Through the
ages, church form and model has changed many times, with the newer generations
changing the way older generations do church. You can call it a revolt or a
reform but change is imminent. Today we stand at the threshold of yet another
change – the cries of a newer generation.
Is the
emerging church a reaction of a previous generation that is falling out of
relevancy? Or is it a necessity to reach a changing generation? There are some
who think the emerging church as overboard and over-compromising, but so were
we for the previous generation. There are some who think the emerging church as
the only way to reach the postmodern generation, but have we thoroughly thought
through the cost? Whatever our comments may be, it is crucial for us to consider
once again the purpose of the church.
The church
was instituted for a purpose. Erickson clearly defines its purpose to have its
members worship God, edify the body, and evangelize the lost. If any form of
the church loses its function in any of these areas, it ceases to be what we
call the church. Scot McKnight offers a warning to the emerging church movement
whom he believes to be losing its evangelistic zeal by compromising its
proclamation of the exclusive Good News. That is a warning for the rest of us,
as well, who wants to change the way we do church. I echo the age old chant,
“the method may change but the message is still the same”. The form of church
may change, but the function should not.
I think the changing philosophy and practices of contemporary church especially in the Emerging Church Movement has its root in the changing worldview of our society. Of course, the prevalent paradigm of this generation is postmodernism compared to that of the modernism roughly 30-40 years ago. The thing about our worldview is that, it is very much shaped by our society/environment through hosts of factors such as education system, cultural values, mass-media etc. In one sense, changes of worldview are inevitable. Therefore generation after generation will have different philosophy on how to practice their faith. The age old tag "method may change but message still the same" is close to the truth. At stake here is nonnegotiable truth of God as taught in the Scripture. The problem it saw in the Emerging Church is their indulgence with postmodernism which regards any claim to objective, universal truth or certainty as intolerance, narrow-minded or even oppressive. Now as thinking Christian, is this kind of worldview in line with Scripture? Is the God of the Bible actually democratic or intolerance? If we as Christian claim that we believe in the Bible, did we actually allow the Word of God to shape our worldview instead of succumbing to the philosophy of the day? As much as the biblical truth need to be contextualized, nevertheless it should never be compromised or else we end up with "another gospel" of our day which is really no gospel at all (cf. Gal 1:6-7).
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that the truths of the Bible should never be compromise. TO tell this post modern generation that do not hold to absolute truth, that there IS absolute truth is going to be challenging but needed and possible.
DeleteHowever the church will need to reconsider how we tell them. Many traditional churches who uses the "listen to me because I say so" tagline will surely not work anymore. I find comfort in knowing though that many churches have abandoned this method and have vibrant youth programs that reaches this generation using ways that work without compromising the truth.
Yeap, a friend from the US told me the younger generation in the US, when asked what a traditional church is, answered, "Saddleback Church" ,i.e.Rick Warren's church. This just shows how fast things are moving over there. But back here in Malaysia, is the prevalent paradigm really post-modern? Maybe in the urban centres, but a large, I won't be too quick to say. Also, it was once said that mankind prefers having rules and regulations more than we like to admit. That's why religion is appealing.In one sense people may still prefer "just tell me what to do Pastor" as opposed to "let me think through and hear what God is saying to me" (some would blame this 'lazy approach' on our education system). And this might work in favour of the 'traditional church' in our Malaysian culture - for now.
DeleteYou wrote, "some would blame this 'lazy approach' on our education system." Hahaha... I like that. Anyway back to the matter at hand, in one sense, "just tell me what to do Pastor" is good for new/young believers. For if they seriously heed Pastor's godly advice, they would do well in growing in faith. In any case, the postmodern thinking will soon come in full force even to the outside of city area due to mass-media. Until then we need to be prepared to handle them.
Delete"Erickson clearly defines its purpose to have its members worship God, edify the body, and evangelize the lost. If any form of the church loses its function in any of these areas, it ceases to be what we call the church"
ReplyDeleteIf we go by Erickson's definition of the church, there is definitely worship and edification. But many churches don't see the need to Evangelize directly. So would that make us 2/3 of a church?
The Emerging church is an interesting concept. Yet where would one draw the line? A gay church to show acceptance and love to the LGBT community, maybe even led by a gay pastor?
A completely black or white or yellow church? Not evangelizing to a particular race just because the law forbids it? What actually dictates the stand of the church, or rather, WHO dictates the stand of the church?
hahah... I laughed when you said 2/3 of a church. I would agree that we're probably not a full 'church' if we fail to evangelize. however, i'd ask you to define evangelism. Many people have other ways to evangelize. For example, my youth group has large events like sports competitions, christmas parties, etc. that is a platform for unbelieving youths to join on a neutral ground. The fellowship and friends will make them come back again where other programs open opportunities to hear about our God. From then, there have been a few that made the decision to follow Christ. Isn't this also evangelism? Though not in a traditional way? Community works that meet the needs of society can lead to winning the lost as well. Evangelism still happens.
DeleteI have to ask, is a gay church included in the concept of emerging church? Is it not a category of its own?
I don't understand the last paragraph, sorry :p
Well the last paragraph was just me thinking aloud. Where would we be drawing the line when it comes to being a Christian and doing what God says and being a Church-ian. There are many churches that are purely white or purely black. In this country we, by law, cannot proselyte a certain race. We cannot control all the churches to conform to our pattern of thought, but then does this diversity Glorify God or create even more division within the Kingdom of God?
DeleteIf emerging churches have withstand every generation, then I think it should have answered every question why emerging churches are still arising. Different time, different issues.
ReplyDeleteBut in the first, we have to ask also how does these churches arise? How does our viewpoint affect them?
They exist for a reason.
Enough said.
I used to be against emerging churches thinking they are too new age. But after reading up and hearing from people I know, I'm beginning to wonder too if they do indeed serve a purpose in this generation. Yes, perhaps some of them took it a little too far. That finger we point can also be pointed at many churches in the past and in the present.
DeleteFrom my readings so far, what's wrong with the Emerging Church is not so much of their methods of doing evangelism and reaching the new generation (what they famously coined as "missional")but their theological presuppositions about what a true Christian faith really is. For example Brian McLaren in his book Generous Orthodoxy said, "Although I don't hope all Buddhist will become (cultural) Christians, I do hope all who feel so called will become Buddhist followers of Jesus; I believe they should be given opportunity and invitation...In this context, I do wish all Christians would become followers of Jesus, but perhaps this is too much to ask. After all, I'm not doing such a hot job of it myself." This whole statement appeared to be suitably humble and tolerance but is essentially full of ambiguity and uncertainty which is contrary to what the Bible said about sound teaching (cf 2 Tim 14-15, Tit 1:9). For a generation that cherish subjectivity, the Emerging motto will conveniently suit them in which it doesn't matter what people believe, as long as they do good and concerned one another. No doubt that is good for the pluralistic society bit is this line of thinking biblical?
DeleteThe church is the bearer of God's truth. There should not be any compromise or watering down the gospel truth in order to attract postmodern society in any way. Yes, methods can be creative but the gospel truth should be the whole truth, nothing but the truth. In evangelism, it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the sinner to repent and receive Christ as Lord and Savior. Ultimately, it is the power of the Holy Spirit at work, not what creative ways could attract anyone. No one and nothing can convert a person, it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
DeleteOuch. reading that statement, Terry, does make you think about how blur it can all be. Is it just tolerance or is it fear to offend? I need to give it some thought as well.
DeleteHello... =)
ReplyDeleteHello :p
DeleteHi there,
ReplyDeleteA couple of verses kinda sticks out.
In regards to the Emerging Church, it is not wrong to minister to this special group, as they have special needs, and thus require special understanding. BUT, a gay Pastor?
Lets look at John 15:16-19
16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.
17 This is my command: Love each other.
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
Would a gay pastor, who indulges in sin, also bear fruit that will last?
And the Bible says, "Love each other" thus, there is also a need for a ministry for them.
Its a tough ministry, but a wolf cannot lead the sheep. Confused sheep cannot lead one another...
Like a blind leading the blind...
DeleteYes I agree that there should be some line between what's right and what's wrong. I believe even the emergent church would have some sort of higher code of expectation for its minister or leader. Accepting is one thing, exemplifying another.
To follow your analogy, some would say that the black sheep must lead other black sheep. A white sheep may not be able to gel well with the black sheep. Their argument is : white or black, they are all still sheep of the same pasture.
ReplyDeleteHi Igster,
ReplyDeleteJust wondering, if taken to extreme:
Eg.
Someone who loves Jesus, but is involved in Polygamy beliefs, can/should lead those who believe in it as well?
Am sure there are many out there, who love Christ, but have someway or another perverted the Gospel, either due to lack of solid Bible understanding, or that they have chosen to harden their hearts about the do's and don'ts?
While we cannot fault them, for the lack of Bible teaching, is it on their part that they have hardened their hearts to the Truth?
Black Sheep Lead Black Sheep:-
Kinda nullifies, John 8:32 [Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free]?