The New Christians…
Adam blogs a review of Tony Jones’ The New Christians:
It exudes hope for the church; hope that comes through a process of deconstruction and reconstruction, but hope nonetheless. Tony talks about how emergent folk have a “hope-filled orientation toward the future,” and this book exemplifies that hope. After reading this book, one can’t simply accuse emergent Christians of “deconstructing everything to death.” Emergent Christianity, as Tony puts it, “is an effort by a particular people in a particular time and place to respond to the gospel as it (once again) breaks through the age-old crusts”
I was particularly struck by a few things in the post, but most especially I was stuck by something not in the post. As I read of mainline churches “getting into this whole ‘emergent’ thing”, I wondered what the implications might be. Mainliners are *heavily* invested in somethings that Emergents “downplay - or outright reject”. As in:
- Emergents believe that church should function more like an open-source network and less like a hierarchy or a bureaucracy.
- Emergents start new churches to save their own faith, not necessarily as an outreach strategy.
- Emergents firmly hold that God’s Spirit - not their own efforts - is responsible for good in the world. The human task is to cooperate with God in what God is already doing.
- Emergents downplay - or outright reject - the differences between clergy and laity.
Can you have a hierarchical clergy structure (Patr/Mtr/Abp/Bp/Pr/De/Sd/Rdr/lay or any combo of the above) if you have an “open-source network” in which you “reject differences between clergy and laity”?
Just wondering - as someone who was asked to help imagine an “emergent-style” Episcopal event… Where do you imagine difference goes when your service is designed to legitimate that difference?
Fr. Ernesto says:
I fear that an Emergent-style event in a mainline church would be like an old Greek mask over the reality. To go back to another generation, guitar Masses in the 1960’s were all too often that same type of attempt.
Mind you, I am Latino. I have NOTHING against guitars in the Mass. I am speaking of the attempt to merge “with-it” and Mass. I am not speaking about instruments in the Mass.
Emergent, by definition, is a challenge to current structural ways of relating. There is a desire to replace current structures by alternate structures (open source vs hierarchical). So, would this be something like Bill Gates putting a Linux interface on top of Windows?
11 March 2008 - 5 אדר ב' 5768 at 3:14 pm
Huw says:
You make my point very well: I *love* the experimental liturgy of a certain place in SF. I *equally* love the emergent folks… but I don’t think they would go well together. Now, my ideas about how to mix the “Didache” liturgy in an emergent context are, I think, valid. But There’s really no way to pull a BCP Rt 2 Emergent…
I think the result is the horridly “with it” experience called the U2charist which is even being pushed by some “Anglimergent” folks. One rolls ones eyes, realising that U2 is for GenX (40 somethings) the same as the Beetles were for Boomers - and no, I don’t know anyone under the age of 30 who even listens to the stuff (forgive my anecdotal evidence).
Correction: Not Beetles. GODSPELL!
Second Update look at this discussion between Anglicans… which kinda validates all the things we’ve hit on.
11 March 2008 - 5 אדר ב' 5768 at 4:00 pm
Mike Morrell says:
Great post, and great questions. I’d say two things:
1.) Many–nay–most emergents don’t ‘outright reject’ the distinction between clergy and laity; it’s upheld, believe me. Now don’t get me wrong, emergent pastors are some of the best and nicest people you’ll ever meet–I say this sincerely. They’re my friends. But they ‘reimagine’ far more theology than church practice. Of course, I’m biased–I’ve been part of an intentional house church community (one or another) for the past ten years. We’re quite egalitarian–more ’starfish’ than ’spider’ for sure. Of course, our downside is we reimagine church structure but don’t challenge too much theology. It’s too bad.
but
2.) I really respect the Episcopal church. I love Church of the Apostles and Br. Karekin and Sara Miles…I think you guys have tons of potential. But I wonder if you couldn’t maybe tweak your core substructures, make them more starfish-like? Y’know, ecclesiology must change or die? Make liturgy once more ‘the work of the people’? I dunno, probably too late at night (on the East Coast) to be thinking such thoughts…I’ll close by saying that I just started reading Wm Countryman’s Living on the Border of the Holy: Renewing the Priesthood of All. Looks promising. I hope to find a place where house church and liturgical kiss.
21 March 2008 - 15 אדר ב' 5768 at 12:20 am
Mike Morrell says:
Oops! The Church of the Apostles I’m referring to is the Episcopal/ECLA/Emergent hybrid coordinated by ‘urban abbess’ Karen Ward of Anglimergent.
21 March 2008 - 15 אדר ב' 5768 at 12:23 am