Question:
I've been immersing myself heavily into just the beginnings of the emergent "conversation" (we can't call it a movement yet), and I'm increasingly encouraged and excited about what I've read, heard and seen so far. On one emergent website, there is a letter written to worship leaders from what many see as the leader of the emergent village - Brian McClaren. His words completely resonated within my mind and soul and have put to words things that I've been thinking about, struggling with and chewing on for the last several months, and wanted to see what you thought.
Here's the link:
http://www.emergentvillage.com/index...ID=419&EXPAND=
Answer:
A few years ago while in college I attended an Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship conference in the DC/MD/VA area where Pastor McLaren was the main speaker, and met him. I happen to agree with him with most of what he said in that letter, and agree with the spirit of his letter as a whole. I do agree that there is a need for fresh lyrics in the church that transcend our personal intimacy with God, and even seek to describe his fathomless and infinite sovereignty (please don't take that as a Calvinist remark because I'm not one.) I just think that we as the Body of Christ need fresh music that reveals God to us in a new way. I am always touched by a songwriter who writes a song that expresses God differently than what I have heard before. I think Matt Redman has done this with some of his newer songs, as has Chris Tomlin, as has Todd Agnew on his new album due out next year (I've heard 2 songs from the album). On the other hand, I also think we need to applaud as the Body of Christ organizations like Christ for the Nations which have become a hot-bed for new songs of intimacy and praise. Klaus Kuehn is a worship leader who is not only anointed as a psalmist to write new songs for the Body of Christ, but also to draw us corporately to a new level of intimacy that transcends "Jesus and me," to a level where we freely and extravagantly offer God an outpouring of our lives in gratefulness for what He has done for us. We need new songs that express that, and songwriters to write those songs. It is good to sing the current songs out there. I am not as cynical as some who think that most of what is out there on Christian radio, or in the stores in the "Praise and Worship" music section is NOT what God is speaking to the Church. Some of it is what God is speaking to the Church, and admittedly some of it is not. I just don't think there should be a categorical, per se rule on that issue one way or the other. I am thankful for the heritage, old and new, of songs in the Church. I am thankful for great hymns such as "Praise to the Lord the Almighty," "How Great Thou Art" and "Amazing Grace." I am equally grateful for new songs that have been recently introudced to the Church such as "Blessed Be Your Name," "God is Great," "You, You Are God," and others. However, I do look forward to new music we have not heard yet that transcends the recent and the old and takes us as a Church, corporately and locally to a place in the Lord we have not been to yet. Those are my thoughts- Jonathan
Answer:
Let me make this specific: Too many of our lyrics are embarrassingly personalistic, about Jesus and me. Personal intimacy with God is such a wonderful step above a cold, abstract, wooden recitation of dogma. But it isn’t the whole story. In fact – this might shock you – it isn’t, in the emerging new postmodern world, necessarily the main point of the story. A popular worship song I’ve heard in many venues in the last few years (and which we sing at Cedar Ridge, where I pastor) says that worship is “all about You, Jesus,” but apart from that line, it really feels like worship, and Christianity in general, has become “all about me, me, me.” And
For inspiration, we have to again go back to Scripture, and read the prophets, and the gospels, and engage their heart for the poor, the needy, the broken. Shouldn’t these themes be expressed in song? Don’t they deserve that dignity? As I write, I am struck by this thought: perhaps we have so over-emphasized the role of songs in worship – to the exclusion of many other liturgical options (poetry, historic prayers, silence, meditative reading, etc.) -- that we have forgotten the role of song in teaching. Remember Colossians 3,where Paul talks about singing the teachings of Christ to one another in songs of the spirit? I remember reading this the first time in Worship Leader Magazine (note: If you or your church does not have a subscription, you need to get one). I found his commments on song content dead on, but felt less so about his comments on style.
Answer:
I'm not really responding to the article (which I liked), but what is emergent? I looked at the website and it offered few clear answers. I go that it's some kind of community, but ....what....is it? Like an online community, or what?
Answer:
i'd like a few more answers too.
anybody know anything else about it?
Answer:
As I've heard it used, the "emerging/emergent church" generally refers to current trends in the younger generation of the church. They are emerging as the church of tomorrow, if you will.
Answer:
that's what i would have thought. but parkway referred to the "emergent village". is there more to what you're talking about than just "the young emerging church" (young people)?
Answer:
The "emergent village" is a website that targets towards a pseudo-movement in the church called "Emerging churches" (i.e. Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and other post-modern-seeker-sensitive churches." There is a book out there called "The Emergent Church" and another one by the same author called "Emergent Worship." Basically, my opinion on all of this is that this is all post-modernized Willow Creekian thinking, that's all. Hope that clarifies things- Jonathan
Answer:
Originally Posted by Jbkrems Basically, my opinion on all of this is that this is all post-modernized Willow Creekian thinking, that's all.
Actually, I see it as a backlash against a Willow Creek "seeker-sensitive" mega-church mindset, where people come to get their needs met and that's all they think about.
As McClaren has illustrated it, he draws three circles to represent the church of today - the biggest circle is the "self" circle, because most people go to church because of what's in it for them. Then a smaller circle next to it represents the church, because once people get their needs met, then maybe they'll do something for the church, i.e. serve in the nursery or something. And then an even smaller circle next to both represents the world, which means that if we have time after meeting our own needs and perhaps helping out the church, maybe we'll have time left to do something about the world.
The emergent church is about reversing the circles - starting out with the big circle being the world - what is God doing in the world - and seeking to join God in what he's doing first, then the church, then our self is the small circle, because once we join God and become a missional Christian, then we will no longer be self-seeking because we will discover true self-worth, true calling, true life.
It's about having a missional, community mindset.
I will elaborate later.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Jay Tea As I've heard it used, the "emerging/emergent church" generally refers to current trends in the younger generation of the church. They are emerging as the church of tomorrow, if you will.
It's probably because Youth Specialties is heavily involved in the emergent mindset that is starting up. They even have a conference, maybe two.
Answer:
The important thing about the emergent movement is that it is based heavily in theology, not just an emotional backlash against the denominational church (i.e. the Jesus movement of the '70's.)
The idea comes from Newbegin (I think that's his name), who makes the claim that the biblical viewpoint of election has gotten skewed over the years, and refers not to individual salvation, (what God has done for me), but to being called to join God in His work (what I can do for him).
I happen to agree with him, looking at Romans 9-11 and other passages (not to get into a theology debate, however.)
Answer:
I checked out their website for a few minutes. Didn't really get to look at much, but what I did see was enlightening, and you've helped to clear it up some more. To be honest, the stuff on the website kind of freaked me out a little. Almost seemed cultish. lol. But I know the difference of that (or I hope I do) .
It sounds like a cause worth working for. I agree with the theology I've heard about it so far, and I plan on looking into it further. What I like is that it doesn't seem like it's completely set in the idea of where it's going yet. For example, they call it the emergent "conversation", and talk about it like it's an idea that is still developing and still being revealed.
It's very practical, in a sense that we were created for God, not vice versa. Sure he's done a lot of things for us, but that's because he loves us, and he wants to keep us around. "Living for him" should mean that HE is the main focus of our lives, and sacrificing for him should be done without considering what we will get in return (although it is human nature to do so). God never created us to live for us. He created us to live for him. Also, as Christians, another function that should be higher than serving self is serving and reaching others for Christ; spreading the gospel. This seems like obvious theology, and it sounds like what I've heard all my life. But obviously, this theology isn't fully taking root in very many churches. Many Christians are living for self, while outreach and God hold second places.
This is the simple theology I've gotten from it so far, and I plan on looking further into it.
Answer:
I don't think Willow Creek is that self-centered. Instead, I think it is God-centered, but wholly watered-down Christianity. What I meant is that the Emergent "movement" is basically from my perspective seeker-sensitive for the post-modern generation (the generation following my generation, Generation X). I would also disagree with McLaren on his circle diagram. I would join as one the 2 circles representing serving in the church and joining God in what he is doing. I think that by serving in the church, one is joining in what God is doing in the world, because the church is part of the world, and brings God's Kingdom into the world. As to election, I think it refers to both individual salvation and being called to join God in His work.
Jonathan
Answer:
Originally Posted by Jbkrems I would also disagree with McLaren on his circle diagram. I would join as one the 2 circles representing serving in the church and joining God in what he is doing. I think that by serving in the church, one is joining in what God is doing in the world, because the church is part of the world, and brings God's Kingdom into the world. This is the way things should be. Unfortunatlely, there are a lot of Christians, and indeed a lot of churches out there that serve themselves spiritually. I'm not sure where I read this (might have been in the letter or on the website), but when the church's purpose becomes serving itself, it's spiritual greed. Many Christians work far too hard to serve the church itself, and fail to reach out to the world. We aren't called to isolate ourselves from the lost. We are called to be different from them, show them Christ's love, and to reach out to them.
As an example, worship leaders who lead worship in the church are serving the church. Unless non-christians come to church services, those worship leaders are not reaching out to the world. They are serving the church alone. I'm not condemning this or belittling it. I believe church service is vital. However, when it comes at the expense of outreach, there is something missing. As far as I can tell so far, this is the developing theology of the emergent conversation; to serve the world and to reach out to the lost, THEN to serve the church. Serving the church is a priority, but it isn't above outreach. Outreach above inreach.
This is just a small part of the conversation that's emerging, and I could be wrong even about this. Let me know if I am. I'm still trying to get a grasp on it.
Answer:
A few more thoughts....
I agree that a lot of churches are inward-focused and self-serving. That's sad. We are implementing a lot of new infrastructure to become more outreach-oriented.
However, I do think that if you are a worship leader, or on the worship team, that you are serving both the church and in the world. That is because worship leading has an element of encouraging and equipping the local congregation to reach out to those in need and to be outreach-oriented. It is an indirect way of serving in the world, but I still think worship leaders are in a "both/and" situation as regards to that.
Now, should outreach be above inreach? Absolutely not. They are equally important, not one having a priority over the other. I think if we do not get equipped first, we cannot have an outreach focus. To me, inreach (discipleship) and outreach are two sides of the same coin, and they should go hand in hand, together.
Jonathan