I recently had the opportunity to read a review copy of It's A Dance written by Patrick Oden. When I first heard about this book I was intrigued - a theology book about the Holy Spirit written in story form. I am aware that the role of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in emerging church discussions. Perhaps the fundamentalist/evangelical roots of many of us in this conversation who grew up being told that the salvation of Pentecostals and Charismatics wasn't for sure and that the Holy Spirit no longer works in our current dispensation may have something to do with that. But whatever the case, I haven't heard much talk about the holy Spirit recently and so wanted to explore It's a Dance.

The book is set up focusing on a writing assignment of a southern Californian journalist, Luke. His assignment leads him to visit and review churches in the area in search of something new and different to capture the readers attention. While the assignment is part of his job, the search echoes Luke's own spiritual quest to arrive at some sort of understanding and expression of faith he can accept. This quest leads him to a very different sort of church that meets in a pub. Luke then discovers the hows and why of this church's differences as he sits down for long discussions with the pastor and church attendees. Through these discussions we hear the stories of what brought people to this different church (often stories of pain) and are exposed to the basic theology driving the church. All the while the presence of the Holy Spirit makes itself known as the conversation returns again and again to how the Spirit is at the center of what drives the church.

I personally enjoyed reading the theological exploration in conversational format. Many of the conversations in the book reminded me of ones I have participated in from time to time. There were points where the writing slipped out of conversational mode into sermon mode, but then again when you are writing through the voice of a pastor, it is hard not to sermonize every once in awhile. Although the book does not use footnotes (they would have broken up the flow of the conversation), Oden lists his sources at the end of the book and one can tell that centuries of theological traditions and reflections informed the dialogue in the book. As I read I encountered ideas common in emerging church circles as well as explorations of the Holy Spirit that were new to my understanding of faith. It was a fun intellectual journey to take.

In the presentation of the "different" church Luke encounters, it is easy to recognize many of the trendy trappings of relevant churches. They met in a pub connected to a coffee shop/bookstore, they don't do programs, they offer a prayer room for contemplative prayer, they eschew the typical patterns of modern American churches and so forth. Nothing wrong of course with any of those things, they just fit the common stereotypes of what emerging churches look like. I appreciated that Oden went beyond describing the stylistic structure of the church and told the stories of the people who identify with that church. Reading their stories and discovering how they came to find a church home there fleshed out the theology presented in the book. Their lives represented theology lived out and were a great reminder of the real life implications of all that we believe. Through them one could see the Holy Spirit moving in the never-ending dance to draw us into faith and worship.

I think this book is a needed addition to the growing library of books on how we do church in an emerging culture. It is an accessible read and will be helpful to those who understand theology more relationally than didactically.

Labels: Book Reviews, Church, Emerging Church

So I had another interesting lunch yesterday. No, it didn't involve crazy people being offended that I exist, but it did involve overhearing a rather interesting conversation. I don't mean to eavesdrop, really, but it was impossible not to hear this conversation. And plus once I heard some of it, it was hard to tune out.

Emma and I once again had a day of appointments and errands and stopped for lunch. At the booth right behind us were two older women, they had to be at least in their late 60's and looked the epitome of "grandma." They were just finishing their food when we arrived, but right as I sat down I heard one of them bring up a conversation in a way that implied this conversation was the main thing she had been wanting to talk about all along. She basically told her friend that she thinks she had lost her faith. She describes going through the motions of church, still doing all the churchy stuff, but feeling like there is nothing there. She described it as being like she had been eating at a certain table her whole life but now the table just disappeared and she doesn't know what to do. She clarified that this had nothing to do with anything bad that happened, or anything a person did, it just happened.

I missed what they discussed next, but then I heard her friend suggest she attend an evening service at another church where they do things "differently." The lady replied that she wouldn't be welcome there because she was too old. She then started talking about her relatives who are agnostic but who are deeply committed to a women for peace and justice group. She said this group has been around for over 100 years passionately caring about these things. She said she felt so inadequate just now discovering that she should be caring as well. Her friend just said, I kid you not, "but that's just the social gospel".

That's all I overheard. You can see why I eavesdropped. I found it fascinating to listen to a much older person who has been integrally involved in the traditional church model her whole life having the same crises of faith and awakening to justice issues that many of us in the emerging church are having. Not that I think its weird, just more rare. I felt for her for not feeling welcome at what was most likely an emerging style worship service because of her age. I recall a similar issue at the last Midwest Emerging Women gathering. An older woman showed up to that event and told me that it was the first emerging event she felt welcomed at because of her age. In the promo material I had included a line about how women of all ages are welcome to attend, and it took finally seeing that in print for her to feel like she could participate. I hope this other lady from the restaurant finds a place to connect where her questions are heard and she can pursue Christ's call to justice. I so wanted to jump in on the conversation, but I'm the type person who would never actually do that. I am just grateful for the reminder that these questions are pertinent no matter what age a person is.

Labels: Emerging Church

Forget "come let us reason together." Forget "love wins." These days it feels like whoever has the loudest voice wins. I know that sounds really cynical but I'm getting tired of being drowned out by those voice. Let me explain.

We do church differently at our church - call it emerging or postmodern if you like. We don't (generally) preach at people, but instead attempt to engage people in discussion and reflection. This works really well for people who are used to us or who have an bit of an intellectual bent. But occasionally we get people who show up who after listening to part of the conversation say something like "But Joel Osteen says _____". That's the end of the discussion for them. Joel Osteen has a TV show so therefore his voice being the loudest and most prominent is correct. So if we are talking about self-sacrificially serving others based on texts from Luke, but Joel Osteen said that we can have it all if we just have faith, Joel Osteen must be right. There is no interacting with the issue, no trying to determine which message holds the truth, just allegiance with the guy with the loud voice.

Then there are the issues with the radio preachers (as the Out of Ur blog recently discussed). These guys can say whatever they want and because it is Christian radio people believe them as Gospel truth. It doesn't matter if your church preaches one thing on Sunday, if the people in your church listen to Christian radio they will believe the radio guys' over you. If they are on the radio they have the loud voice and therefore must be right. So if you are say in the emerging church, but the radio preachers tell their listeners that the emerging church is a cult where they sacrifice children and have sex with Satan (or something similar) they will believe the radio guys and condemn you to hell. No honest intelligent dialogue. No pursuit of truth. Just automatic default to whatever the guys with the loudest voice are saying.

I've personally experienced this phenomenon in a women's Bible study I was in a few years ago (which yes was just as painful as it sounds). Not much deep engagement went on at this thing. Our discussions involved reading whatever answer we filled in the Beth Moore blank with or occasionally reading the study notes from the NIV. Any attempts to push the conversation further were met with confused looks of "that wasn't in the book." One week our topic was on Rahab, and I was determined to bring up the alternative view that perhaps she wasn't a prostitute. Before I could one of the other ladies chose to read from Liz Curtis Higgs' Bad Girls of the Bible on Rahab. Essentially the passage claimed that Rahab has to be a prostitute because she represents our potential to be saved from the baseness of our sexual nature as women and if you question her role as a prostitute you are unbiblical and challenging the saving work of Christ. Which of course I disagreed with even more. At the risk of being labelled unbiblical (which I eventually was at that church) I tried to speak up and was immediately shut down. Who was I to question Liz Curtis Higgs the others asked? She's the expert on bad girls of the bible, you can't question the expert. So faithful exploration and biblical study don't matter in the face of a loud voice.

The "loud" voices, the ones with clout, are considered more believable because they are prominent and reach a wider audience. As we in the emerging church attempt to rethink patterns of theology we run up against these loud voices. They don't engage us in dialogue or a willingness to learn. Instead they ridicule, spread rumors and lies, and inoculate themselves against feedback by screening their calls and emails and deleting negative (or just basically insightful) comments on their blogs (if they allowed them in the first place). I guess it's hard to remain a loud voice if you don't just shut out all other voices.

So what do we do with this? People are allowed their own opinions, and I can ignore individuals who make fun of what I am a part of, but what about my family and friends who believe lies about me because of a few loud voices? Or who at least write me off for things I truly believe because they have been exposed to a bad representation of those things? Or what about those of us who have lost jobs because of the loud voice of others? How can we encourage church members and friends to actually think for themselves instead of swallowing whatever the loud voices tell them to believe? How can we do this without getting too cynical?

Labels: Church, Culture, Emerging Church

Today is Blog Action Day for the environment. The idea is to get bloggers all blogging about a single topic (this year the environment) to help raise awareness and funds for that issue. Part of it is to donate the proceeds from your blog that day to the cause, but I guess that would assume you get proceeds from your blog to begin with. Nevertheless, I decided to add my voice and join in.

In some ways I really don't get why we still need to raise awareness for environmental issues. It just seems like a no-brainer - do what we can to take care of the planet. Al Gore just won the freaking Noble Peace Prize for crying out loud. But then I step back into reality. Even beyond those who think global warming is a hoax (and they are out there, in droves) and those who think it is our God-given right to destroy the environment (shockingly too many of those out there too), the bigger problem comes from those who just don't care enough to do crap. Sure they don't want the world destroyed, they like the idea of swimming in the ocean, and they aren't too eager to get cancer - but none of that is motivation enough for them to change the way they live. Convenience, cheapness, and sheer laziness win out over conviction any day.

Which is why I really appreciated the call in the Emerging Church to live holistically and put our beliefs into action. Makeesha just posted a reaction to the recent Emergent Gathering in which she debunked and affirmed popular stereotypes of the emerging church. One stereotype she affirmed is the "hippie" vibe one finds at such gatherings. She writes, "all you had to do was step into the room with the food and notice the almond butter, gluten free granola, sprouted bagels, quinoa salad and organic fruit." Our food was healthy and organic. Sure that gets us labeled "hippie" but I see in that a true commitment to the values of the Kingdom.

For many of us in the emerging church, our faith isn't just a set of beliefs we affirm by talking endlessly about how blessed we are to have them and by singing songs about why they make us so happy. It is instead a commitment of our whole life to living in the way of Christ. And that includes the areas of how we eat, shop, and treat the environment. If we care for the poor and the oppressed we are not going to buy food from systems that keep them in poverty or that expose them to unhealthy working conditions. If we care for God's creation we are not going to buy food that dumps poisons into the environment or is unsustainably grown. If we care for our bodies (as temples of the Holy Spirit) we aren't going to fill them with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup. Living holistically as followers of Christ changes that.

So call me a hippie. Call me a freak. Call me emergent. I am just trying to follow Christ.

And yes that means I care about the environment.

Labels: Emerging Church, Environment, Social Justice

If anyone is interested, I am on the latest Nick & Josh Podcast. I haven't listened to the finished version yet, but I think (hope) I was vaguely coherent for it. I talk mostly about Emerging Women and some of the issues women face in entering into the whole emerging church conversation. I'm sure I ramble on at points, but I had fun doing it. So thanks guys for the opportunity.

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women, Personal

That's where I was all last week - at the Lifeway Glorieta Conference Center situated in the mountains outside of Santa Fe. As strange as it is to attend an Emergent event at a Southern Baptist camp, it does make for a stunning setting. Emma enjoying pointing out the "real mountains" (a opposed to the sand mountains we climbed in Michigan). In all she had a wonderful time there which is a good thing since we were really unsure how doing this event as a family would work. This Gathering was the first Emergent event that I have done in "mommy mode" which of course created a new dynamic for me, but I discovered that it is actually doable. Having Emma there meant we both took a very relaxed approach to the event. There was no possibility of us making every workshop or late night option, so we just stepped back and enjoyed the community where we could. So instead of stressing out about being places and becoming overwhelmed with information, we ended up having fantastic conversations wherever we were at. Playing with kids at the playground or letting Emma collect rocks on the hill were all opportunities to connect with people. And I loved that most conversations jumped straight to deeper issues and richer topics. I think everyone there was desperate for a community, a tribe as some are calling it, where those conversations are possible and so we took advantage of them at every moment.

A few random highlights from the week for me -

• - Like I mentioned before, attending a discussion of holistic emerging parenting. I am drawn to alternative parenting ideas and generally don't hold to the typical American style of parenting, but I've had a very hard time finding people to discuss those ideas with, much less learn from their experiences. The few I've found have not been involved in Christianity. So I've longed for other Christians to talk to who share my emerging journey and are exploring more holistic parenting ideas. Ideas that wrestle with spiritual formation of children outside of the assumed model of Sunday School or AWANA. Parents that see their children as people to be respected instead of pawns to be controlled. Parents who don't hit or scream at their children on principle (and definitely don't justify such things with the Bible). It was very refreshing to be in a group that cared about such things (men and women equally btw). We only had a short time at the Gathering to discuss such ideas, but I am in the process of creating an Emerging Parents blog to help continue that discussion.


• - Hosting an Emerging women lunch where we got to hear each other's stories. Women are coming to this emerging discussion from such a wide variety of backgrounds and it is helpful to hear about those journeys. We heard the stories of pain, of questioning, of anger, and of hope. As always those discussions developed into longer conversations about the whole "women in Emergent" issue. I'll post more about those over at the Emerging Women blog later this week.


• - Being involved in discussions about the future of Emergent Village and the role it will play. Will it be a place for newcomers to come with their pain and questions to work through new ideas or will it be pushing forward in developing practice and theology in our postmodern world? Mike has blogged about this issue here.


• - Finally figuring out who/what The Cobalt Season is and realizing that their music is amazing (go buy their CD's right now). And it was also amusing to discover the um, interesting, relationship Ryan Sharp has to my brother...


• - Taking Emma into Santa Fe and trying to teach her how to walk the labyrinth at the Cathedral. She made it through one circuit and the said "I just run," and ran to the middle. There's got to be some spiritual analogy in there somewhere...


• - Hanging out with friends new and old. Finally meeting some online faces. And knowing that yes, there are people in this whole emerging community that I really can connect with and wishing we weren't scattered across the country.


• - New Mexican food. Enough said.

And if you want to see some really good pictures from the Gathering click here.

Labels: Emerging Church, Events, Personal

Hi all. I'm in New Mexico at the Emergent Gathering having a fantastic time. I just went to a discussion on emerging holistic parenting which is something I've longed to discuss with other like-minded Christians for awhile now. So it was good. I'll post details when I get back. But the blog will be slow the next few days as I have fun.

Labels: Emerging Church, Personal

Does believing in the mission that Christ gave us imply that one has liberal Utopian leanings or progressive delusions of grandeur? It's a question that I seem to encounter quite often these days. Generally the argument proceeds something like - all you emergent types are too tied to progressive liberal politics so therefore you think the government will save you and usher us into a perfect Utopian future (which is really a modern conception of progress anyway...). Or something similar along those lines. This is generally followed by some sermon on how we as Christians a should not corrupt ourselves (or the gospel) by getting involved in politics. Or at least about how we should only focus on trying to help those we have a personal relationship with - in our local community.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think the government can save us or bring about a perfect world. No one political party has all the answers or will automatically make this world a better place. But I don't think that is reason to just abandon politics or give up altogether. And (as I've mentioned before) I don't think working to bring God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven" can just be written off as the modern myth of progress either.

To take to heart Jesus' command to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" - would imply that one actually believes that it can be done. If we are following in the way of Christ, living out the Kingdom values, and teaching others about the things Jesus taught then part of the idea is that we are attempting to make this world a better place. If we follow in Jesus' footsteps to "preach good news to the poor, to proclaim freedom for the prisoners, and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" then we should be actively working for those things believing that God has the power to make them happen. So in seeking to feed the hungry, to heal those with AIDS, to stop sexual exploitation of children, and to end slave like conditions in the factories we are not just buying into liberal ideas of progress through science, we are following Christ's commands.

But apparently to think that any of that will actually work is wishful Utopian thinking. And to think that the government or technology might assist in bringing those things about is to place our faith for salvation in such organizations. At least, so I have heard. But I'm not buying it.

The world is broken - God's kingdom is not on earth as it is in heaven. And often it has been the very people who claim to follow Christ that have caused the brokenness. If there is something that can be done to bring healing and reconciliation to the World, is it not a good thing to do it? And if a big organization or a government (many of whom caused the problems to begin with) are in a position to help heal the ills of the world, why the hell would I not support that? Even Jesus when the disciples reported that they had seen a man driving out demons in his name said, "Do not stop him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

I don't think the government will save us or that they have all the answers. I don't think that the world will just get better and better because of the wonders of technology. I am not deluded into thinking that Utopia will just appear if enough people vote a certain way and start recycling. But I do believe in Jesus and the mission he has called us to. I do believe that as Christians we are expected to care for others and to stop the injustices in this world. And I have no problem using the government or technology to help make that happen if that is what it takes. The mission is bigger than the fear of being consumed by an secular agenda of progress. And if working to make Kingdom values a reality gets dismissed as an Utopian delusion, I really don't care. I'll just keep on following Jesus.

Labels: Emerging Church, Politics, Social Justice

In my continuing comments on the recent Up/Rooted panel discussion on the topic "the emerging church critique of evangelicalism" with Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch...

The last question of the evening involved if typical evangelical seeker style services (complete with the rock show and other celebratory gimmicks) are worthwhile if they manage to reach people. i.e. As emergents (or mainliners, or fundamentalists) we may criticize such services as lacking in depth, devoid of true worship, and for promoting an individualistic and consumeristic view of the church, but if they are what people need at that point in their life does that make them worthwhile? I think that is a good question that needs to be addressed, unfortunately the panelist ignored it and dove straight into an all out fight about megachurches. Seriously. Okay maybe "intense discussion of varying viewpoints" is the better way to describe it, but as "fights" go, this one was pretty good. It wasn't mean spirited and it was carried by humor throughout. It mostly involved Scot McKnight (who attends the megachurch of megachurches - Willow Creek) vs. David Fitch (who wrote an anti-megachurch book and recent blog post). Fun times.

Scot defended megachurches by saying that there is nothing a small church can offer that a megachurch doesn't offer. He dislikes it when people criticize churches like Willow when they have never actually attended the church. They don't know the church, they don't know the people there. They are just reacting to stereotypes they have heard. He also praised the potential anonymity at a megachurch. People can show up and not be known - they aren't pressured to "do", they aren't judged, and they aren't automatically labelled as a "visitor" (the ultimate church Other). Scot explained, "at Willow there is a permeable boundary between who is in or out." It is one of the few evangelical churches where gays and lesbians can attend without being ostracized or forced to immediately give up their "gayness" (whatever that means). It is in other words, a safe introduction to Christianity.

But my question is - is it really church if we can't be the body together? Can we really exist as strangers to each other and still claim to be a community? Is the desire to be unknown and unconnected a good thing? I personally think that the boundaries of all churches should be more permeable. I've attended churches where it was very clear who was in and who was out. Those who didn't fit in immediately (the occasional homosexual who might wander in) were given a very specific amount of time to repent and change who they are or else they were kicked out of the church. That is not church either imho. Places like that are what create the need for anonymity in the megachurches. People want a chance to discover what they believe before they identify themselves with a particular group in all of its religious weirdness. But can't the church offer people a place where they have the freedom to explore (at their own pace) and be accepted into the community? Are we really that incapable of loving people that to be lost in a crowd is preferable to joining a community? I personally don't think that being alone and unknown is a good thing no matter what circumstances forced it to be necessary.

I know that Willow does great things. And I know that there are many small churches where true community is non-existent. I'm just hoping for a better way.

Labels: Church, Emerging Church

At the up/rooted panel discussion the other night Scot McKnight spoke on the questions that are important to people in the emerging church. These are questions that were (still are) taboo in the evangelical church but which shape the faith journey of emergents. The point isn't so much the answers they land on, but that they feel like they can wrestle with (as opposed to suppress) these questions. Scot listed six main issues of discussion (and yes, this is a horrible paraphrase)-

1. Scripture & Inerrancy. e.g. Can Genesis contain mythic elements?


2. Science & Evolution. Instead of giving up the faith when finally exposed to science, can we actually be believers in light of science?


3. Hypocrisy. Can Christians be genuinely consistent?


4. Hell. Where did our views of hell even come from?


5. God. Do we really believe everything the Bible says about God?


6. Social location. Are most of us Christians because of the happenstance of where we were born?

When issues such as these are seen as beyond the realm of discussion, it forces believers to generally either deny their intellect or walk away from the faith. The emerging church gives people the freedom to ask the honest and hard questions about these things. Instead of being told that "good Christians" don't question the evangelical assumptions about hell or inerrancy, it has become almost the mark of a growing Christian in the EC that you explore those issues for yourself. Of course, I've learned from experience that taking advantage of that freedom to question is not looked upon favorably in many circles. For many just asking a question and thinking for oneself get one labeled as a heretic and results in a quick dismissal from one's job.

But, I think Scot's list is accurate in the issues he sees as central to the emerging conversation. The list could in many ways be the summation of my faith journey this past decade. Those were the question I wrestled with and am still exploring. I'm sure I've gone in different directions than some in the EC, but I've found resonance and a theological home with others. The only big thing I would add to the list is the whole gender question (women in ministry, gender roles...). That is really the issue that sent me down this road to begin with and has remained a central part of my experience of the emerging world. From what I have heard it is also the entry point for others (mostly women) into this conversation as well. I guess I could fit it under one of Scot's categories (scripture, God) and I know that it isn't as taboo of a topic in evangelical churches as others on the list, but I still see it as a vital and in many ways separate category.

What do others think? Are these categories accurate? What would you add?

Labels: Emerging Church, Theology

Last night the Chicago Emergent cohort, Up/Rooted, hosted a panel discussion on the topic "the emerging church critique of evangelicalism." On the panel were Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch. The entire evening's discussion should eventually be available as a podcast and I'm sure someone with more patience than I will post a nice summary somewhere. (update - sorry no forthcoming podcast, something about it not recording and there is a decent summary here) For now, I will point you to Dave Fitch's blog where he posted a few of the ideas he covered last night. Scot also hinted that he will be blogging about the ideas he presented as well. Needless to say it was a stimulating discussion that did a fairly decent job of summing up most of the emerging critiques of evangelicalism. But of course the conversation didn't stop there as the presenters worked in their critiques of emerging/emergent as well.

I heard a lot I liked last night, a number of things I disagreed with, and a few things I didn't understand. I of course didn't ask any questions there, because, well, I hate asking questions in that sort of setting. One can't engage in real dialogue and the question generally gets misunderstood anyway (as evidents by the "let's see who can ask the most convoluted and confused question" game the audience seemed to be playing last night). But given the joyous freedoms on the blogworld, I can post my thoughts, disagreements and questions here and, in good emerging/postmodern fashion, engage with dialogue with anyone who is so inclined. So I'll try to post my random thoughts on this panel discussion here over the next week or so. That said, let's jump right in and talk about...

Worship. In his initial presentation on the emerging critique of evangelicalism, Wayne Johnson focused on the aspect of worship. While he thought that the EC has done a good job in it's critique of consumer, seeker driven worship, he also pointed out a few weaknesses in the EC in regards to worship. In setting up his discussion on worship, he defined the concept of worship as "our response to God's revelation in the world" (not a direct quote, but close I think). I like that definition, but not his subsequent assertion that primary forms of worship should then be the Word and the Table. Sure those are important aspects of God's revelation, but the God I worship is a lot bigger than just those two things. But I digress... What I really had issue with in his talk was his critique of the emerging emphasis on authenticity.

I know that "authentic" has become a buzz word in the EC and I fully agree that that which is trendy often has no real substance or meaning. And I fully agree that to push one idea of what it means to be authentic (informal, organic...) onto a person who is not those things to begin with kinda misses the point of authenticity. I get that. But then Dr. Johnson claimed that to be authentic is to promote an individualism that hinders the communal act of the body of Christ entering into corporate worship. If we so fine-tune our services into that which is an "authentic" worship experience for us, we run the risk of heightening ethnic, cultural, and generational divisions. We care too much about ourselves and not enough for others.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for diverse churches and I think our self centered myopic worship wars have caused more harm than good in the church; but, I'm not ready to throw out the concept of "authentic." If authentic is defined as that which is "true, real, and genuine," would not the opposite be that which is "false or a lie"? In emerging critiques of evangelical worship (and in evangelical critiques of traditional worship for that matter) there has been a lot of talk about "just going through the motions." In other words, participating in a false and meaningless form of worship - lying to God. I don't think anyone wants to promote lying in one's response to God as a good thing, but the question arises of if lying to God is justified if it helps build community. Is it okay to be inauthentic and false in how one responds to God if it helps build up a diverse body of Christ?

I honestly have no idea if that is at all what Dr. Johnson was intending with his thoughts, but it is what immediately popped into my mind. Does serving others involve making weighted moral choices like that or am I way off base here? Maybe I'm just too seeped in the evangelical definition of sin as personal choice as opposed to a wider more emerging view that involves the community as a whole. Maybe I just really have an issue with the whole concept of the submission of my will to that of other people. But I can't bring myself to say that it is okay to engage in false acts of worship solely for the good of the community. I see no problem with remaining silent and not making a scene about it if one can't participate, but I can't justify engaging. But maybe that's just me. What are your thoughts? What's your take on this whole issue of authenticity and worship?

Labels: Emerging Church, Worship

Bob Roberts of Glocalnet recently put up a post about "being missional in the Sunday service" (ht - Rick Meigs). He had some good suggestions about being missional within the cultural trappings of the Sunday service. Like - if your worship consists of singing songs, it would help if those songs focused on service instead of just being another "me" centered melody (which is way easier said than done since songs like that are limited). But I was a bit uneasy with his opening assertions about being missional and seeker sensitive. He writes -

Can you reach seekers and be missional? Yes. Reaching seekers is missional! The challenge is how do you communicate to seekers, change their perceptions of God and church, help them find Jesus, and then help them understand we’ve been called to community to together live out the Kingdom.

I see all of the things he listed as good things, it is the order that he presents them in that bugs me. First you give them the messages about Jesus, God, and church and then you get them on board with being missional. It might just be me, but that smacks of the whole bait and switch technique that so many of us so desperately try to avoid. If the point is to follow Christ then call people to follow Christ from the get go. Don't woo them with spiffy seeker services and then expect them to catch the missional mindset. It's that old saying - "what you call people with is what you call them to". Calling people to enjoy a service and get committed to the church before you expect them to actually serve God can lead to disastrous results. In our "me? centered culture that sees church as a place to come, sit, mingle, be entertained, and possibly fed, to get people into your church for those things and then ask them to serve doesn't work. They either ignore the call to get up off their butts, or they find another church that doesn't make such "extreme" demands on their life.

But that can be a problem for churches. I've known churches where the people have left in droves after the church leadership started pursuing a more missional route. Our tiny little church plant continues to struggle with this as well. We don't want to present people with one conception of church and then push another agenda down the road. We try to be upfront about who we are and that scares people. They don't want to have to engage with the sermon, they don't want to have to give their time to missional events. It's too far out of their comfort zone. But it is who we are. We recently had a booth at our town's annual Hometown Days. We debated what to do with the booth (do we give away water or popcorn, what about free games for kids?). We eventually decided against the attractional gimmicks and instead sold fairly traded goods for Ten Thousand Villages - it sparked some good conversations about who we are as a church. What was amusing was that the new church plant in town went for all those attractional give aways (water bottles, candy, free games, ipods...). What you call them with is what you call them to - but somedays it seems like there are a lot more people out there interested in passive "gimme" styles of church than there are interested in missional churches.

That said, I also think that calling people to be missional does not come after the call to be a Christian, but is part of the call itself. In fact people can be serving God and helping others even if they are not onboard with the whole faith thing. Inviting people to engage with doing the work of Christ is part of calling them to Christ. We invite anyone to help out with our missional projects at church - even if they are not part of our church or any church at all for that matter. They are welcome to be the hands and feet of Christ even before they believe in Christ. And the interesting part is that action of serving and following Christ often makes them actually want to well, follow Christ. So being missional vs. being seeker sensitive doesn't follow in my book. It's about following Christ and that means being missional always.

Labels: Church, Emerging Church, mission

And now for today's entertainment... The anti-emergent mafia strikes again granting me a place of honor (dubious though it may be). Over at the fairly new diatribe of hate entitled Wonky73 - A Crazy Man's Utopia (I am so not kidding) the author lists offenders guilty of "emergy oozy chaos." After reading the trashing the Open Source Theology blog and Emerging Women, I came across a rather amusing description of myself (isn't it lovely what strangers can tell you about yourself?) Anyway, here is what I discovered about myself, starting with the end of the reaction to the Emerging Women blog -

Clearly, this is a blog of people moving down the train tracks of apostasy. Once you’ve removed the scriptural authority the gates are blown wide open for every kind of error to flood in.
Down those tracks, deeper and deeper, we go where in we find (strap in and hang on folks) the Onehandclapping blog. This can be a very frightening place, if you don’t have experience in radical liberal theology. The writer describes herself as: (read my blog profile)

As an aside it’s sad to see Wheaton’s fallen so far as to produce a person like this. A quick perusal of her blog makes it clear. She is a radical liberal femi-nazi. No concern for God or the scriptures will be found here. She’s far to concerned with spreading a feminist agenda, babbling nonsense about social justice, eating ethically, and buying a “just” bra. Most importantly she holds a special contempt for the scriptures and their authority.
Gotta admit I had fun writing this. Let’s finish with a flourish of quotes from Priestess Clawson: (recent quotes from my posts).

Wow - Priestess. Now that's just too fun. But honestly this serves as the perfect example of the fear I see around us these days. The fear that criticizes a group of women for reading a book that some disagree with (because reading something one disagrees with could be dangerous). And to utterly reject any form whatsoever of social justice and environmentalism - I just don't get it anymore. I understand tempered limited forms of caring for people and caring for God's creation, but to reject and mock them entirely? What sort of theology encourages that? This message of fear and hatred is wrapped in Christian language and baptised by Christian theology. This my friends is the church. And people still ask why we emergents think things need to change...

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women

To clarify my post below and to address (some of) Brother Maynard's good questions (since this is way too long to post in the comments). Yes, the last post was a rant and therefore did make use of hyperbole. I know that there are men in the EC who do support women (and there are some who don't). But nevertheless there is still an ongoing perception by women that the Emerging Church doesn't support women. I've somehow stumbled into a strange position where I think I hear more about that than many people (which of course influences my perception). Because of my involvement with Emerging Women a lot of people seem to think I'm an authority on women in the emerging church. So I get emails, questions about women in the EC, confused inquiries about what is going on, and complaints, lots of complaints. Responding to the women who contact me is weird because I am not the authority (not that one exists) and the EC is such a fluid thing that one can never give a definitive answer for why things are the way they are. That being said, I do try to respond, but often in responding I feel torn. Half the time I do my best to defend the EC and explain that anyone who wants to step up to lead is more than welcome to and all that. But the rest of the time I find myself sympathizing with the frustration and confusion these women are expressing.

So what am I hearing and who am I hearing it from? First I should say that I have had good conversations with women in leadership within Emergent (all from mainline backgrounds) who don't think there are any problems at all. I respect their experiences, but also hear too much from women who do think otherwise. From other mainliners who have already been through the fight to gain respect as women in the church and who have pushed for inclusivity in the church, I hear a good deal of shock at how patriarchal the EC is. They only see male figureheads, male authors, male bloggers, male speakers, and worse yet only hear male language used in reference to believers and to God. To them that is really offensive and implies that women are not wanted or valued. They have been through the struggle before and as much good that they see in the EC, they aren't sure if its worth it to join in with a group that is so far behind in regards to women. Why go where they are "obviously" not wanted? Then there are the evangelicals. Many of those women are just beginning to believe that they can have a voice in the church and are still being met with much opposition in their churches and families. They want to find a place to belong in the EC because it has helped them so much, but are often afraid to join what looks like the typical boys club they are used to experiencing or are unsure if they are even welcome in that world. They want to know before they sign on that they will be accepted for who they are (and not condemned because they are female) and that the invitation to join is for them as well. So while the official message may be that yes of course women are respected and welcomed, if they do not hear that message or see it displayed (actually lived out) then they do not feel like they are wanted. This of course does not apply to all women interested in the EC, but is a theme I've heard too often to ignore.

So why isn't the message of welcome and inclusion being heard (if it does exist)? The most common answer still is because most of the authors and speakers are male - they are the voice that gets heard no matter who else is out there. Even at the recent Midwest Emergent Gathering where we attempted to be very deliberate about giving women a voice, the upfront presence was still predominantly male. And we got flack for it, big time. It's not that there is anything wrong with the male leaders, they are great guys who have taught us wonderful things and have helped us along on our faith journey. I personally greatly appreciate the work they have done and the contributions they have made. But as popular as they are and for as many people who are desperate to be mentored (in even the smallest ways) by them, we women don't have a place. We don't fit in with the boys clubs and the male bonding experiences (which is what even many public events seem to be). There are no female "heros" that self-identify as emerging that we can look up to and be mentored by. The names that women in the EC look to in respect like Anne Lamott, Phyllis Tickle, Sue Monk Kidd, and Diane Butler Bass do not (to the best of my knowledge) label themselves emerging. So if there is no one to mentor us in the EC (or even to guide and open the doors), then women begin to wonder why they should even want to be a part of it at all.

Then there are the negative messages that (often unintentionally) get sent. And yes like it or not, there are a number of people who still think Mark Driscoll is part of the EC. They hear his sexist comments and assume that the entire EC agrees with him. But less radically there are constant messages that tell women you are not wanted here (even when they do not intend to do so). When the two most popular blogs on the Emerging Church (Jesus Creed and TallSkinnyKiwi) have ongoing debates on not only whether or not women are permitted in ministry but which also imply that the jury is still out on whether women are inferior to men or if we are even made in God's image, the message gets sent (loudly) that we are not respected, valued or welcome in the EC. When, like at last year's Gathering (and I've heard of similar occurrences elsewhere), women plan a workshop and then a big name male plans the exact same workshop at the exact same time (which then everyone goes to), the message is sent - your voice is unwanted and worthless. When at the Off The Map Conference last year the panel of women leaders were set in front of the crowd so that they could publicly ask questions of the male experts the message is sent - you women are inferior to us men (and granted the conference planers there admitted what a disaster that session was). And when at just about every single emerging event, it is extremely rare to hear gender inclusive language, women who have become used to being included in the broader culture are left feeling very alienated. And I don't think anyone intends to send the message to women that they aren't welcome, but that is what is perceived at any rate.

And what helps complicate the negative (albeit unintentional) messages is the silence by the men, the "yes,but..." excuses, the vague talk about Biblical gender roles, and the lack of positive action. When certain prominent leaders take a stand against women, it takes other popular leaders speaking out against hate language for that message to be overpowered. Then, saying "yes, but..." to women is like sending the message that we aren't worth your time or energy. You want to help us, but it's too complicated and might take too much work. Instead of dwelling on all the problems that might possibly arise and using that as an excuse to inaction, could you please just give us your unequivocal support for once? And when you mention "gender roles" most women mentally download some version of the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen scenario that has been drilled into us for years. Define what you really mean. And by the way most women do not want to be told what they should be like by a man. We want to be accepted for who we are no matter how closely we fit some system of culturally defined roles. Using language like that is patronizing and demeaning.

So what would actively working to improve things look like? A few biggies that might help - Make sure that women are asked to speak at your events. Get women publishing contracts. Work jointly with women on the big writing projects and event planning teams. Get used to using gender inclusive language. And don't always refer to God as male (not that you have to go so far as using the feminine names for God, just that you don't always default to the masculine). Add women to your blogroll. Discuss the ideas women are talking about on your blogs, in your sermons, and in your books. Stick your neck out and publicly stand up against sexism and demeaning language. Publicly admit that you respect women and support them in ministry for that matter. It isn't "affirmative action" or "lowering your standards" as I have heard it described. And some of it might sound silly if you do it already (but it obviously hasn't been heard). But it does involve being deliberate about being inclusive. And I know that there are a lot of guys out there who are doing this already. But when there is still an overwhelming perception on the part of women that they are not welcome more obviously needs to be done.

And I will say again, I am not the "authority" to address this issue. I'm just reflecting on my experiences and my somewhat unique position of hearing from a wide spectrum of women involved in the EC. Not all women feel this way or think there is a problem. I know that. But it is for the many that do, that I made the plea to the men of the EC to loudly and without reservation demonstrate their support for women in the Emerging Church.

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women, Gender Issues

So after reading Dave Fitch's article on why he isn't an egalitarian over at the Church and Postmodern Culture blog (and then Makeesha's great response), I am just left wondering what the deal is really with men in the Emerging Church. So you get these high profile men writing stuff that equality isn't biblical (but that they still support women in ministry) and that women should be allowed to live out their God given roles. One one level that might sound good, but it's just the same old oppression in a different packaging. Others tell me point blank that they won't waste energy working to help women in ministry because our ministry structures aren't biblical to begin with. So why waste time working to get women involved in a system that they are working to change? But the obvious problem is that the system is not changing, the boys keep it going as is, and the women remain on the sidelines. Others give an ample space for the fight over whether women are fully human on their blogs, but never really stick their necks out and actually support women. And then when certain leaders degrade and objectify women as mere sex objects, the men of the church remain silent or pat him on the back. WTF? This is the response we get from men in the Emerging Church.

What are you guys afraid of? Controversy? Having to share power? Having to talk to women? I just don't get it. When they say they "support" women, but don't actually ever do anything to about I have to question if they really do respect women. Are we just a nuisance that they can placate with kind sounding words? If they give enough platitudes and asides (I really do support women in ministry, really) will we shut up and pretend that everything is okay? I know a number of women who have given up on the emerging church as a joke because of the way women continue to be treated.

Hey boys guess what. We don't want to be treated like a piece of meat or piece of art. We don't want to treated like second class citizens and be endlessly tokenized or debated. We want to be a part of the conversation and respected for who we are. We can have our own conversations, but it would be really nice of you to make just the slightest effort to treat us as human beings and let the world know about it.

So what I would like to see is one, just one, male leader in the Emerging Church come out in complete support of women. No debating our worth. No stereotyping us into assumed roles. But complete and open support with a commitment to action to do whatever you can to help the women's voices be heard. That isn't too much to ask is it?

Labels: Emerging Church, Emerging Women, Gender Issues

To address a question from one of the comments below. Is the emerging church just a generational thing? Is it just something for young people?

When the first stirrings of what has turned into the emerging church began, it was just about generational ministry. It was obvious that the church was missing an entire generation (which implied that the next generation would be missing as well). So people began to ask why Gen Xers had left the church and what it would take to bring them back. As usually occurs with such strategic plans, the initial answers were surfacy. Change the style of church to be relevant to that demographic. So churches abandoned the choirs and organs of the grandparents, the praise bands of the boomers, and went alternative. They added coffee and candles, brought art back into the church, and re-introduced liturgy to the low church. It helped bring some Xers back in, and really pissed off a lot of Boomers and older folks that church wasn't being done the way they liked anymore. Since when church becomes all about what one particular demographic likes it becomes about consuming a commodity and not about being the body of Christ. So went the ongoing worship wars that divided churches into generational clubs based on personal "worship" preferences. It wasn't intergenerational. It was selfish. And yes some "emerging churches" stayed in this realm and are just about relevant worship. Others perhaps get labeled that, but are really much much more.

But some of the initial voices in the EC soon realized that there was a greater cultural shift occurring in our culture. People were moving from the dominant philosophy of modernism to the dominant philosophy of postmodernism. It wasn't about choosing the believe in such a thing, it was the general air that we were breathing - the culture that shaped who we were. Granted, higher percentages of younger people were more immersed in postmodern thought than older people, but it was a culturally pervasive thing. That made a lot of people think about how our assumptions about how we do church were influenced by our cultural philosophy. And then even to think about how our theologies were influenced by such philosophies. So yes, church eccessiology started to be questioned. The habits and trappings of church were questioned. And many began to take a historical perspective on the interpretation of scripture and examine how culture has influenced how we read the bible. Things started to change and it involved people of all generations.

So for example, in our small church plant we have representatives from 8 different decades (and aren't too heavy on the under 35 group either). Church isn't about reaching a certain demographic, but we still do things differently than many churches. We "worship" with hymns, praise choruses, art, dance, liturgy, lectio divina, walking labyrinths, and prayers of saints ancient and modern. We understand that the sermon is the least effective form of teaching. So we open the teaching time up to discussion. People ask questions, challenge interpretations, and contribute examples. So instead of the pastor contriving examples that generally work for middle age men (golf, sports, retirement plans...), the church becomes involved in understanding how the scriptures fit into their lives. "Elders" and intergenerational learning isn't contrived or hierarchical, but just part of what it means to all interact together and be a church family. Of course its not perfect and really freaks some people out. Some show up expecting to just sit, watch a show, and "be fed." We don't think that is what church is about at all. And apparently people of all ages seem to think similarly.

So yes, there are emerging churches that consist of college students being college students. Just like there are seeker sensitive churches full of Boomers and traditional churches full of the elderly. Then there are churches with people of all ages that look new and different. There are traditional mainline churches that are embracing emerging theology and worship ideas. For many it is about new way of doing church, exploring theology from a broader perspective, and being the church as opposed to having church imposed upon oneself. And it involves people of all ages. I would recommend that the stereotype of the EC being just for gen Xers be dropped, and people take the time to see what is occurring within this very diverse movement.

Labels: Church, Emerging Church, Worship

A few days ago Erin put up a great post about "Things I Learned From Church (That Didn’t Prove True And What I Am Learning Lately)" It was part of a new synchroblog stared by Glenn Hager. As he describes the purpose of this blog - "I am tackling this issue not because I have an axe to grind with church as we know it, not because I am bitter, and not because I think people who are into attending and supporting conventional churches are inferior. Rather, it is to help me to understand my own thinking..." I was intrigued by the concept and have appreciated some of the posts the participants have put up so far. Then after reading Scot McKnight's post on certainty and faith yesterday I was reminded of an experience in my church background that I have since learned to regret.

I grew up in a traditional, conservative, Texas dispensational church (I'm sure they would merely call themselves a biblical church, but then again so would just about any church...). Most of my experiences there occurred in the youth group. But this was no games and cool music youth group. It was a sit and listen to hour long sermons, read lots of books, attend seminars, and make fun of those not like us type group. Being a Christian meant one crammed oneself with knowledge about the Bible (oh, and avoided sex at all costs as the youth pastor frequently reminded us by recounting his sinful youthful sexual exploits...). We had to know exactly how to argue people into the faith and how to show them that whatever they believed (be they atheist, pagan, catholic, or baptist) was completely wrong (implying we were completely right). I loved it. As an intellectual nerd who prided herself of getting good grades, this was a religion I could relate to. My "faith" was all about facts and knowledge. So while most of the youth group dreaded attending (their parents made them), I and my small group of friends loved being the know-it-all star Christians.

At one point when I was in high school (here comes the Tom Cruise part), the youth pastor choose a new motto for the group. Taken from the popular movie A Few Good Men (back when Tom Cruise still had a career and wasn't the Hollywood freak of the week), our rallying cry became - "it doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove!" We were treated to sermons about certainty and correct hermeneutics. We were told that if we do not have 100% certainty about our faith then we are not real Christians. Forget saying a prayer and accepting Jesus into one's heart, this was the gospel of intellectual works. Knowledge, evidence, and proof were what got one into heaven when we died (the whole point of Christianity of course). Belief and faith meant nothing, all that mattered was proof.

When I mentioned the new motto to a friend at school, he looked at me quizzically and asked me if such a stance undermined the whole idea of faith in the first place. I'm sure I parroted something about rationalism and absolute truth back at him at that point, but over the years since then I have come to see that he had a better conception of true faith than I did. I was Thomas demanding proof and not accepting that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." I cared more about CSI style investigations and converting people to creationism than I did about actually serving others or following Christ.

Now as the idea of certainty or absolute knowledge seems so utterly impossible I laugh at my arrogance in assuming I could ever grasp them. But it was a long journey to move to that point. My grip on certainty held me tighter than my grip on Christianity itself. I couldn't tell if I was more afraid to give up my philosophical system (which defined my religion) than I was to question my faith itself. Or perhaps, I just assumed that they were one in the same. That if I gave up trusting in certainty and empirical proof, I would no longer be a real Christian since I would then have doubts and incomplete knowledge. So the process of letting go was exceeding difficult, but I had to let go in order to discover faith. To discover the mystery and the trust that it takes to believe. To walk by faith not sight.

Now I am sure there are those that will mock me for not being a rationalist. Others who don't see room for doubt and faith in the Christian faith. Perhaps their experiences work for them. This is just my experience of what I learned from church that didn't prove true.

Labels: Church, Emerging Church, Personal, Theology

So the blog buzz over the weekend were the anti-emergent motivational posters and then Emerging Grace's beautiful response. She took what was an attempt to tear down others, and focused on the true message of the gospel. I found the anti-emergent set to be disturbing and cruel and not just because I disagree with the sentiments they express. Some of them just completely miss the point of the emerging conversation which I hope is the result of ignorance and not malicious misrepresentation (one can always hope right?), but others demonstrate seriously harmful attitudes of prejudice and intolerance. While of course many who like these posters are the types that uphold intolerance as a Christian virtue (its all about the hate man), they so miss the point of the Christian message it's not even funny.

For example the following two posters were created to ridicule emergent and anyone who is not a middle aged white middle class yuppie -

The unspoken assumption that those people are crazy, they are wrong, and that they need to change is heartbreaking. It made me recall a few years ago on The Ooze when I got into an argument with one of the many men who post there in order to tell the rest of us why we are wrong. He was going off about how dress codes in schools are good things because khaki pants and polo shirts really are the most appropriate clothing for everyone. As he saw it, yuppie middle class white America males are the majority in the world and therefore make the most godly choices (flawless logic of course) . All people (of any culture or ethnic group) should emulate him in how they dress if they are to be good Christians. He was serious. And he got really pissed when I mentioned that his ideas were racist, classist, ageist, and sexist among other things. It's great if he personally wants to dress a certain way and worship a certain way, but to assume that we all have to become like him in order to be real Christians is not only absurd but it is hurtful to the millions of people who don't fit inside his myopic view of Christianity. To say that the people in these posters cannot really have an authentic relationship with Jesus until they change their appearance and taste in music is one of the most sad warpings of the Gospel I have ever heard.

I love the poster Emerging Grace created in response -

If the Gospel is truly good news, then it is good news for this person right now. Not after he gets his life straight and comes to church looking like he just came from the golf course, but right where he is at. And the gospel is good news for people no matter the length of their hair, the number of piercings or tattoos the have, or if their clothing is made from hemp or stain-resistant wrinkle free cotton/polyester blend. The gospel is relevant to all people. That is the message of Jesus Christ, so its really no big surprise if it happens to be the message of some in the emerging church (or anyone in the entire history of Christianity for that matter).

So Pyromaniacs and Ken Silva can use the emerging church as the butt of their jokes if making fun of people is what entertains them, but I want to go on record here in asking them to stop making fun of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Labels: Church, Culture, Emerging Church

During the Midwest Emergent Gathering, I got to attend most of Lilly Lewin's workshop on creative worship. I am fascinated by what she does and how she uses art to help people connect with God. I wish more churches could learn from her and incorporate experiential worship into their services. We learn more and make deeper connections when we are engaged in experiences that engage our whole self instead of just passively sitting and listening to a person preach. And she helps people enter into experiences where that can happen.

All that said, as she spoke I found myself torn between conflicting ideals. One of the most common elements of experiential worship is that of giving a person a physical object to touch that relates to whatever the point of the lesson is. So as Lilly suggested, let people eat Swedish fish or goldfish as you talk about Jesus providing the disciples with fish. Or hand out cotton balls or foam cut outs - whatever can be tied into helping people remember what they are hearing. It works - it generally works quite well. The physical objects drives the abstract thought home and serves to help a person remember what they have heard. Of course that isn't the only (or best) form experiential worship takes, but it is an easily employed technique. What bothered me was how it seemed at odds with simple living.

I guess what I am wondering is if one is striving to live simply and ethically (i.e. not over consume, respect the environment, buy fairly traded items) would being able to better understand and remember a concept be a sufficient enough excuse to collect piles of junk. As Lilly mentioned (and as a former children's pastor I can attest) all those little take aways collect on your desk, the bottom of your purse, or in the back of some drawer. Lilly saw that as a collection of good memories and meaningful lessons, but try as I might I have a hard time seeing them as anything other than clutter and junk. I don't want my life filled with items made from petroleum products in a sweatshop in China that take up space and increase chaos (I have way too much of that already). I don't think that I can see something like that as an aid to worship.

But then the question gets raised - where do I draw the line? So perhaps a little plastic cross is unnecessary, but what about a stained glass window, or a cloistered garden, or an art installation? I take pleasure in such things and often see them as an aid to worship. Or what about having children making bricks as they learn about the slaves in Egypt or building a manger for a Christmas play? What about the Christmas tree itself? What is really necessary? What can be justified? Should it have to be justified?

I have never considered myself an iconoclast. I have no problem with the idea of letting art and beauty move us into worship. But I am beginning to feel uneasy with the consumeristic nature behind such things. I guess I am seeking a balance for myself here. I am not ready to throw out art or other aids to worship in favor of barren striped down intellectual encounters with God, but I am seeking a form of justification. I love music and art (and most other new forms of experiential worship), but I am struggling with supporting the expense (in the broad term). Is there a way to enjoy and employ such things justly? I know this issue has been a constant struggle for the church as a whole, for while some found the great cathedrals to lift them into rhapsodies of worship, others saw the golden trappings next to the starving masses and walked away from the faith. Is it all worth it? Can it be justified? And where is the balance?

I have no answers. I am just beginning to ask the questions. Have others struggled with this? What have you learned in that struggle?

Labels: Emerging Church, Worship

The Bright Field
by R. S. Thomas

I have seen the sun break through
to illuminate a small field
for a while, and gone my way
and forgotten it. But that was the pearl
of great price, the one field that had
treasure in it. I realize now
that I must give all that I have
to possess it. Life is not hurrying

on to a receeding future, nor hankering after
an imagined past. It is the turning
aside like Moses to the miracle
of the lit bush, to a brightness
that seemed as transitory as your youth
once, but is the eternity that awaits you.


So this is my first contribution to the SynchroBlog community. I always enjoy reading the posts this group puts out and am glad for the chance to contribute. And as luck would have it (another strange serendipitous occurrence), this month's topic is one that is closely related to my recent musings on sacred places and the longing for home - Utopia.

Back in the summer of 1998, I participated in my college's study abroad program in England and Ireland. Basically I got to spend the whole summer reading great literature, visiting literary places, and discussing literary things. It was in its own indulgent way - heaven. We spent one afternoon wandering around Coole Park - the rich lush gardens where Irish poets (like Yeats) would come to escape from it all. A number of us expressed our delight at being in nature after a few weeks in Dublin. (a heartfelt sentiment from a number of us girls especially, who after being sexually attacked on one of our first nights there decided to remain in our dorms rooms after dark each night. We never got dinner and life was rather dull). Prompted by our expressions of contentment and the nature of the setting, one of our professors sat the group down in the middle of a field to discuss the temptations of Arcadia and Utopia. There are those who long for edenic Arcadia - to return to the innocence of nature and be content in a natural paradise. This of course was the appeal of Coole Park for those poets (and us college girls) wishing to escape Dublin. Then there are others who seek perfection through progress in the creation of Utopia - the master city as it were. We were warned that day of the dangers in either temptation and instructed in the need to place our hope in Heaven alone.

I see the dangers of centering our hope in Arcadia or Utopia, or Nostalgia and Progress as it were, but I can't just sooth such longings with the opiate of escapism. We are rooted beings existing here and now on this earth. That is why I love R.S. Thomas' poem The Bright Field. Perhaps the rugged Welsh landscapes breeds a different sort of poet than the Irish, but Thomas calls for a centering in and celebration of the present. "Life is not hurrying onto a receeding future, or hankering after an imagined past." It is not dreaming of idyllic days in Arcadia or pursuing the construction of Utopia, but finding contentment in living life day to day. That is real life - where the passion, the love, the hard work, and the sorrows commingle. Thomas found that contentment in the present in his role as a parish priest in rural Wales - as difficult as it could be at times.

Instead of seeking God in the past or future, we need to turn aside like Moses to the burning bush and see God in the present. I love how Elizabeth Gilbert describes this need in her book Eat, Pray, Love. She writes, "Like most humanoids, I am burdened with what Buddhists call the "monkey mind" - the thoughts that swing from limb to limb, stopping only to scratch themselves, spit and howl... [the] problem with all this swinging through the vines of thought is that you are never where you are. You are always digging in the past or poking at the future, but rarely do you rest in the moment... if you are looking for union with the divine, this kind of forward/backward whirling is a problem. There's a reason they call God a presence - because God is right here, right now."

I remember in my youth being taught that certain parts of the Bible (like the sermon on the mount) didn't matter because they would only be fulfilled in Heaven (the Kingdom of God). My whole worldview shifted when I encountered emerging thought that paid attention to the "kingdom of heaven is among you" verses. If God's Kingdom is a present reality, life become so much more than a longing for the past or future (Arcadia or Utopia). Living in God's presence is an everyday occurrence. We don't have to wait for a future perfect Utopia, but can live in the Kingdom now. It's an overwhelming idea.

The difficulty of course is understanding how exactly that plays out in each person's life. There are places on this earth that do seem like an Arcadia (fewer that resemble Utopia). Are these sacred places just meant to be places of refreshment and respite? And what about being content in one's present place? Is it just a matter of the will to find contentment whatever one's circumstances, or is the longing for "home" actually God calling a person to where she can serve God best? Are all of our desires for Arcadia and Utopia just a longing for a far off heaven, a call to follow God's kingdom now, or God pushing us to where we are meant to be?


Read other SynchroBlog Entries at -
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
John Morehead at John Morehead's Musings
Nudity, Innocence, and Christian Distopia at Phil Wyman's Square No More
Utopia Today: Living Above Consumerism at Be the Revolution
Nowhere Will Be Here at Igneous Quill
A This-Worldly Faith at Elizaphanian
Bridging the Gap at Calacirian
The Ostrich and the Utopian Myth at Decompressing Faith
Being Content in the Present at One Hand Clapping
Eternity in their Hearts by Tim Abbott
Relationship - The catch-22 of the Internet Utopia at Jeremiah's Blog
U-topia or My-topia? at On Earth as in Heaven
A SecondLife Utopia at Mike's Musings
Mrs. Brown and the Kingdom of God at Eternal Echoes

Labels: Emerging Church, poetry reflections, Reflections, Synchroblog, Theology