Oct 19 2007
emergent laughs
I’ve heard that one of the ways one can gauge the strength of Christianity is how well Christians are able to poke good fun at themselves. So it is with great joy that I present to you this gem of a find.
I submit this satirical article here, from Lark News. It’s hilarious, and awfully indicative of some of what I hear in seminary. Let’s face it, the Christian sub-culture can be pretty silly sometimes, but it’s pleasing that we can afford to laugh about it in good fun.
Enjoy!
Posts
I thought that was a great article. Doubly funny that it could certainly be applied to Seminarians from Covenant or Emergent folks from Princeton!
Brothers and Sisters, we can get pretty ridiculous!
Thank Jim
Wow. Well I can tell from reading that satirical article that Christian Pop Culture passed me by a looong time ago - I say that because I did not understand a word of it
OK, here is a challenge for you seminarians. Please take your best shot and answer this:
what is the ‘emergent church movement’?
Please just a couple of concise sentences, and don’t point me to any articles. The article I have found that answer this question actually read like your satirical article - completely incomprehensible!!
I am a refugee of the late 60’s early 70’s ‘Jesus Freak Movement’, where all the hippies fell in love with Jesus. Any similarities?
heissailing,
i think defining such a fluid movement like the emerging church is tough. with that said, let me give my best shot:
1. community based - no longer a “personal savior” evangelical salvation, rather that and a huge emphasis on community.
2. missional - reach the culture as a community by speaking and living in the vernacular.
3. discipleship focus - mentorship, not preachiness, plays a key role within the community.
4. unity among believers - unite despite differences (ethnic, doctrinal, denominational, etc)
these are what i would say sum up the movement, but obviously many others may disagree on the finer details.
peter
HIS,
Like the larger church, there are various streams within the “movement” that range from liberal to conservative. The conservative stream (Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick) maintains the theologically reformed stance of evangelicalism, but seeks to contextualize the Gospel from WITHIN culture (instead of a “Christ against culture” attitude).
The “liberal stream” (Doug Paggit, Brian McLaren, Karen Ward) is harder to peg down in summary, because they aren’t really “holding” to any set of beliefs… They are much more “conversational” and open to radical revision of theological foundations. Again, really tough to summarize.
For both streams, it really really depends on who you are talking to, but the defining characteristic for all of them is that they have found a way to communicate to a postmodern generation. The conservative stream does so by contextualizing the Gospel to culture, and the liberal stream does so by adapting the Gospel to culture.
Was that concise enough? It’s really tough to nail down concisely….
PBandJ - thanks. That helps… a little.
PBandJ - a couple of questions, please. I am not trying to engage in debate - I am genuinely curious in what this movement entails:
1. community based - no longer a “personal savior” evangelical salvation, rather that and a huge emphasis on community.
Thank goodness there is no more personal savior. But what does salvation mean, if anything, to the typical emergent believer? Just top level, no need to go into the Pauline doctrine of justification.
2. missional - reach the culture as a community by speaking and living in the vernacular.
Very Jesus movement. Do you mean to engage with the culture rather than separate from it like it was when I grew up? (ie, no movies, no dancing, no TV… complete separation from the world)
4. unity among believers - unite despite differences (ethnic, doctrinal, denominational, etc) do you think this is possible with the liberal and conservative branches already present within the movement - the ones that Brad mentioned? Where does the emergent Christian draw the line with heresy, or are they universalists?
Brad:
The conservative stream (Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick) maintains the theologically reformed stance of evangelicalism, but seeks to contextualize the Gospel from WITHIN culture
sorry, but whooooosh - right over my head. Do you mean to draw the Gospel out from the culture, or interpret the Gospel based on the culture, or … draw analogies from our culture to the Gospel to make it more understandable and palatable?… sorry for the dumb questions but.. can you give me a simple example or scenario of what you are talking about?
ps, I am not familiar with any of those names. About as young as I get is people my age - Ravi Zacharias and maybe Greg Laurie are about the youngest evangelists that I know of, so I feel a little out of touch here. I grew up on a steady diet of Oral Roberts and Rex Humbard, then Chuck Smith when the Jesus Movement rolled around. All really old guys now.
I read a book last year called Blue Like Jazz by Don Miller. No offense if you have read it, but I found the book to be.. … .. crap. But anyway, is that book an example of ‘Emergent Christianity’?
One more question. What the heck is ‘postmodern’ as opposed to ‘modern’? Is this a precise definition for a movement, or is just a word that is thrown around to make me feel old?
HeIsSailing,
To answer your most recent comment:
-”salvation” within an emergant church context still includes an aspect of Jesus being a savior to me as an individual, but also helpfully includes a communal aspect to it. Recognizing that the Bible was not written to individuals as individuals, but to individuals as part of larger communities. Both the individual and community aspect seek to be equally acknowledged. This is difficult in a highly individualized American culture.
-some engagement of culture, some rejection still. Much more discerning than blanket rejection, thankfully. Seeks to identify the worldviews in music, movies, rather than automatically dismiss them.
-unity probably to the extent that unity is possible. Still recognizing differences in theology, but really tries to also recognize the larger perspective of how much those differences really mean in the grand scheme of things. Sometimes those differences still mean a lot, sometimes not so much.
-I’ll attempt to get at Brad’s thought. You asked some possibilities, probably a bit of all of those.
—–
(This is to your first comment, asking about the emergant church movement in particular)
Great question! I’ll give my best shot to connect it to the Christian movement with which you are most familiar that you mentioned.
The emergant church, as with all church “movements” in North America, is in one sense a response against the church movement of the generation before us, the baby boomers. They were characterized (this is such a broad generalization!) by folks flocking to nondenominational churches, b/c they saw denominations as dead. Some of the Jesus freaks you mentioned were probably a part of that. They were hippies or grew up during that time, got older, cleaned up some, decided to keep the best of the feel-good attitude of their day and apply it to how they understood Jesus. It did well for them. They sought to at once separate from and also emulate the culture around them by creating their own Christian sub-culture, complete with their own music and standards. This is probably sounding familiar.
Their children, however, who grew up in this time of polished church music and subculture, have mostly decided that style won’t work for them. You see this with Jim Bakker’s kid, who’s doing some interesting ministry in NYC, I think.
The particulars of the emergant church theology probably aren’t different from anything that’s been said before, but its overall approach is somewhat different. It’s very decentralized. In this context. A lot of what Brad said is a good indicator of some of the particulars. Focus on understanding culture. More liturgical than the Jesus freaks, for sure. Definitely comes with its own language, which again sounds new, but the concepts aren’t new.
It’s not new in the grand scheme of things, but it’s new for young folks. Students of church history overall would say that this is a fad, which is fine and always happens. Each generation must re-tool to some extent the approach of what it means to be a Christian in the church. This happens all the time. The Jesus freaks of your time retooled it from how their parents understood being a Christian; the emergant church folks are too.
And when the emergant church folks get older and their kids grow up, those kids going to do what every kid does with their parents: they’re going to decide that the emergant church movement of their parents is hopelessly lame and outdated, and they’ll go off in some “new” direction, with its own set of pros and cons, as every church movement has more or less possessed. And they’ll be really excited about it too, and talk about it in their own vernacular.
Hope that helps! That’s as best I understand it. Please, ask questions.
And no, Don Miller is not an example of emergant church. He’s fun to read for some, but pretty light overall. I’ll try to think of some good examples.
Postmodern? Oh gosh. I’ll save that one for another day.
HeIsSailing: Ahhhhh! WELCOME, my friend!
I’m not any part of the emergent missional church whatever movements, but I love reading this blog because it helps me understand it loads more.
sometimes the rhetoric around here can get stifling, but I assure you that these guys are all about bridging the gap between their words and the way their words land on the ears of others.
It took me about a month to grasp “missional,” and I still think post-modernism and modernism is a big load of crap. haha!
Whoa… wait… Do you guys (Kyle and HIS) know each other?
HIS,
Jim explained it very well, and I really like his distinctions. The only thing I would add is that it is a slightly more than a generational thing…. Our kids will probably do something a little different from this, but the generational aspect is secondary to the cultural shift between modernism and post-modernism (which is a whole other story….).
That’s all I got.
It’s good to have ya, HIS.
Well brad, they would’ve done that… Until you predicted it. now they will have to come up with something better.
I agree with Jim’s post (which I skimmed).
Mostly we/they think the culture doesn’t think much of the church anymore, so we/they are attempting to re-do some/a few/many of the ways they do church.
Too many slashes to be much help probably!
(Romans 1:30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents…
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Fools do not believe in God.
(Psalms 53:1) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
But there are those who are worse than fools: The prince of fools. Those ingrates that pretend to believe in God and at the same time charge Him with stupid allegations.
The February 2000 case of US$ 4.2 trillion in punitive and compensatory damages filed by Marvin Sachs, a Manhattan attorney, representing his clients — alleged Israelites, against God, filed in New York Southern District court, is very much the same.
These people can not say that they do not believe in God because they will be more than fools if they are taking an action against somebody who does not exist. The action they have taken betrays their belief and displays their being nonsensical and feeble-mindedness.
(Romans 14:22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
In whichever angle you see these “undevelopments”; I regard these as a clear manifestation of the power of God’s word.
(Matthew 24:35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Prophesies in the Bible were written, so that we may believe that it was God who said them before they happen.
(John 13:19) Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.
Others were angered by these mishaps — even some of my colleagues, but I pity these people, most especially the poor Senator of Nebraska. A senator or any lawmaker must have a vast knowledge of laws and order. A law carries with it rules, regulations, and penalties for the violator. A good lawmaker must understand that not everybody will obey the law that he is making. There is a one hundred percent possibility that such a law may be broken by an offender, to which the penalty and the consequences of the offense will apply.
Nature has its laws, ordained by God. God has given laws to mankind since its pristine history — laws He printed in the hearts and minds of the human family.
(Romans 2:14-15) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another…
To establish these laws among societies of men, God caused it to be written with statutes and judgments.
(Malachi 4:4) Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
(Deuteronomy 4:13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
The penalties of breaking His sacred laws go with stern warnings to show his concern for the good of human society.
(Deuteronomy 28:15) But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee…
Natural calamities are the consequences that mankind will reap in utter disregard for God’s laws.
The poor Manhattan Attorney, Marvin Sachs, recklessly accused God of breaking or not keeping His covenant with the people of Israel, but have not considered the truth and reality that the first ones who broke the covenant are his clients, the alleged Israelites. He is not a prudent lawyer worthy of coming to court because he did not report to the court the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The records in the Bible from where he copied the original covenant between God and Israel, which he used as basis of his suit, tells us in so many verses that the Israelites broke the covenant.
(Hebrews 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
The case filed by the Manhattan attorney is a mockery of justice and displays his utter ignorance of law and court procedures. How, in your proper mind, can you sue someone using a covenant or a law, which is already obsolete?
(Hosea 6:7) But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. ASV
Thus, the consequences of their sins and transgressions:
(Jeremiah 23:19) Behold, the storm of the LORD! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will bu
rst upon the head of the wicked. RSV
(Jeremiah 25:32-33) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth. And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.
The action of the poor senator of suing God, because of the penalties being imposed on law breakers must boomerang to him. Anybody who suffers the penalty imposed by the senator on any bill or law that he made (if ever there is one) gives the offender the right to sue him in court; after all, he said that “the court must be opened for anybody to sue anybody.” If anybody will say that this is foolish, then the senator is the prince of fools.
Have not the senator think of suing President Harry S. Truman for ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, causing the death and agony of countless innocents who have nothing to do or to say about World War II?
When God punished the world of sinners during the time of Noah, innocent children perished with their guilty parents. Perhaps, somebody will say “why the children?” The death of innocent children is God’s gracious way of taking them away from the evils of this world. They will be comforted in heaven.
(Matthew 19:14) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com
Just FYI, the above comment was borderline spam. I approved it because we at COAS really try to allow as much dialog as possible, but repeated attempts to spam tracts will be deleted.
And ironically, HeIsSailing, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that the Emerging(ent) church is tired of and speaking out against. “Drive by tracting” doesn’t help the witness of Christians, nor does it offer any kind of compelling argument from the perspective of the non-Christian. This kind of evangelism was effective and appropriate at one time and in certain contexts, but very rarely is it either in our post-Christian cultural context.
Just a little “emerging church” commentary for you guys!
SEriously. I read that and was thought, “Is this relevant to this post at all?”
The answer is, of course, no.
That’s like commenting on a post about Einstein’s poor mathematical skills by posting a diatribe on Occam’s Razor or something. Yeesh.
Well, he copy-pasted the same comment on Mere Humanity, de-Conversion, and who knows what other blogs we are linked to. It’s entirely possible he didn’t even read the title of the post.