http://www.precipicemagazine.com Precipice Magazine is an online Christian resource featuring information, dialogue and opinion about the Emerging Church. Each of the articles and authors featured at Precipice offer perspectives on the Emerging Church and postmodern Christianity. Join our conversation about Emerging Christianity as we explore the interaction between postmodern culture and the Church. Precipice Magazine is committed to reaching out in order to faithfully forge community, proclaim the name of Christ, and serve as a messenger and agent for the already and emerging Kingdom of God. Each month we\'ll discuss the issues pertinent to the Emerging Church as we seek to reach out to anyone and everyone with an invitational spirit of thoughtful faith and faithful thought. en-us Copyright 2007-08. Some rights reserved. Thu, 17 Feb 2009 14:01:26 -0400 http://www.rssfeedssubmit.com/rss-generator/ http://www.precipicemagazine.com/images/precipicelogo-sm.gif http://www.precipicemagazine.com 144 40 http://www.precipicemagazine.com/knowing-dead-frogs.html When I was a student in biology class, there was a day when we all were brought in to the laboratory to dissect bull frogs. We were each assigned a partner to work with, and to each pair of students was given a big dead frog that had obviously been pickled in formaldehyde for a while. The teacher gave us scalpels and other tools, basins of water and a notebook of instructions. For the next two hours we were to cut the frog into pieces and make notes of our observations. We peeled back the thick skin of the frog and noticed how it was put together. We took notes on its long legs and webbed feet. We looked at the amazing amphibian lungs and its chest cavity. We dissected the entrails and the heart. When it was done, we felt that we had learned a lot. But what we had learned was only biology.The point that I want to make is that we ONLY learned about biology. We learned almost nothing about frogs! If one wants to learn about frogs, he needs to spend some time among the lilly pads, watching the actions, listening to the sounds, learning the habits of these amazing little animals. Observe the eggs and the stages of tadpole-dom. See how the adult sneaks up on the insects. Differentiate between the “burdeeps” and the “ribbits,” and discover that there are mating sounds, and warning sounds, and bragging sounds, and happy and sad sounds, and much more! Watch how their eyes turn and the pupils change. Notice the colors that they display. Try to understand the conflicts they encounter. In short, spend a lot of time with LIVING frogs and you will learn much more than you can get from the scalpel and the notebook in the biology lab. The reason I am saying all of this is I think there is too much of the “biology lab” approach when it comes to knowing God. For too many years, too many of us have labored under the assumption that if we studied more biblical facts, systematized our theology, drew charts about the end-times, and could answer all the academic questions, that we would know God better, and be better and more spiritual people. I am here to tell you that it doesn’t work! I have known some people who have degrees in the subject of God, but did not have much knowledge of the real ways of a living God. At times I have been one of those people. I also have known people who had very little religious knowledge, but they humbly walked in a loving and powerful relationship with the Almighty... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/tapping-reservoir-within.html f then you are wise you will show yourself rather as a reservoir than as a canal. A canal spreads abroad water as it receives it, but a reservoir waits until it is filled before overflowing, and thus without loss to itself [it shares] its superabundant water. —Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) A new year is upon us… we make resolutions… we set goals. We prepare for what we think lies ahead… I did this in 2008, as I do every year… I attempted to plan for the year ahead. I made resolutions and set goals based on what I thought the future held. I knew at that time that twin daughters were in my future and I did lots of thinking, praying, and journaling about what that would mean for my life. My wife and I did all we could do to prepare to receive the unexpected blessing of two daughters—and the joy of watching identical twins grow up together. We assumed we would be dealing with two more healthy children in our family and all the challenges that would bring; we never could have anticipated just how challenging this year would actually be. On the morning of May 2 my wife Laurie and I went to the hospital to deliver our daughters. All indications to that point suggested both girls were healthy. At every check-up (and there were many!) mother and both daughters got a good report. We had made it to 37+ weeks with identical twins and that was considered great. The staff at Franklin Square Hospital was ready to receive two full-term healthy twin girls. In fact, since we had made so far in our pregnancy, they felt there was a good chance the girls would not even have to spend time in the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). They even had two bassinets in our room ready for us to have our girls in the room with us after delivery—something we didn’t get when our son Brady was born as he had to spend his first few days of life in the NICU. It turned out, however, that all the reports were wrong; and we (and everyone else involved) were completely unprepared for what happened next. Unbeknownst to us all, one of the girls had sustained major brain damage sometime during pregnancy. While Rebecca Mae was born healthy—a short stint in the NICU not withstanding—two days after she was born Hope Marie passed from life support to life eternal. Our family (and our church family) was devastated, and now, eight months later, we are only beginning to emerge from the cloud of grief that has hovered over our lives since that fateful day. I guess what I learn from this past year is that no matter how much we try and plan for the future, we simply cannot predict the circumstances that will come our way. I don’t think that means we should not make plans, but we do need to be flexible when we make them. Only God knows what the future holds for us, and somehow I think it might be best that way. I often ask why everything happened the way it did? But would it really help to know? Would it make it any easier to understand? The only thing we can, and must, choose is how we will react to those circumstances: Will they make us better or bitter, break down or break through?... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#third_way Scot McKnight has been an advocate, for some time now, of what we calls “the Third Way” of doing Christianity. In Scot’s words, The Third Way approach to the orthodox Christian faith is one that gets beyond the fighting, and between the fighters, in order to carve out a middle way. The Third Way captures and sustains the good in both the conservative and the liberal. It is the Jesus Creed at work in the church’s theology and praxis. It affirms the great traditions of the Church and seeks to embody those traditions in a new way for a new day. It is not afraid of change but has a deep desire to remain faithful. While I appreciate Scot’s ecumenical and forward-thinking outlook, I would actually question whether or not talking about a “third way” communicates, perhaps unintentionally, that the grid we’re standing on is valid; that all we need to do is chart a new course over this familiar terrain. I actually think we need to go further - as opposed to farther. In other words, this is about degree, not distance. We need a new grid. I actually think the so called great emergence we are going through right now is all about this question, this process. And, at the end of the day, so much of the liberal/conservative continuum lives and dies with the assumptions of modernism. So the way forward is not so much a third way, as it is climbing, ascending, reaching for, a different plane - if you will - altogether... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#biblical_infallibility Ever squirm in your seat when reading certain aspects of the biblical narrative? – like this one for instance: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Num 31:17-18) I’ve come across numerous razzle-dazzle ways of getting around the difficulty inherent in such passages, but very few of them sound, to me anyway, anything close to convincing. Some would like to claim that the societies being wiped out were just way to evil to keep around. Really? Including every single individual? Others would claim that maybe there were innocents around – albeit few and far between – but that in killing them the Israelites were mercifully alleviating a painful existence as part of such a clan. I don’t know, that sounds creative, but it stretches the bounds of credulity, don’t you think? To me, such narratives reveal as much about the underlying worldview of the recipients of God’s message(s), as they do about God himself. I think, like a good postmodernist, that all such “message-events” are a combination of sender - message - and receiver. There is no special crystalline reception that exists - somehow miraculously outside a worldview - merely because it is God who is speaking. So, all that is to say, I assume that in such passages the people in question heard *something* from God, but they then filtered it through their expectations/presuppositions. And, history suggests that their Ancient Near Eastern expectations told them that the gods who were powerful showed this by wiping out other people groups - thus effectively wiping out other gods. It was always a zero-sum game... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/poetics-of-leadership2.html Margaret Wheatley asks, “Is it possible to live in the humility of knowing that our purpose, as clearly as we self-define it, is but ‘a husk of meaning’? The task is really to become superb listeners. Heidegger wrote that waiting, listening, was the most profound way to serve God.” One of the most fundamental precursors of emergence is emptiness, and an ability to embrace mystery. On the other hand, one of the most fundamental characteristics of modernity is the search for certainty. No wonder we have lost the ability to embrace liminal space! It isn’t easy embracing insecurity. It isn’t easy leaving our comfort zones, our titles, or our previous understanding behind. With every change of paradigm comes the need to embrace a new self-understanding, and the loss of a settled identity. But our faith paradigm itself is rooted in a fundamental insecurity. The heroes of faith are described by the writer of Hebrews: they went out, “not knowing where they were going.” Faith is a trusting in something beyond sight, something we have not yet seen. Thomas Merton writes, We must affirm and deny at the same time. One cannot go without the other. If we go on affirming, without denying, we end up affirming that we have delimited the Being of God in our concepts. If we go on denying without affirming, we end up denying that our concepts can tell the truth about Him in any sense whatever. (The Ascent to Truth, 94) Community and mission are both about love and emptiness of our own agendas, freely encountering the other. Community only exists where there is vulnerability, the choice to take risks and create open space. Real community only exists when we learn to embrace insecurity. So it seems that a precondition of emergence is emptiness. Only the empty, the poor, the naked and the disenfranchised can see clearly, because they have no vested interests and nothing left to lose. This is why Jesus says that we must become as children in order to enter the Kingdom of God... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/speak-my-language.html I work for NASA; my job focuses on public outreach for Earth science. I am part of a team whose job is to communicate to a wide variety of different audiences the story of NASA Earth science and why this story matters to them. A lot of people don’t even know that NASA has a substantial investment in studying our home planet, but we do, and I work for this lesser known part of NASA. One of the things we work to do in our outreach efforts is to communicate technical scientific concepts to a broad (and often non-technical, non-scientific) audience. As with any specialized field there are lots of acronyms and technical terms that we use frequently in NASA Earth science. I have worked for NASA for about 10 years; and I went to school and studied Physical Science and Meteorology for nine years prior to that, so I pretty much know those terms by now. I don’t have to stop and look them up when I encounter them. I am a NASA insider and I am thoroughly immersed in the language of NASA Earth science on a daily basis. So when someone uses scientific jargon—language only used by scientists that other people don’t understand—I don’t flinch because I’m familiar with the nuances of the language. But, what if—like most of you reading this article—you are not a NASA insider? Then your perspective changes dramatically. If an acronym or jargon term is used without it first being defined, you are likely to be completely lost! You’ll get frustrated and lose interest pretty quickly and there’s a good chance that you won’t continue reading the publication (or listening to the person speaking.) Since the publication or speaker makes no effort to define the terms to help an outsider like you connect, you will probably assume that the publication (or the presentation) is not for you and you rapidly lose interest. On the other hand, if the terms used are clearly defined the first time they are used, then an outsider like you at least has a better chance of connecting and not losing interest. When you work in outreach, you quickly learn that you have to define your terms. You can’t assume that everyone reading your publication is an insider; in fact, the whole point of what we do is to reach out to outsiders and invite them in—to help them connect with NASA Earth science if you will... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/great-emergence-review.html A much anticipated book arrived on my doorstep recently, courtesy of Baker Books. Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why is a book that introduces an idea that Tickle has been pushing for some time now; that Christianity is in the process of undergoing a major tectonic shift. We’re not talking minor tweaking, but a major reorganization. The second point in Tickle’s thesis is that this kind of transformation is not new. In fact, history suggests it takes place approximately every five hundred years. From the introduction to the book: That is, as Bishop Dyer observes, about every five hundred years the empowered structures of institutionalized Christianity, whatever they may be at that time, become an intolerable carapace that must be shattered in order that renewal and new growth can occur. When that mighty upheaval happens, history shows us, there are always at least consistent results or corollary events. This last point is what I found intriguing. After all, the first point, the first part of the first point at least – that we are in the midst of a major shift – has been clear to many of us for some time now. The last point directs us to some interesting history, regarding what happens with the new growth, as well as the old structures. Tickle continues, First, a new more vital form of Christianity does indeed emerge. Second, the organized expression of Christianity which up until then has been the dominant one is reconstituted into a more pure and less ossified expression of its former self. As a result of this usually energetic but rarely benign process, the Church actually ends up with two new creatures where once there had been only one. The most obvious example of this is evident in the products of the Reformation. Not only did Protestantism emerge, with its calling-card of sola scriptura, but the Roman Catholic Church also revitalized itself. In other words, the post-Reformation Catholic Church was no longer the same institution it was prior to that time. In fact, I sometimes wonder if Luther would have been happy enough with the reorganization/revitalization that the Catholic Church did go through, as opposed to resorting to a completely new institution. After all, Luther’s original purpose was renewal, not revolution. Ah, but I digress… If Tickle is right, and I think she is, then we should count ourselves as privileged to be living through such a transitional time. At least, that’s how I feel. “Why be thankful for that?”, you might ask me. Well, the way I see it, while these times can be tumultuous, they also let us be witnesses to God’s Spirit moving through the world. And that’s how I see this, not just as a human-driven enterprise, but as an evolution in thinking/being, breathed on by God Himself... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#gospel_thoughts Over at Jesus Creed this morning, Scot McKnight shared an interesting conversation he had with a pastor while awaiting a plane. As the pastor sat down Scot mentioned that he was just jotting down some notes about the meaning of the gospel. “That’s not hard,” this pastor said firmly. “The gospel is that Jesus died for our sins. He took upon himself our penalty. The gospel is the cross. It ends God’s wrath.” Scot, in his kind, yet subversive way, asked some follow up questions to get this pastor to reconsider the narrowness of his position. Asking whether there was room for Kingdom, for resurrection, for the Holy Spirit, aspects like that, in this pastor’s understanding of gospel. But the pastor stuck to his guns, saying that these other aspects of the Christian life come after salvation, and as such, don’t belong in the category of gospel. What was amazing to me, and apparently to Scot, was the degree to which this guy was so sure of himself. If wasn’t like he was caught off guard by Scot’s questions. He was ready to drop each peg in its nice round hole – so long as you kept it outside the hole associated with “gospel”. Not surprisingly, some of his other holes included categories such as “justification” and “sanctification”. I think the biggest problem I have with this pastor’s approach to the gospel - and many like him in evangelical circles - is the assumption that all this can be boiled down to neat little formulas. “This goes here in box A. And this goes here in box B. Oh, and clearly this goes over in this tidy file cabinet we call box C.” Doesn’t this strike anyone as odd? Not just that this pastor held to a truncated gospel, but that he had a neat little box for every question Scot asked him... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#too_political I often find it an interesting exercise to step back in time by picturing myself in a certain place, in a certain setting, from years past. When I do this I can sometimes remember what my thought process was then, what my expectations were, even get a glimpse into an earlier incarnation of my worldview. And then there are other times when I remember something, from some time long ago, that stands out to me because it’s so different from a position I now hold. It’s like my brain goes: “Check this out, major cognitive shift here!” I recently experienced this in light of my intense interest in the recent presidential election. Of course a major reason I was interested, as was the case for millions no doubt, was that there was finally a truly compelling figure (Obama) in the running. And someone who was not only compelling, but different. Different in the sense that his postmodern sensibility led him to approach the whole enterprise differently. And in so doing, he helped redeem the term “politician”, just a little bit, over the last six months. This interest in the political process stands in stark contrast to the kind of teaching that was sometimes explicitly and almost always implicitly taught in my evangelical upbringing. Here the focus seemed to be on changing lives, one at a time, by reaching out to people in our community. And this is a good start! But it assumes this is where our responsibility stops. And I think that’s a mistake. Of course, another facet of this issue relates to the idea that a Christian’s role is to get people “saved” (for heavenly, disembodied bliss, that is), as opposed to trying to redeem our societal structures, so that they too more closely resemble the values of the Kingdom. More on that in a moment… http://www.precipicemagazine.com/poetics-of-leadership.html This past year I have been reflecting on leadership as listening. Along the way I’ve been wondering, “what makes the difference?” Why are some more inclined to listen, and to what are they tuned? Why the difference? And notice.. to be “attuned” to anything is to exclude other things. There is a connection between leadership and difference. Furthermore, to notice difference one must be in some sense on the margins. As the authors of Surfing the Edge of Chaos note, “Edges are important to life: in fact, we are drawn to them. They define a frontier that tells us we are about to venture father than we have ever gone before. “As long as one operates in the middle of things,” states science writer William Thompson, “one can never really know the nature in which one moves.” “The visual cortex of our brain directs our eyes to look for edges, helping us to distinguish figure from background and consequently get our bearings..” (67) Now you may be hearing other echoes. The first is Gregory Bateson and his reflections on information: “information is difference that makes a difference.” If there is no difference, then information doesn’t inform: it is merely noise. The second one who ran along a parallel track is Father Jacques. He coined a new word: différance. He notes that différance is neither a word, nor a concept. Words and concepts are themselves différance from other words and concepts and this gives différance its meaning. That would give me the sense that differance is somehow transcendental: but Derrida denies this. Wikipedia explains like this: The word “house” derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from “shed”, “mansion”, “hotel”, “building”, “hovel”, “hours”, “hows”, “horse”, etc. etc., than how the word “house” may be tied to a certain image of a traditional house. Not only are the differences between the words relevant here, but the differentials between the images signified are also covered by différance. Deferral also comes into play, as the words that occur following “house” in any expression will revise the meaning of that word, sometimes dramatically so... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#biblical_genre_awareness Well, there are certainly no shortage of voices to be heard on the evolution vs. creationism debate. Interestingly enough, in the end, the conversation often focuses more on the issue of the age of the earth, as opposed to the broader issue of how life has developed over time. Even more specifically than that, the debate often seems to revolve around how we should read the Bible. Some people, such as I, do not take the Genesis creation account literally; that is to say, I do not read it like it is a science textbook. Others would counter that we should simply read the text - as it appears. In other words, if it appears to offer a timeline of real development, we should take it as such. And I can understand that argument, to a point. But I would want to point out that it’s only to our eyes that the text appears so cut and dry. And of course we, like all people, have a hard time (read: ultimately near impossible) seeing how our lens colors what we’re seeing/reading. We’re used to reading chronological descriptions like this under the genre of scientifically-based fact. But what if our basic (genre-based) interpretative assumption is wrong? A friend of mine wrote in to say that, from his perception, both sides (young earthers and old earthers) have difficult questions to answer. But I’m not so sure what those difficult questions are for the old earth crowd. Again, I think people only run into conflicts if they read Genesis literally, like its a scientific description of actual events. If you don’t read it that way, and again, from the original context, I don’t think we’re supposed to, I don’t see the problem. So its only an assumption about interpretation that raises potential difficulties. Again, I know some people find it difficult to understand why one wouldn’t read the text literally, but again, based on the expectations of the original audience, that would be a very strange reading. And I think we have to begin by asking what the expectations of a text was for the original audience - not for us, thousands of years later. Just to make the point a little clearer, in the Ancient Near East, people commonly believed in multiple gods - each responsible for various aspects of nature. The Hebrew vision, and what I think the Genesis creation passage is getting at, is that one God is responsible for ALL of creation, and that he looks on the creation with affection, not anger or ambivalence. In other words, when looking at the text, we should ask: “What would this have communicated to the original hearers?” and “What would have stood out for them?” In the 21st century we have inherited a very long history of mono-theism. But for these early believers, this was a new concept. And that’s what I think Genesis is getting at. It was crafted to invest a sense of mono-theistic order to the Cosmos... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#evolution_creationism Over the last couple of days a large group has been engaging in an ongoing conversation about the ever-spicy topic of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design, over at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. It’s interesting to me that those arguing for a young earth perspective do so (at least partly) because they say that to do otherwise is to suggest that God is being deliberately deceitful in his biblical revelation to us. Personally I am amazed that the people arguing for a young earth perspective fail to see that it is only a hermeneutical assumption on their part that makes them read the Bible the way they do. Surely the question is not just: Does a reasoned belief in evolution, or an old earth, end up making the Bible seem deceptive? But more importantly: Does a reasoned belief in evolution and an old earth suggest my basic hermeneutical assumptions are flawed? Perhaps its the idea that the Bible should read like an historical account from a 20th or 21st century science text book that is at fault. And here I’m being coy. Of course this kind of idea is at fault. Why would people want to put the blame on God, or, more to the point, on the people who would believe such a thing about God, when it is clearly the young earth believer’s assumptions that create the conflict?... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#biblical_authority Today a good friend and I had a lengthy, fascinating discussion about, among other things, evangelical vs. mainline takes on emergence. The conversation took us through tea and h a delicious Thai lunch at. We both agreed that, ultimately, the issues we see differently come down to our slightly different takes on authority; and specifically, biblical authority. This friend admittedly holds to a “low-view” of Scripture. He sees cultures, interpreting reality through very limited worldviews, doing their best to describe events around them that were far beyond their capacity to understand. According to his view, the pre-existing world view of those 1st century Palestinians prevented them from seeing the fullness of God’s revelation, as compared to what we can see, via the insights of our 21st century understanding. I can walk with my friend a fair way down this trail. But I also see the revelation they experienced as actually over-ruling, re-formulating - sometimes in very dramatic fashion - their pre-existing biases. In other words, their worldviews were remade. So, for me, it gets a little tricky when we want to say, “well of course they had that particular bias/prejudice” - as is evidenced in Scripture, “but they were much more primitive than us”. To me that kind of hermeneutical approach opens wide a passageway that allows us to (conveniently) divert any large ship of antiquity that happens to disagree with what we’d like to believe in the 21st century. I think the folks of the Jesus Seminar, for example, do this all the time, and pass it off as engaging in real historical inquiry. As N.T. Wright has pointed out, it's not like those early followers believed Jesus rose from the dead because they were too primitive to understand that people don't actually do that. No, the revelation they experienced - in other words, actually experiencing the resurrected Jesus first-hand - changed their pre-existing view... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/reverse-mentoring.html I never suspected that I was about to go to school when my friend Joe called me. Knowing that I had two dead iPods, he handed the cell phone to Jody, his 15-year-old daughter, who began to explain how to reboot these devices in a way that might bring them back to life. Being 38 years older than Jody, I could have balked at the idea of taking instruction from a teenager, but the mental image of the iPod boneyard in my study meant that she had my full attention. I couldn't wait to get home to press the buttons that would resuscitate my only source of portable music. Jody put on a clinic in reverse mentoring with me that afternoon—where the junior person is the teacher, not the learner. While reverse mentoring can be applied to virtually any issue, it's most common use is in bringing together old and young in an instructional relationship that simply stands ordinary mentoring on its head. In other words, people like Jody become the experts, teaching me things they know instinctively that I may never grasp without their help. Having spent years under the tutelage of dozens of young people, I believe that reverse mentoring may be one of the most important and under-used forms of learning available to leaders today. My mentors have stimulated both personal and professional transformation in me that could have come no other way. Let's examine the value of reverse mentoring in developing ourselves as leaders and offer some practical suggestions for implementing this underrated practice in your own ministry... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#blogging Before you read the following piece that addresses blogging vs. whatever-it-is-we-do-here-at-Precipice, you might want to make note that I’ve started a new blog, titled Leaning Into Meaning: The Purposeful Meanderings of Darren Brett King. Hope you check it out, add me to your blogroll, drop me a comment, or all of the above! I’m looking forward to connecting with people in real-time, via the blogosphere. Okay, enough of that, on with the piece: So it’s been awhile since I’ve posted in Precipice. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1.) I’ve been busy and out of town recently (Sacramento, thanks for showing us such a great time!). 2.) I’ve been reconsidering how I want to divide my writing time/energy between issues pertinent to postmodern Christianity (the subject matter of Precipice), and more tangential topics about life in general. For those of you who’ve been around these parts for awhile now, you’ll remember that soon after a Precipice re-design was launched last year, I mentioned that I was planning to use this very “Current” section for more blog-like pieces. When I say “bloglike” I suppose that begs the question: what exactly, and what exactly isn’t, blog material? Good question. I’m not sure I, or anyone for that matter, really has a clear answer on that one yet. It’s still a relatively new and evolving medium. But I have jotted some thoughts down (jotting in itself sounds like a term particularly relevant to blogging) in my brand new blog: Leaning Into Meaning. Here’s the post on what blogging is – for me anyway, and why I'm now doing it. I do know that when I first dreamed up the idea of Precipice, way back in 2001, blogging was not an option. I don’t really remember when it, it being web-logging, started. But it was certainly sometime after that. When I started Precipice I wanted to create a space for articles discussing the interaction between Christianity and the postmodern turn in our western culture. That version of the website lasted a year or so. Then, in 2005, I resurrected the magazine from virtual oblivion and re-launched, this time with a focus on the postmodern turn as expressed in the Emerging Church movement...