McKnight on Emergent and the Emerging Church

Scot McKnight has written an interesting article about the Emerging Church movement for Christianity Today. The article is written as a kind of primer for those not familiar with the Emerging conversation. I’m sure for many- who’ve only heard the movement referred to in passing- will find this article very helpful.

McKnight offers several helpful distinctions in the article. For one, he separates out Emergent, a specific, organized entity, from the larger context of the Emerging Church movement/conversation. Secondly, he tackles the issue of postmodernism. Specifically, following the lines drawn by Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch, he makes a distinction between three groups within the Emerging movement: those that minister to, with and as- postmoderns.

The only issue I have with this kind of distinction is that it infers the kind of hard lines that just don’t really exist in the real world. In 21st century North America, postmodern thinking is imbedded in the fabric of our culture. Even those that consider themselves thoroughly modern are probably a little postmodern, certainly more so than their parents were a generation ago. And likewise, even an ardent postmodernist is probably more modern than he’d like to admit- because modernism is still a part of our shifting cultural fabric as well.

Furthermore, I think McKnight could have done more to distinguish the shifting face of postmodernism- like Brian McLaren did in his the Three Postmodernisms piece. The original understanding of postmodernism as being narrowly defined as the disbelief in the existence of absolute Truth- is a bit of a straw man. The issue of truth and Truth is much more nuanced than this for the majority of people with postmodern sensibilities. Simply put, the distinction lies between the knowability of truth, versus the reality of it. Don’t get me wrong, McKnight offers helpful distinctions, I just think he could have further developed the question of how truth is apprehended by finite humanity.

The responses to the article in Christianity Today’s postback section, were, as always, a mixture on interesting and appalling. Most people’s responses were charitable and encouraging. However, one particular individual wrote, and I quote: "This guys a clown. Where is scripture proof? Unfortunately there are no negative star ratings."

Clearly, this response is in itself an interesting case study in how differently people comprehend and confirm truth. What does this guy want? Is he looking for a reference to the chapter and verse that proves that postmodernism exists? Strange response indeed. Talk about your missing the forest for the trees.





Christian Radio: Turn up the Hype?

Recently Christianity Today has been running a series of articles about the history of Christian radio. Apparently, despite on-air fear-mongering that suggests otherwise, Christian radio is more popular and profitable than ever. However, as the series makes note of, there are plenty of concerned citizens within the Christian community who question some of the motives and tactics of Christian radio.

What I, and others, (including a couple people quoted in the article) are most troubled by, is Christian radio’s strategy in paying the bills: namely- fundraising. More specifically I’m referring to the method of fundraising. At regular intervals during the year these stations, and the programs that populate them, plead with their audience for prayer and monetary support.

The thing is, in order to motivate listeners to respond by opening their wallets, these programs and stations suggest their “ministries” are working to spread the gospel amongst the lost. In reality though, statistics overwhelmingly tell us that Christian programming is about the choir preaching to the choir. The audience is made up of Christians; specifically, Evangelical Christians. So asking for help in order to reach people for Jesus is misleading- at best.

In this regard I’d rather these stations and programs just tell it like it is. This is religious programming designed specifically to suit the desires of a Christian audience. So don’t sugar-coat that. Either you think that’s okay, or you don’t. Is it consumerist guilt that makes us cover over the fact that, in the end, to give to Christian radio is to give to the cause of entertaining ourselves? I’ve seen and heard plenty of Public Radio fundraising campaigns. They simply focus on asking for support from those who appreciate the programming. They don’t claim to be saving the world. Why should Christian radio be any different. It shouldn't be. Not if we're honest.

One last point I’ll make on the issue of Christian radio programming: not only are fundraising efforts more than a little manipulative, but so too are descriptions of the opposition that these stations face. Listening to Christian radio, which is almost completely of the conservative bent, you’d think the world was full of nothing but evil liberals who are scheming, quite consciously, to destroy all that is just, true and good. These same radio programs suggest that the only way this onslaught can be abated is through the monetary support of these “ministries”.

Of course, when listeners really come to believe we’re at war, they tend to pitch in a little more. No doubt about it. This strategy works. But is this representation in alignment with reality? Does it demonstrate integrity? And perhaps just as importantly, does it tell our non-Christian neighbors that we honor and respect them as individuals?

On all above accounts, I think not. Sorry to sound so pessimistic. But on this one, I think you just have to tell it like it is.





Will the Real Yahweh Please Stand Up

CNN recently ran an op-ed piece written by two postmodernly-influenced, Generation X-ish evangelists, Jay Bakker and Mark Brown. If the name Bakker sounds familiar when it comes to evangelism, it should. Jay Bakker is the son of Jim Bakker- of the infamous scandal of the 1980's. Jay is a far cry from his father though; at least as far as image is concerned. He is pierced and tattooed from head to foot. That presentation alone helps him to reach out to the un-churched crowd that his father's ministry probably never reached.

Bakker and Brown titled their piece, What the Hell Happened to Christianity? The article goes on to point out what many of us in the Emerging conversation have been saying for some time now; that over the last few years Christianity has been to a large extent co-opted by Right Wing Protestant Religo-politicalism.

Bakker and Brown's concern is that when Christianity is seen as an intolerant force meant only to ridicule those who "don't follow the rules", that it looses its "grace witness" within society; where you can "come as you are" not "as you should be". These two paint the picture of a savior who didn't condemn people, but came to be with them; befriending prostitutes, tax collectors, vagrants, lepers, etc.

CNN followed up this Op-Ed piece with invitations for the public to respond. This was the part of the enterprise that I found the most interesting. As I expected, the responses were right across the board. Some people were grateful for the perspective expressed by Bakker and Brown. Others disagreed, arguing that God was also Holy and a God of judgment. One person even went as far as to say, "I would like to know if the writers of this article ever sat down and read the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of John from the first verse of Chapter 1 to the last verse of each book? It is quite clear the writers are erroneous in their understanding of Jesus birth, life, and death, and the purpose for which He came."

The reason I found the wide variety of responses interesting is that, once again, this goes to show the degree of difference in American perceptions of God. Its one thing to say something like 85-90% of Americans believes in the Christian God. It's quite another to try and define what kind of Christian God we're talking about. There really is a major split in perceptions of God in this country. To put it in the simplest terms, part of the population sees God as angry and looking for vengeance, and the other half see him as gracious, patient and loving.





Will North American Christianity Succomb to Special Interest Groups?

I recently came across an article in a major newspaper from my region that spoke of a "GodMen" conference that was taking place in Nashville, Tennessee. The article, titled "Making God Manly" begins by describing the scene: "the strobe lights pulse and the air vibrates to a killer rock beat. Giant screens show mayhem and gross-out pranks: a car wreck, a sucker punch, a flabby (and naked) rear end, sealed with duct-tape."

This "Godmen" conference, which carries the by-line "When Faith Gets Dangerous", is all about a testosterone-filled response to what many perceive as the feminization of church. This small but growing movement within North American Christianity was first evidenced with the popularity of books like "Wild at Heart" by John Eldridge.

This particular conference is a few notches beyond when it comes to "male-friendly" Christian culture. Speakers curse from stage, guys attend meetings where talk about lust is a no holds barred affair, and a list of "real man's rules" is passed out. Check out rule #1 (clearly directed to wives): "Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down."

I have some thoughts about this kind of event, and about these kinds of "special interest group" Christian sub-cultures in general. First of all, in regards to this specific "GodMen" conference, I think things go way too far. I'm all for affirming the roles of men, but these particular roles are nothing I wish to affirm.

However, I certainly understand and am empathetic towards the issue of the de-masculization of Christian culture in North America. It's true, sometimes this "we're all dating Jesus thing" goes way too far. And both worship singing and sermons focus far too much on this one "personal/intimate" aspect of our relationship with God. We Evangelicals could certainly use more teaching and corporate singing revolving around the issues of discipline and the numinous nature of God: i.e.God as Holy and Other.

My last thought is this: In light of my recent review and affirmation of Paul Vierra's Jesus Has Left the Building and books of a similar sort, such as George Barna's Revolution, one has to wonder, if so many of us are striking out as "revolutionaries", living the Kingdom life without involvement with the typical Sunday-service structured local congregational gathering, where are we going to be taught about who Jesus is and what the Church is?

My concern is that we'll just end up with a plethora of- to use that term again- "special interest groups", that mold Jesus and the Church into whatever mold suits them; most likely a mold that most closely resembles them.

This GodMen group points out that North American Evangelicals have turned Jesus into this smiling, pale-faced nice guy who is always meek and mild. And they argue that this is not who Jesus is/was. Perhaps not. But from my perspective, neither is he a crude-speaking, domineering, slightly misogynistic character either.

The question is, in this new era of myriad faith groupings, whose going to decide who Jesus and the Church are? My concern is that our representation of Christ and of His Church will become so divided as to make him a completely unrealistic, and ultimately un-compelling figure.



Current from: November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005