I have NOT been walking a journey that fully identifies with what has been termed the "Emerging Church." In fact, I have had a difficult time pinning down just what the term "emerging church" refers to.
However… I have been reading Eddie Gibbs’ book "Emerging Churches" which has brought clearer understanding to me re "Emerging Church" and is allowing me to see that some of the more recent "Emerging Church Dialogue" (according to Gibbs) has many similarities to where God has brought me in my journey.
First the background: According to Gibbs the emerging church "movement" first focused on developing megachurch type churches that were geared toward the postmodern gen-xers. Then, there were attempts to develop a church-within-a-church model in which the "postmodern" church existed within the context of a larger "boomer-style" church. Also, there have been attempts to develop small communities (house churches) as a style of church that would reach out to the postmodern generation.
BUT… says Gibbs… the shift now is AWAY from focusing on the FORM that the church should take and, instead, seeking to understand "what the life of Jesus means." Gibbs quotes Zander Dieter who planted gen-xer churches in all of the previously-mentioned ways but now has no desire to pursue "church planting." Instead, his desire is to "form communities of people that produce apprentices of Jesus who live in the gospel and communicate and draw others in a matter of course to the way they live." He says, "I want to form apprentices in the life of the kingdom."
If this is where the "Emerging Church" dialogue has arrived, then I can readily connect with this aspect. Gibbs offers an entire chapter called "Identifying with Jesus" in which he claims that this is now the key message of the emerging church. I want to highlight this aspect with the following quotes from this chapter:
"Our commitment is to be a missionary at all times. Everything we do in our lifestyle, in what we say, in how we treat people, that’s all our witness. It’s all mission… We are definitely all missionaries and evangelists."
"Emerging churches take up this challenge, creating 24/7 missional communities that seek to express the kingdom in all they do."
"It is not about church form but about the kingdom. The kingdom transcends all forms… The answer does not reside in church structure but in the way of life modeled by Jesus and what that life looks like in our context today."
"They do not seek to start churches per se but to foster communities that embody the kingdom. Whether a community explicitly becomes a church is not the immediate goal. The priority is that the kingdom is expressed."
I know there are many aspects to what is called "Emerging Church" and I don’t even pretend grasp all of it. Nor am I interested in debating the various aspects of it. But I, for one, have been "emerging" into the paradigm that has been described by these quotes. It’s not about some church form (not even "house church" form), it’s about living a Jesus-life, all day, everyday. Community life supports the Jesus-life-in-us, not the other way around. We live with Jesus in the world as our primary calling–each and every day. We gather with others to support that Jesus-life and to build up one another. I believe in keeping community life SIMPLE (New Testament style) so that it SUPPORTS our life-with-Jesus-in-the-world rather than hinders it.
The key paradigm shift that I would love to see everyone emerge into is that it is not about living for the church (in any form) but simply living for the Kingdom–with and for Jesus. Perhaps this is exactly what is happening!
Comments
18 responses to “Conversing With the “Emerging Church Conversation””
Roger,
Another great word! We need our church life to “emerge” out of our life with Christ instead of the other way around. For me, old habits are hard to break, but I think Jesus is beginning to turn the ship around. Keep up the good words!
Chris
“It’s not about some church form (not even “house church” form), it’s about living a Jesus-life, all day, everyday.”
I couldn’t agree more! Great words!
I find myself regularly emerging. And as long I remember to keep my eyes focused on the glory of Christ & keep people elevated above structures & ideas, I just might be okay. we all might be. May the Lord help us as we discover His glory.
Great post and good summary!
Chris,
Wow, I dont think I have ever heard the term “emerge” in the context of emergent in the way you just used it. It was very powerful. Church-life truly does emerge from our living above with Christ. In this way, we are all emergent.
Eric
First time visiter. Great post!
“away from focusing on the FORM that the church should take and, instead, seeking to understand “what the life of Jesus means.”
I believe strongly that within this statement resides the very DNA responsible for revivals and reformations.
What does the life of Jesus mean?
I was recently asked to share for 2 Sundays with my congregation while our senior pastor enjoys a much needed sabatical in Mazatlan. I decided to preach on a topic I’ve recently collided with. I opened the book of Galations and let the Gospel sing.
What music is this gospel of grace? It’s not a form. It’s not a building. It’s not a movement. It’s an idea. An idea “justice” mocks. Sinners pardoned? Worthlessness redeemed? Ugliness beautified? Holiness crucified? This is foolishness to the perishing.
But to those of us who are being saved? What a song! A song that will be sung for eternity. Today it is our song. May we sing it boldly. May we sing it courageously. May we sing alone if necessary. May we sing triumphantly.
The best and most accessible book on the emerging church! Great post!
I always enjoy reading this blog! I like your evaluation that links a truly “emergent” church with a renewed emphasis on living for the Kingdom 24/7.
Just recently my wife and I have given up trying to start up house churches or keep them going. We don’t know where we are going from here. For me too much of what was written/happening in house church focused on what we do when we get together for the meeting. It didn’t seem much different than the traditional church.
This article goes well with what Tom Sine says:
“the early church was not a place or event to go to on Sunday morning but a living breathing community centered in the worship of the living God.”
The idea that church is not a weekly event does not die easily (even amongst house church people). To make the transfer from the weekly meeting to a living breathing community is part of the key. I guess we feel like Zander Dieter. Yet how does one go about “forming apprentices of Jesus?” It would be valuable for people to share their experiences. I think it was Elton Trueblood who said, “An ounce of demonstration is worth a ton of speculation.
Roger you said… I believe in keeping community life SIMPLE (New Testament style) so that it SUPPORTS our life-with-Jesus-in-the-world rather than hinders it. I do not think the problem is community or community life (because community is a part of our witness) but rather that the Sunday morning service is so entrenched in our psyche that we cannot move forward without it. It was Hirsch and Frost who said, “What is being planted are not missional communities but rather church services.” My wife and I are at the point of saying, “no longer are we interested in planting church services for anyone. (traditional or house church).”
Over the past couple of years I have quoted a couple of authors (Elizabeth O’Connor and Jacques Ellul) on the form of church. They understood that kingdom living transcends church form. This blog post helped me to more fully understand what they were saying. In the past I used these quotes to discredit the traditional church and support other forms when in reality these people were saying the same thing as Dieter is saying, Its not about church form but something that transcends form… Here are the quotes:
“We never have expected to hit upon that final stable structure. This is important for a church to understand, for when it starts to be the church it will be constantly be adventuring out into places where there are no tried and tested ways. If the church in our day has few prophetic voices above the noise of the street, perhaps in large part it is because the pioneering spirit has become foreign to it. It shows little willingness to explore new ways. Where it does it has often been called an experiment. We would say the church of Christ is never an experiment, but where that church is true to it’s mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling words of God to it’s own age. It cannot do this if it is held captive by the structures of another day.” (Elizabeth O’Connor….Call to Commitment)
The second is Jacques Ellul
No doubt some will reply that God is not a God of disorder, incoherence, or arbitrariness, but a God of order. Of course he is. Unfortunately the whole of the Old Testament shows us that God’s order is not that which we conceive and desire. God’s order is not organization and institution (cf. the difference between judges and kings). It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit. On the contrary, it resides in the fact that it constantly posits something new, a new beginning. Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized. If the gates of death are not going to prevail against it, this is not because it is a good, solid, well-organized fortress, but because it is alive; it is Life-that is, as mobile, changing, and surprising as life. If it becomes a powerful fortified organization, it is because death has prevailed.” (Jacques Ellul Subversiveness of Christianity)
Thanks for the great quotes and book recommendations, Frank. I couldn’t agree more with the spirit behind these ideas.
Thank you, Frank, whoever you are, for introducing me to two great writers and thinkers. I had to use your quotes on my own blog.
Great post.
I have for some time now thought about the emerging church, its ideas and its values. And – as you say – it’s a very broad concept and I cannot grasp it all. I’ve been quite fascinated by it and I like the idea of bringing missional communities close to people.
But the thing that has bothered me the most is that most people talking about the EC seem to forget Jesus. For many the EC is a way to deal with frustration, and I think some EC-stuff is born out of that frustration. Which I don’t think is a good thing.
But now that you’ve clarified your thoughts on all this, I can’t say anything else than my opinion is that whenever Jesus is at the center, it’s ok. When I live in an active, close and hearing relationship to Jesus, I’ll find the path God has for me. If it’s within the megachurch, fine. If it’s in the EC, fine. No matter what, the most important thing is to teach people how to live like Jesus, and before that learn it myself.
Well, anyway. I enjoy reading your blog.
Thanks for a good post.
having been doing house church forms for the last 10 years and getting lumped in with the emerging church regardless, i can say that there is space for everyone and many kinds of forms that are having success in ministering to the emerging culture.
who cares what people call it?
glad to hear you are doing well
Allow me to be the odd man out for a moment…
In George’s post, he quotes Gibbs:
“the shift now is AWAY from focusing on the FORM that the church should take and, instead, seeking to understand “what the life of Jesus means.” “
Now, I assure you I have nothing critical to say about anyone who wants to better understand the life of Jesus and its implications for our lives. But, to suggest that such a study removes or even diminishes our responsibility toward understanding “church” is a dangerous proposition. While Gibbs may be trying to stress the importance of the life of Jesus, his choice of words is unfortunate.
There are those who have sought to adopt this idea, taking it to the Nth degree. In their quest, they have “emerged?” to believe that “the words of Jesus” are the only binding ideas. In fact, they would suggest that Paul and/or all other apostles are misled, to put it nicely – usually resulting because his teachings frequently require diligent study. However, this “Jesus only” paradigm is way outside mainstream Christian orthodoxy, if not heretical. I hope no one here is seeking to take us in that direction. I fear it is a dangerously comfortable end result to rest upon when we become frustrated with our church experience and/or tire of study.
To study and understand the ekklesia will come with a cost and means getting our hands dirty. It removes us from our comfort zone in every way possible and forces us to deal with one another in all of our sinfulness. It provides us a place in the body, but also holds us accountable to the body. I place myself at the top of the list of those guilty of running from it all – more than once!
My only purpose for this post is to encourage the casual reader, who might be lurking, not to be swayed to a point of comfort at the expense of obedience. We may be able to claim grace for our salvation, but sanctification often comes with a cost. :+)
I appreciate Hutches comments that we not look for the “It’s just me and Jesus” comfort zone. But I think the focus of many of the posts here is in trying to emphasize how easily we fall into another comfort zone – that of relying on a system of following the Lord more than relying on the relationship we have with the Father through Jesus.
A man-made, scaled-down system which intends to describe the life of Jesus in believers is what I have found as the lazy way out I have taken in my church life. As you note, our lives in Him revealed through the scriptures and His life in us, is to be at the center of our life of fellowship.
I don’t think orthodox Christianity is the issue. Jesus building his church is really the issue. I think many of us are continuing to experience a need to let go of some of our misunderstanding of His church which we learned through tradition. These misunderstandings have colored our view of what He wants to accomplish as He builds His church.
If this makes us a little dangerous, I think He can handle that. If we make some mistakes along the way, I guess it will give us the great opportunity to learn from our mistakes. As I take into account what was posted earlier on, I still believe that its not about experimenting with structures as much as it is learning to live a life like Paul modeled. He could say: “Follow me as I follow Christ”. He didn’t say: “Follow me as I follow orthodox Christianity.” That’s the distinction I am trying to make in my own life anyway. It has been slow-going so far.
Here’s a quote from Leadership Journal from 25 years ago that my wife found on someone else’s blog:
“If the church were to lose its hierarchy, its clergy, its vast collection of buildings, its stores of learning amassed over the centuries, even the text of its sacred books, and had to face the world with nothing but the living presence of the Risen Jesus and its mission to proclaim the Good News to all nations and people, it would be no less a church than the church of Peter and Paul was. Perhaps it might be more of a church than it is now.”
Just curious where the last 6 or 7 posts went to. Did we offend?