Brian McLaren's 10 questions before reading his newest book.  So here are my answers to the 10 questions.  Now I will have to read the book after this, but that is okay, because I highly respect Brian.  I respect him not because of his writings, but because I have met him and spent some time with him.  Lots of people can write good and provocative books.  But to be a good and provocative person is something more difficult to do methinks. Brian is a standup kinda guy.  If you want to buy the book follow the link with the pic of the book, and pay a little less on Amazon than at Border's or wherever you go, and you will help Pastor Phil (that's me) with his Amazon account as well.

Now, if you have not read the book and are planning on getting it I challenge you to this same exercise.  Answer the 10 questions below and let me know when you do so.  This is good Christianity to practice our proclamation, and put it into dialogue instead of monologue.

Well, here are my responses to Brian's 10 Questions:

1) What is the overarching story line of the Bible? - there is a dynamic relationship between God and man.  It has been in tension and fraught with difficulty since time immemorial, but God still pursues that relationship passionately.

2) How should the Bible be understood? - as a narrative of the above filled with history, poetry, parables, and visions documenting the sorrow and the joy of this tension.

3) Is God violent? - passionate love has a violence to it.  Not as the violence of this world as we experience it, but violence in its expression nonetheless.  Perhaps it is best to see God as transcending the issues of violence/non-violence, and simply call Him Peacemaker and Judge, Lover and Defender.

4) Who is Jesus and why is he important? - God, second part of the question answered by the first I think.

5) What is the Gospel? -The specific curative message of God's pursuit of us in love, which was worked out in the life, death, resurrection and continued facilitation of Jesus.

6) What do we do about the Church? - go and help it be a carrier of the curative message.

7) Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it? - uhm, yes?

8) Can we find a better way of viewing the future? - since I am not reformed in my theology, and do not hold to a predeterministic point of view I would have to be extremely biased here and say that if we can not view it as in formation, and being created by the actions of God and humanity then we are not viewing it as future at all, but as a concrete sidewalk.

9) How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions? - like they relate to Christians - with love.  Shouldn't the church be the place where we model how we relate to the world?

10) How can we translate our quest into action? - by putting one foot in front of the other, and asking God to help us do so.  A pinch of idealism sometimes helps.

Go ahead.  Answer these questions on your blog, and let me know where to find it so we can link up with you.

Here are my other friends Synching up too:

The Evening of Kent: Ten questions that might transform something.
The AnteChurch: Synchroblog: A new kind of Christian?
Beth Patterson : Lenten reflection 5: I’m probably way off base
A New Kind of Christianity: My Answers to Ten Questions: Ryan Peter Blogs and stuff
Steve Hayes answers Brian's 10 Questions
Kieran the Celtic Rover answers Brian's Questions too

Help Define a Church! Open Source Christianity - try it and see if it works.

This fits in with the Emergent Church conversation we had going.  And I suppose it fits with Tony Jones' discussion about Theology after Google.  So here's the deal:  We had a discussion about finding a narrative for our wildly active, incredibly difficult to define community.  So I have told the story and asked for you help HERE.

Help us! Please. :-)

Is this what an Emergent preacher sounds like?

This is Jeff Gentry.  He is one of the pastors at The Gathering - the church I also pastor.  He is a self-identified Emergent guy.  He started the Emergent cohort in Boston, and the one on the North Shore of Boston as well.  This is just a short clip of his preaching this morning at church (3-7-2010).  What do you think?  If this is one example of how someone who self identifies as Emergent preaches, is it possible that theologically orthodox people are also Emergent?

Of course, I suppose there is also the possibility of pursuing the question "What is a heretic?" and asking if it is possible that there are some "heretics" who are really the orthodox ones correcting the ailing church.  Well, that's another topic for another time.  For now, here's a short clip in the middle of Jeff's message - hopefully not too disjointed a segment from the overall body of his message.

Tonight: Tony Jones presents on Emergent and Pentecostals

Tony, who was Mr. Emergent Village is speaking at the Society for Pentecostal Studies annual meeting tonight.  I have personally been asking the question about how Pentecostals and Emergent fit together for about 4 years, because I am caught between the worlds, and I know a number of people who are.  Yet the merging of the two worlds has not been comfortable for many of the Pentecostals who have been involved.

The reason for those difficulties go both ways:

On one hand, many Pentecostals are uncomfortable with the more theologically, and morally liberal elements of the emergent conversation.  One the other hand, Evangelicals of the Pentecostal variety (and this is another whole topic in itself sometime) are often more seriously berated by non-Pentecostal evangelicals - most notably those from a more Reformed tradition.

I do not expect the issue to be addressed, nor any of the underlining dynamics of this issue, but dialogue on finding elements from which both tribes can learn from one another is a good start.  That appears to be direction Tony is looking at presenting tonight.  With the focus that both groups have a robust pneumatology.

I am sure that most Pentecostals will not see Emergent as having a "robust pneumatology."  So, I think this is just the beginning of that dialogue.  This more academic group at the Society's conference will probably understand what Tony means by declaring that Emergent has a robust pneumatology - but that does that mean he is also saying there is a growing theological agreement in Emergent?  Hmmmmmm...

Slightly off topic from the initial posts about "What is Emergent?", but post your thoughts if you've got some.

More answers from Salem, MA defining the "emergent church"

This is a continuation of the first post on this subject.  It had three video clips from Salem, MA from three different people who were part of an Emergent Cohort meeting.  They simply gave a single sentence answer to "what is emergent?"  Here are three more clips from the same evening two nights ago on Tuesday, March 2nd 2010 at The Gathering in Salem, MA.

The clips are non-professional answers - i.e. from people who don't have a monetary investment in defining "emergent."

This first clip is Jeff.  He may have more of a personal investment than any of the rest of the others, because he is the chap who founded the Boston, and the North Shore of Boston Emergent Cohorts.  Don't let that sway you though - he doesn't make a buck from it.  Looses a few bucks I am sure.


Jesse below pastors a house church in Beverly, MA.  He and I hung out for a pint after the meeting.  See, he has got to be emergent!  He drank a pint at the Gulu-Gulu Cafe with me, and an unidentified Baptist dude.  I would have said that Jesse had the best answer until he revealed he was kidding, and started over. :-)


This last one is Paul.  He attends The Gathering as do a couple of the others in previous clips.  He is a student at Gordon Conwell.  I like his "free-thinkers" quote, but I'm not sure that my atheist friends would agree with that point, but that's for future discussions.

Some answers from Salem, MA defining the "Emergent Church"

These people are not Emergent professionals.  They have not written books defining emergent, nor do they get paid for something which gets placed under the emergent banner.  They are just regular people.  Some know the Emergent professionals - you know who I mean, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, etc.  Some don't.  Some have gone or are going to seminary.  Some have not and will not.  They are regular people without an agenda to define the Emergent Church/Conversation or whatever they choose to call it.  Different backgrounds, different reasons for being part of the conversation.  But listen to what they have to say.  This is the first three out of six responses I taped at an Emergent Cohort meeting in Salem, MA.

Here's Ben.  I like Ben.  He's pretty cool.  I guess he looks pretty emergent too.  Check out the glasses, and yes, he's a Mac guy.


This is Carlos.  What he doesn't tell you is that he is a Sociology Professor.  We had a dialogue about the roles of gender in the church - well, he teaches this stuff at University.


This is Cindy.  Cindy rocks.  She runs Kupenda.  Please check it out by following the link.

Emerging Church: What is it?

A rather inauspicious beginning this is to a season of searching "under the pews" of world religions, but the question keeps coming my way, and it is obviously hot in many Christian circles.  So, my friends have pushed the topic forward.

I have been called emergent/emerging by some people.  In fact, professor Adonis Vidu from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary sends students of his class, which looks at the emerging movement to visit our church as an illustration of emergence.  (Please note:  I have purposely used all the cognates of "emerge" here.)

I am not sure I am one.  I really think I am just a dude trying to follow Jesus, and succeeding and failing at any given moment.  Somehow I ended up as a professional follower.  Okay, not all that professional, because I really don't get paid enough to be a real pro. :-)

The movement has obviously garnered some criticism.  So it is worth discussing whether this is warranted or not.  Check out this super radically critical study series, which you can buy - if you are into this kind of stuff.  Be sure to click on the video and watch it!

So first comes the question:  How do you define emergent?  Is it a church, or something other?

Later today and tomorrow I will be adding short video shots of some of the people from the Northshore of Boston.  They come from a variety of backgrounds and have been involved in a Northshore Emergent Cohort.  I did not want the theologians of the movement to define it, because they are invested in such a way as to define what they would like it to be.  These were people who have been a part of it as followers, those who don't really know what it is, and those who are just trying to figure out how they fit in with God and life.  They are mostly regular people, some students of theology, some pastors, not all carrying the moniker of "emergent."

But first let's banter this about.  The definition may vary according to where you may live.  The UK variation appears to be different from the US variation I am familiar with.  Nonetheless, we will start here.  What do you think Emergent is?  Is it good for Christianity?  or is it heretical and a satanic bane to healthy church life like the video on the link above appears to suggest?

Peter Berger, Pentecostals and Neener, Neener, Neener...

I've been giving some lite (yes, spelled like a diet product) credence to the faith movement, and its mother - the massive Pentecostal movement for some time. Of course I am one, or was one, or am a post-pente kinda guy, or something like that. But, more specifically I have suggested to friends that the sociological benefits of the movement, and the sense of social concern are deeper within these movements than we realize.

So now I want to say in fine deep, proud words of theological self-justification, "Neener, neener, neener I told you so."

Peter Berger's sociological thumbs-up to the benefits of the Pentecostal movement, and even a note of reproof for those who look down upon them as "dupes and victims" are something I have been saying for awhile.

So, I've only blogged about it a couple times, but I've just got to say, "Neener, neener, neener...." So, here I am considering the power of the Pentecostal movement among the poor well over a year ago on my other Blog, and more recently on a post about social activism.

Maybe Peter can help get Emergents and Pentecostals to seriously talk. But, quite frankly, it's about more than talk when one deals with a highly experiential movement like Pentecostalism.

Tony Jones Honorable Mention? Holy Laughter!?

Tony Jones new book New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier includes a reference to our conference last May: "God for People Who Hate Church." In the forward of the book he says that he visited some extremes in respect to his Emergent church experiences while writing the book. We are listed as one extreme.

The fact that we practice dream interpretation believing that God still speaks to people in their dreams today like He did throughout the scriptures, and that we are from Pentecostal origins are the reason for this mention.

Here's the quote: ""As I was working on this manuscript, I was also on the road, speaking about this content to a variety of groups. In May 2007, I visited these five events in a whirlwind of travel..."

"A Pentecostal church in Massachusetts, where I participated in a conference titled 'God for People Who Hate Church' and shared the stage with witches and druids as they reflected on how they've been treated by Christians.

The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., where I spoke about the challenge that emergent Christianity poses to the Episcopal Church at a conference called 'Church in the Twenty-First Century'"

"Within a week, I'd gone from sitting with Pentecostals who interpret one another's dreams and break out in 'Holy Spirit laughter' to addressing collared Episcopal priests in the second largest cathedral on the continent. That's theological whiplash."


So we get the honorable mention in the forward. Or was it honorable? Maybe it was just a mention, but here's my response: Holy Laughter!? What's up with that? There may have been a few people at the conference who were into that, but as a church The Gathering does not practice that, and never has.

I suppose on one hand we are considered to be on the Frontiers of church life. That's cool. I want to live on the front edge of Christian experience as it pertains to touching our needy world, but I'd like to be accurately defined. Laughter - good. Learning to laugh in a holy manner - even better. Holy Laughter as practiced and defined by some Pentecostal Revivalists - uhm, a bit weird for me.

So Tony - Thanks for the mention, but we'll be expecting a minor retraction in the second printing bro. ;-)

Some of you will remember that I specifically asked Tony how the Emergent Conversation could better embrace the Charismatics and Pentecostals who were identifying with its values. You may also remember that I thought his answer was fair, but insufficient. Does this Holy Laughter comment perhaps hint why? Perhaps there is an assumption that all Pentecostals are whacked, and practice Holy Laughter? Perhaps there is fear of embracing emotional forms of worship expression? But wouldn't Pentecostal emotional expression be a positive move away from the post-enlightenment reliance in a solely intellectual pursuit of God? Just a thought which quite frankly I owe to some of Jeff Gentry's thoughts in his sermon today at The Gathering.

MacArthur and Emergent Pagans!?

I have a lot of contact with the Emergent Conversation, and I have a lot of contact with Neo-Pagans. Now John MacArthur tells me that they are the same. I'm not sure he knows either group very well. They don't look the same to me. I wonder what he's thinking. So, here's the quote.

Defining Emergent Continues

Scott McKnight, Mark Driscoll's critiques, and now Darrin Patrick have tried to define this still new, always changing motley crew of edgy churchy people. I suppose I am one of the notley crew under some definitions. Anyway check it out at Emergent Village.

Small Emergent Churches? Is this the future for what we call Emergent?

I am a proponent of intimate church settings. Often that translates as small, but certainly not always. Bill Easum who travels as a church consultant and sees a lot of churches says that he sees small experimental Emergent churches in the future of the church, but also a need for "giga-churches."

Here is Bill leaving a comment on a blog. This was noted by Steve Knight over at Emergent Village who was asking the question "What are Emergent Churches doing to reproduce themselves?"

I wonder that too, and of course I wonder about myself in that respect.

Ken Silva Responds Without Really Saying Anything ;-)

Ken Silva has responded to my previous post on his blog sites. I guess they are not really dialogue blogs, because he leaves comments for people to read, but I can't find a place to respond. He simply says that I have responded in an "emergent kind-of-way." I am supposing he means that I am anticipating dialogue, and asking for more of a response, but he does not accurately, or accurately respond to my comments.

Here's your chance Ken. Defend your attacks on the Emergent Church, and show how I fit into those same heresies you identify.

I thought this may be a fun exercise. I will be leaving for home from London tomorrow, so this will give you a few days to respond sufficiently, and with more than one of those "if you don't know what [that] is in the first place, then how could you be sure you're not moving toward it?" remarks.

Ken Silva Calls Me Out - The Gathering as Clueless, Blind Guides

Thank You to our buddy Zaque for calling our attention to this post by anti-emergent church fellow Ken Silva. Ken is living in New Hampshire, so I will need to visit him someday soon - well, after returning from France, and the UK.

He noticed that we held our "God: For People Who Hate Church Conference" back in May and decided to respond to it, and even to link to one of the dialogues.

Now he responded to the dialogue, which can be downloaded here, with these words:

"Although these people are currently spiritually clueless they do know the repainted social gospel and theology, such as it is, of the emerging church quite well. But the tragic truth is we are not dealing with the orthodox Christian faith here. No; rather this is a mish-mash of things roughly related to Christianity which they simply pick and choose by their own existential and highly subjective feelings about what they think God might be doing.

After listening to this the discerning Christian will hear the Voice of the Great Shepherd say – “Leave them; they are blind guides.”"

You can find Ken Sliva's daitribes against anything even remotely Emergent (which tag I am not sure I fully fit) at this website. He is sure that I am part of a neo-liberal cult, and with my friends moving toward the "religious bondage of Roman Catholicism."

What do you think?

I tend to think that he has replaced Roman Catholic Bondage (whatever that is) with his own brand of theological, and practical do and don'ts which look even more like the bondage of the law than anything he berates.

I guess this post came out a couple days ago, while our missions team was returning from London, and I was bunking up at Mike and Jules' place.

Emergent: Too Utopian?

The SynchrBlog release in two days deals with the subject of Utopia. This set of articles from Kevin Brewster asks if the Emergent Church is too utopian. A good read as we start writing on utopian ideas.