 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Read this blog!I tend to steer away from putting up posts that merely tell people to go read what someone else says. It seems to run contrary to the purpose of a blog. In my mind, that is what the "Friends" or "Blogroll" section of a blog is for: to introduce one's readers to other bloggers who are worth reading. Nevertheless, I've been following Steve Bush's blog discussion lately on Liturgy and Technology and he offers a very helpful discussion on the topic. If you are interested in alt-worship or worship in the Emergent church I suggest you give him a read. Steve is a PhD student at Princeton University and a part of a "non-conventional" church in Philly. He never ceases to offer insightful, theological challenges to many facets of church life. So check him out! Peace.posted by Jake at 2/12/2005 12:21:00 PM  
7 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Ummm...Ouch! ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 2) ------------ Ruth Unplugged ------------ Journey to the Cross ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 1) ------------ It's a Girl! ------------ See where fundamentalism gets ya? ------------ The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 3) ------------ More Baptist Conflict ------------ Not a good sign ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Thanks for all the links, Jake. Over the last few weeks I've done a bit of reading on the emergent church, following your links, so I appreciate your help. I posted a summation of my overall impression as a comment on the "Throwing Down the Gauntlet" article:
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2004/11/throwing-down-gauntlet.html#110824319636290970
Mike, I read your comment and I aprpreciate your un-unique perspective. Had you read the other 60 comments you would have read very similar sentiments of frustration. Although your comments are apropos I detected a hint of sanctimoniousness in them. Please understand that while I appreciate your perspective as a friend, emergent isn't really for you. You are happy with your church, you seem to feel as if you have this faith thing all worked out. I am happy for you. The reason that Tony Jones was ranting about emergent is because he has a heart to minister to people who will never come to church as it now stands. Unfortunately, it seems that in your eyes we have failed to maintain the humble spirit that you would have liked. But let us not forget that emergent folks are bucking against denominational infrastructures, evangelical fundamentalism, liberal fundamentalism, all the while trying to offer a ray of hope for the unchurched and the overchurched. Man I love you. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, your conservative beliefs and your desire to defend your version of the truth. Please understand that I and many other emergent minded folks don't see things the way you do. We are trying to make some elbow room in the confines of hyper-liberalism on the left and hyper-conservatism on the right. It is quite taxing, hence Tony's rant.
On the one hand you are absolutely correct, emergent is not new. We stand on the shoulders of the radical reformers who sought to reform the burgeois practices that had overtaken the church catholic. But on the other hand, this is a new conversation. The world is different in its transition from modernity to postmodernity than it was in the shift from precritical to critical Christianity. We don't have everything worked out and we could all partake of a healthy portion of humble pie in the church today.
P.S. the "blue pill" sends you back to the Matrix...in emergent, we are intersted in the "red pill". Peace.
Yeah, I didn't have time to read 60 comments. Maybe I should -- it'd be comforting to realize that my perspective is "un-unique", because it sure never feels that way in my day-to-day life!
I'm sorry if my post made you frustrated. What you've stated here about the desires of the emergent movement are things I can appreciate. As you noted, it was only the tone of the conversation I was addressing -- but I myself have a disdain for heavy church bureacracies and the thick academia slathering seminaries, so I'm glad the emergent movement is targeting them. We can all learn from that.
And thanks for setting me straight on the blue pill! My mistake. I understand his point now ...
This is, by the way, my final signoff. It's been fun reading and responding to various posts, but I fear I'm not bringing the right attitude to this dialogue, so I'm going to bow out from here forward. Thank you for the intellectual and spiritual stimulation. There aren't many places on the net where you can find so many thoughtful people. You're doing a good thing by raising so many intriguing questions and articulating your ideas. Keep it up, brother! Peace.
Hey Jake,
The post was interesting, but not convincing to me. He ignores the heart of the liturgy to my mind--namely, that it invites us into the drama. The liturgy of the Eucharist is not simply a "liturgical act," it is a dance that has to be entered into and keeps us twirling even after we leave the church. We could just as easily say ALL worship services only last for the moment. It's funny--I might have agreed with him four years ago. That's before I understood the liturgy. I think the argument that the liturgy alienates is just as unconvincing. There's no nice way to do church. There's no non-consumer oriented approach in America, because the consumers will always find you. Some churches seek consumers, but the liturgical traditions really don't. If they did, they'd do the Buddy-Christ thing in Dogma. We could easily turn the finger-pointing around and say that Emergent and alt-worship are doing the same kind of catering. In the end, he's arguing both ends: first, that liturgy isn't relevant in a consumer society; second, that it attracts it's own consumers, and is itself consumer-oriented. Bad arguing.
And I think this points out my biggest problem with Emergent as I've encountered it and other pomo Christian groups. I, too, reacted adversely to the "Throwing Down the Gauntlet" article by Tony. Both articles are throwing up a lot of straw men. I think its characteristic of a lot of pomo-Christian groups. They position themselves in some unique stance to some tradition or multiplicity of traditions and say, "Look at us!" I'm not buying it, because it's another rend in the fabric. "Revolution" may be one of the bywords of the Gospel (I emphasize MAY be), but "Unity" is one of the bywords of the Body of Christ. Christ was revolutionary, but then again not, liberatory, but then he died on a cross instead of overthrowing Rome. How much of the revolutionary zeal is due to a general ideology that pervades our "generation"? How much the Gospel? The Gospel is a Gospel of Peace as much as of Revolution.
Both articles set up liturgy or mainline denominations and their polities as bankrupt and defunct in a move that is less than charitable to these sister churches and the measure of the kingdom that can be found in them. (I'm thinking particularly of the "demonic" conversations to which Tony refers.) There is an extreme amount of hubris there. The head cannot do without the feet, nor the feet the head. I don't want to hear why Emergent is better than these churches, I want to hear who Emergent is. Don't define Emergent merely against other churches (or straw representations thereof), but for yourselves. And if there is some overlap between you and other churches, don't be surprised or get pissed off and throw down the gauntlet--welcome to the Body of Christ. Yes, all of these churches that Tony rails against have done what Emergent is doing. No, there is nothing new under the sun. I think it is improper of Tony to suppose what Emergent is doing is that much different from what the great traditions of the church have done in different times. It is unique and new not because of its focus, but because this is a new time and a new place. But why be dismayed or angered at this? Unless Emergent is too proud to admit that it, too, is merely one part of the Body?
Clearly, Emergent is not for me, but not because I do not sympathize with its longing for something better. Long for something better, but work with what you have...and by all means don't judge too harshly, for who knows how ridiculous Emergent might look in fifty years. Worship God, preach the Gospel, if necessary, use words. But for the love of God (yes, I mean that) keep the caustic backbiting for yourselves. Imagine, dream, cast a vision of a more perfect church/community. But don't begrudge the fact that you will still have to do with the larger Body and don't alienate your mainstream brothers and sisters.
Obviously, these remarks are not really for you, Jake. They are directed at collectives like Emergent, and especially at the two articles I read. But I don't know the other two guys and I have no desire to enter into polemics with strangers. Dialogue with friends, conversation with brothers and sisters--that's a more welcome prospect.
We cannot forever be pointing fingers and naysaying. That is not the Body of Christ. Come let us reason together. Love one another.
Amen.
Andy,
Thanks for the comments. I am a little confused though. I appreciated Steve's discussion on liturgy and technology because he offers a healthy challenge to both mainline and emergent manifestations of liturgy. I'm not saying he is right. I just like how he opens up the discussion critically when so much positivism and essentialism is scurrying about.
I find it interesting that you are criticizing emergent for its desire to make space for people who have been hurt by the institutional church. For some of my friends (and I presume from this post that you are among them) the Church is fine, sure it may have its challenges but you are altogether happy with Church as you know it. Some of us are not. You are critical of Emergent for trying to do something different (we can argue all day about whether this is different or not) when you are lifting up the status quo as the ideal. You want us to "Long for something better, but work with what you have." This is no different from the arguments made by some Jews or Judaizers in 100, Orthodox in 1000, Catholics in 1500, etc. Lest we forget, your own patri ecclesium, John Wesley, had no desire to break with the Anglican church. Yet, unfortunately sometimes reform leads to fracture. Let me be clear, I am trying to be as peaceful as I can be about church unity. I wish that we could all hold hands and worship God together, but sadly that is not the case. Granted, your criticism is deserved but I don't think its fair to read two articles and then chime in as from above about the whole structure and focus of Emergent.
"We cannot forever be pointing fingers and naysaying. That is not the Body of Christ. Come let us reason together. Love one another." If you really believe this then you will have no problem with Emergent Christians working to create a space to enter into community together. I don't think that these ideas have to be mutually exclusive. I say that you can stay a Methodist and want to do things as you always have and I can be a Baptist and desire to do something different and we can still love one another. Remember, Emergent is not a denomination, it is a conversation that is interdenominational. Moreover we have Emergent folks advocating everything from Gregorian chant to techno liturgy. It is a perfect place to "reason together" in our postmodern world.
Thanks for the comments. Peace.
Hey Jake,
You're right. It's not fair of me to judge the whole Emergent conversation because of two (mostly one) articles. But, for the record, I don't have a problem with Emergent, I mostly have a problem with the way Tony defines Emergent with respect to his brothers and sisters. Again, I did NOT appreciate the talk about the "demonic" discussions many mainline churches are involved in.
I have no investment in the status quo, but I am invested in the Body of Christ, and I think it's sad when we can only assert our particular group in extreme contradistinction to others in the body (I lament 100, 1000, and 1500 and the schisms involved). Wesley is a good model here--he never did break from the Church of England officially, only his followers did. (And I lament that as well.) Certainly, those who have been hurt by the instiutional churches need a space of their own, but I'm not convinced that it should entail such acrimony against the institutional churches. Again, I freely admit my impressions are largely based on this particular article. McLaren's stuff is decent, Tomlinson, not terrible. But this article--not a fan.
On a more personal note: I'm not comfortable with the status quo. I'm not fine with being a Methodist. I'm not fine with 1054. And it bothers me that more and more splinters come between Christian brothers and sisters everyday. I see no way forward except together. I'm not saying we all need to worship in the same way or at the same time, but we should at least respect one another, which is what you say in response to me. But Tony's article lacked respect for large parts of the Body of Christ in my opinion. That's what bothers me.
And I worry that the rhetoric is a fancy way of covering up the consumerism Steve spoke so elegantly about. You say Emergent is a place where there are folks advocating Chant and/or Techno. I guess I feel like people give up on the institutional churches too quickly, and that makes me...mostly aggrieved, actually.
In sum, yes, my dissatisfaction is biased, based on the little I have read. Granted. But, that doesn't defend some of the very polemical language Tony uses against mainline denominations, especially if he is a leader of Emergent. (I would like to add that neither does it forgive the polemic directed against Emergent from the denominations.) Von Balthasar quotes Barth in his book on Barth's theology: "It was with a heavy heart that [the Reformation] felt obliged to surrender its external unity with the Church of Rome. If this obligations seems to have passed...then it is time to wonder whether the restoration of external unity may not be worth the surrender of some small and inconsequential differences that still divide us from Rome" (17-18). Obviously KB did not think such a time had yet come. But I think this is the direction we should be looking--always toward unity and the hope of reconciling, not toward division. Reform, by all means, but enough of the reviling. That's how I feel.
Thanks for your comments, though, they make me think and keep me honest.
Peace,
Andy
Andy, your comments were quite fair and I agree. I too seek dialogue, understanding, and love amongst the body of Christ. With regard to Wesley, I know that it grieved him immensely that his 'reform' was not received by his Anglican brothers. He is a good model for me--try to stay in unity as long as possible. As a Baptist from the South I identify with Wesley in that I wish I were given room to offer my own gifts and opinions to the larger denomination. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Luckily one of the bedrock Baptist principles is autonomy, so I can still say that I am a Baptist and more conservative Baptists cannot argue. Nevertheless, I don't have space to excercise my gifts in ministry. I like Emergent because it provides space for me to be a Christian in general and a minister in particular. Hopefully my own comments are not as astringent as Tony's were in his Gauntlet-post. FYI: I know Tony and he should not be characterized by that one post exclusively. Any one trying to reform the status quo gets frustrated from time to time. Having access to a blog tends to make those rants public rather than private. Peace.