Emerging Church: Lacking the Spirit?
28 Sep 2005
Thanks everyone who commented and those of you who wrote me e-mails. Here is my final letter that I sent. I landed on something short (to make sure it’s included), something positive rather a reactionary response, as the article was inflammatory rather than something of substance that needs a response.
Jason
—————–
Christianity Magazine in their October edition, carried an article titled Emerging Church: Lacking the Spirit (download here as PDF). As Chris is a fellow Vineyard pastor, and as the article has some strong accusations and claims about Brian McLaren and Emerging church, I thought I would respond to it.
I contacted John Buckeridge the Editing Director of the magazine, and John said if I got something to him soon, they would include it in the December issue. So can I ask for your help with my letter?
I want to make sure, my letter isn’t too long, is warm in tone, but deals with the issues of the article. Also there are responses that would help that I might have missed. So if you have the time and inclination, can you download my very rough first draft letter here, and post suggestions in the comments or e-mail them to me at jason@emergent-uk.org.
Tagged: Books, Brian-McLaren, Church, Emergent, Emerging-Church, Key-Posts, Resources, Theology
18 comments
Trackback
Comment by Casey
9.37 pm on 25 Sep 2005
Jason,
Maybe a good article entitled “How do the Holy Spirit figure into all of this emergent talk?”,would be a good proposal to the magazine?
Filled with real life examples, a response of such value would help many that question this entire area.
Till next time!
Comment by Richard Sudworth
11.35 am on 26 Sep 2005
Troubling article and good draft reply. It sounds eerily reminiscent of the kind of flack and disinformation John Wimber used to get from conservative evangelicals in the ’80’s
Comment by Matt Rees
11.49 am on 26 Sep 2005
Hi Jase – well done for taking this one on, it’s obviously a live issue as we thought it might be, and it makes me realise how timely the day in St Albans could be.
i think your response in your letter is pretty robust as it is. i guess you might consider including something to do with charismatic culture – and how many emerging churches are disillusioned about being members of what some consider to be a kind of ecclesiastical clique. one of the questions i am really looking forward to discussing in St Albans is how we can be charismatic without buying into the whole UK/Global charismatic subculture. so much charismatic spirituality seems to come indivisably wedded to an ecclesiastical culture that is so monochrome.
i also think there are some real problems with the kind of revivalism that seems to go hand in hand with much, if not all, charismatic spirituality in the UK. I have seen many people leave the church, over many years, as a result of the kind of dissillusionment that is born from so many false dawns. the great move of God is just around the corner. this is the year of the favour of the Lord!
i think we need a spirituality that doesn’t rest upon getting to the next dynamic meeting/conference/seminar (with the attendant book/CD/teaching tape). it sets up a mentality that says that the only place you can experience the ‘manifest presence of God’ is down the front of a hyped up meeting getting prayed for.
I still very much see myself as a charismatic christian, but i am not prepared to lurch from one conference to the next in search of the next spiritual high (as i did for a number of years) whilst in between times just spiritually surviving awaiting the next ‘hit’. I believe that we/i need a spirituality that has more to do with ‘a long obedience in the same direction’ (to quote Eugene Peterson) i.e. faithfulness, than the spiritual viagra of much of the modern charismatic sub-culture.
don’t know if that helps – went off on one at the end there!
see you soon, Matt.
Comment by Jon Bartlett
1.22 pm on 26 Sep 2005
Jason,
Very pleased that you are drafting a reply. As a long term reader of Renewal (that seems to have become Christianity – is there a moral there?), and usually happy with their balance, I was for once spurred to think of a reply. You have covered things very well in your draft, but you might need to halve its length to get it published in full without the editor ‘cherry-picking’ the wrong points.
I would just go for three key ones (Baptist influence shines through), expanding 1) Emerging churches come in all shapes and sizes, including ‘charismatic’ (hate label, but there we are), such as Sutton Vineyard. 2) From books and friendship Brian McLaren does not deny the Spirit. 3) Emergent churches are not telling others how to do it, but exploring ways that model Jesus and the Kingdom to today’s society. And hence the 12th November.
I know that there is more to say, but a limited response may be read more and will make more impact. Hope this is helpful – no criticism intended of your draft.
A final thought or two, may not be right. It seems to me that a lot of American writings seem unsympathetic to the Spirit due to a greater polarisation between ‘charismatic’ and not than there is in the UK. Our ‘labels’ and denominations and churchmanship is more blurred than in the States. Often this is a blessing, but sometimes a curse!
Secondly, this article shows how quickly the church can evolve. A few years ago, I would have described the Vineyard as emerging. Now, they can be made to appear as a strutured denomination, and children of their time and culture. It requires real concentration to be in a state of ‘continous reformation’, and to step back from culture rather than be a product of it.
Well, wrote more than I meant to here. I hope to get to the day on the 12th and meet you guys. All best regards
Jon
Comment by Dana Ames
5.03 pm on 26 Sep 2005
Matt, your comments are on the button- could be expressed by many in the US too, even given Jon’s observation, which is also good, though there hasn’t been as much heat between charis/non-charis Christians here lately- (a good portion of the heat from the non-charis side seems to be re-directed at Emergent/ing folks…)
God be with all of you there on the 12th.
Dana
Comment by Jon Bartlett
10.43 pm on 26 Sep 2005
Postscript to my earlier comment. I remembered this quote from Newbegin, ‘The Gospel in a Pluralist Society’
“First, it is clear than to set word and deed, preaching and action, against each other is absurd. The central reality is neither word nor act, but the total life of a community enabled by the Spirit to live in Christ, sharing his passion and the power of the resurrection. Both the words and the acts of the community may at any time provide the occasion through which the living Christ challenges the ruling powers. Sometimes it is a word that pierces through layers of custom and opens up a new vision. Sometimes it is a deed which shakes a whole traditional plausibility structure. They mutually reinforce and interpret one another. The words explain the deeds, and the deeds validate the words. Not that every deed must have a word attached to it, but that the total life of the community whose members have different gifts and are involved in the secular life of the society in which they share, will provide these occasions of challenge. But no one will know exactly when and where and how this happens. It is always a work of the Holy Spirit. It is always mysterious. The ways by which the truth of the gospel comes home to the heart and conscience of this or that person are always mysterious. They cannot be programmes and they cannot be calculated. But where a community is living in alert faithfulness, they happen.â€
Is this Emerging Church or Power Evangelism? To some extent we are looking at the same thing from different perspectives.
Jon
Comment by graham
10.00 am on 28 Sep 2005
Jason, I only just got to read this – and I think it’s great. The length is spot-on Personally, I’m not sure it warranted a response as it was hardly a serious article.
I have no problem with people criticising the emerging church, but this amounted to little more than name-calling and assertion lacking argument.
I was also troubled by what seems like a fairly shallow understanding of the work of the Spirit (as in, it does not go far enough).
Comment by Scott
6.39 pm on 28 Sep 2005
Chris,
I am writing in response to your article in Christianity. I am so very sad. It seems as if you need to vent, more than you are interested in dialoguing and conversing in a constructive and teachable way (of course, I could be wrong… and hope I am).
I am sad because you have taken many things from Brian and other authors out of context (particularly The Church on the Other Side page 31 referred to in your article).
I am sad, as you speak from a position as one who has had personal conversations from these authors, been to hear them speak, been in healthy teachable dialogue with others in the “emergent†stream, and been to Emergent conferences. By the way, have you?
You seem to make some rather judgmental/conclusive remarks about these authors from a place of “knowledgeable†authority. My few conversations with Brian, having attended his church, reading all his books, attending Emergent conferences where he has spoken, and being a long time student of the Emergent movement, I have found many of your statements to be untrue and unfounded. I am very sad. I am sad as some people out there might be influenced by these unsubstantiated statements.
I am sad as I am one within the charismatic movement who loves the presence and power of God, the many “manifestations of the Holy Spirit,†and who is also in conversation with others within the emergent movement. According to your article and other public events you have spoken about this subject, there are not people like me and many of my friends out there. And what is very sad, you have spoken about Brian, Leonard, and Chuck, other Christ-following brothers, as if they are against, contrary to the manifestations, presence of God, His Holy Spirit. My heart hurts. I hope they are used to apparent unlearned statements from people and can dismiss them. But I am concerned for the many others who are reading articles like yours and taking these statements as “gospelâ€.
I am very sad. It seems as if (I could be wrong) you are responding in fear to the Emergent movement, with an emotive response, an axe to grind. I would encourage you to enter into dialogue with people within the Emergent movement, with a teachable and humble heart, and you might find something a bit different than you described in your article. I am a card carrying charismatic, in the same stream as you, and also in conversation and friendship with people in the Emergent movement… and with people who don’t think like me too. I had a great model for this. It was a short fat Santa Claus looking man who taught me to love the body of Christ – and even people who think different than me, and to certainly not exclude and judge people. This was one of the primary reasons why Jesus came… to confront a system of exclusion. This short fat Santa Claus looking man also brought people into our movement to speak and challenge our way of thinking. I hope we can model too this form of humility and teachability.
By the way, the emergent church conversation is a move away from the modern church’s pre-occupation with giving mental assent to a set of beliefs – the reducing of Christianity to just pray a prayer to go to haven when we die. So, the article appears to be wrong. The emergent church is not interesting in leading people to a mental assent Christianity. Most of the books and authors you mentioned talk about this rather clearly. Have you read those books you referenced in your article? I assume so, but just curious as the article seems to be describing people and books completely different than the people I know and the books I have read with the same names and titles.
I am sad, but I have hope! I don’t have to defend. But I have given into the temptation to defend a bit. Sorry. That short fat Santa Claus guy did too, even though he didn’t want to. He was mistaken and misunderstood a lot also. Things don’t change.
Chris, many blessings on your journey. I do hope you will consider some of these thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to read.
On a mission,
Scott
Comment by Andrew Wallis
11.09 am on 29 Sep 2005
All,
“…the article was inflammatory rather than something of substance that needs a response.”
The danger of saying things like this is that you end up putting yourself on an unassailable pedastal beyond criticism or correction…or as Scott, Matt and others have responded you present yourself as in a position of moral and spiritual superiority and both are equally dangerous, and maybe can I tentatively suggest you don’t want to hear some of the concerns expressed.
Maybe you need to spend time asking the question behind the article namely ‘why would someone write this Jason and do they have anything to say?’ Indeed they are a fellow Vineyard leader and they had been asked to write the article by the magazine so it wasn’t an unsolicitated rant, but something that the editor of the magazine wanted to increase debate on…
Anyway my thoughts before coffee…
Comment by jonny
11.25 am on 29 Sep 2005
well done for responding jason – good coming from someone who is a vineyard pastor too. i confess i groaned when i read the article but couldn’t face getting drawn in to an argument…
matt i loved your comment above (last para)
cheers
Comment by Scott
5.55 pm on 29 Sep 2005
Andrew:
I will certainly consider everything you have shared. It is not my heart or desire, nor anyone else in the Emergent movement that I am aware of, especially Jason and Brian, beyond being questioned, debated, or critiqued. Actually, healthy and fair critique, dialogue, and conversation is necessary and welcomed. But when the subject being critiqued is not understood or presented fairly, I am not sure how healthy critique can take place. Dialogue and conversation requires both sides also. Willing, teachable, and humble attempts to dialogue and converse together. A correct presentation of the subject is necessary also. I have not seen an elitest or moral and spiritual superiority displayed by Jason or Brian. I am sorry you feel that way. By the way, Andrew, I want to hear concerns expressed. But when judgments/conclusions are made that are unsubstantiated, I find myself sad and greatly concerned. And when references in books are taken totally out of context, I find myself sad and greatly concerned.
Kind regards,
Scott
Comment by steve
2.45 am on 1 Oct 2005
Jason,
for an example of how one emerging church is engaging with the Spirit, check out an article I wrote 2 years ago titled “Celebrating a postmodern pentecost.” at http://www.reality.org.nz/article.php?ID=184
Comment by Gary Manders
10.58 am on 1 Oct 2005
Jase
I think the shorter repsonse was the right way to go. Some of your other responses could be entered into directly with Chris. I do hope he attends the meeting at St Albans in November.
Comment by erickeck
9.45 pm on 4 Oct 2005
jase,
i just read that article and im so saddened and embarrassed that anything vineyard would publicly call out by name chuck jr, sweet and mclaren… and accuse them of anything other than trying to further the kingdom.
clearly the relationship the author of that article purports to have with them -(even if only through writings) is not tantamount to his understanding them.
i think the author needs to seriously take a look at the old vineyard article from back in the day. http://www.vineyardusa.org/upload/criticism.pdf particularly the “conclusion” portion…
ironically through the authors false allegations he is almost forcing these 3 men to respond in the very way JRW used to be forced into a response… what a waste of kingdom time.
how ironic that emergent is about experience, and experiencing the spirit in not only the ways the author hopes for, but many others.
i would have loved to see a more positive twist on that article after all what would vineyard poppa john richard wimber do (WWJRWD)? i betcha he would have said, as i heard him say so many times “i thank god for that leader and i bless what he/she is doing to further the kingdom”
andrew and jase, i need to also say how overwhelmed i am to see your comments here, i am profoundly blessed to see your support of each other in this, it is such a blessing to see your voices…
-missing you both from afar
Comment by Phil Smith
11.40 pm on 7 Oct 2005
Hurrah, hurrah!
Jason, just looked on your blog for the first time in a couple of weeks and read this post and i’m so glad you’re writing the letter. I too wrote to John Buckeridge saying how ignorant the whole thing was and he invited me to write but i never did… delighted someone is a bit more proactive than me!
Phil
Comment by Jason Clark
11.53 pm on 7 Oct 2005
Thanks Phil, glad you found it helpful.
Comment by jg
11.42 pm on 17 Oct 2005
You state that “The person Chris stereotypes bare no resemblance the Brian McLaren may of know through his writings, and speaking, and ministry. (sic)â€
This may be true, I’m not qualified to comment. But I can say that the “modern church†you stereotype and criticise bears no resemblance to the Church I know in all its diversity, despite all its faults and weaknesses.
For example, I do not agree that the modern church is pre occupied with “reducing to Christianity to just pray a prayer to go to heaven when we die.”
It is not one or the other. It is both. We need to be concerned about both the present AND the future. Paul summed it up well in Philippians 1:21 where he says “to live is Christ and to die is gain.”
There are serious and important points to be made. This is not achieved by making silly, ill founded criticisms which do not bear scrutiny.
Comment by RedBean
8.57 am on 25 Nov 2005
http://www.redbean.com
Comments are now closed.