With all the brouhaha lately regarding the Emerging Church Movement, I’ve recently begun to take a more serious look at what the ECM leaders are actually saying, by both reading source materials… ah, from their source (ahem – what a concept), and by reading secondary materials (by that, I mean works from those within the movement looking at themselves and describing what they see — getting their “take” on what they are). That means for me, primarily, doin’ the bloggin’ thang…
To be honest, the more I read and hear from ECM-types, the less concerned I’m becoming regarding Emerging practice (heck, we were Emerging before Emerging emerged, if all you’re looking at is a fluidity of style and not exalting a certain cultural context as being “Christian”). Of course, the more I read and hear from ECM-types, the more deeply concerned I am about Emerging doctrine… well, mostly more of the implications of Emerging doctrine… but that’s the subject of another several thousand posts, so I won’t dive into that one just yet.
…all that aside; in reading through a blog by an SBC pastor who is into the whole Emerging thing, and reading about what was said at a recent conference in Seattle, I ran across this quote that he… ah… quotes… and I thought it was actually quite profound and worthy of remembering:
Preaching against culture is like preaching against somebody’s house. It’s just where they live.
Why is this such a smashingly good quote? Because it’s another way of saying, “you can’t expect unbelievers to act like believers. They don’t know any better; they don’t need to reform, they need to be reborn. They don’t need to ‘clean up their respective acts,’ they need to come to Jesus.” Besides, you can barely expect believers to act like believers nowadays…
Anyway, good thought-provoking quote.
November 26, 2006 at 2:17 am
thanks for the quote – excellent. And thanks for your honesty regarding the subject
Can I recommend a book: Becoming conversant with the Emerging Church – a really well balanced book and well worth the read.
January 18, 2007 at 10:26 am
I read that book. It was okay. However, the more I look at EC material and read EC bloggers.. the more I’m realizing that the whole movement is somewhat undefineable. It’s confusing. I posted on this topic the other day and noted that you could get more information out of a zen buddhist on acid. It appears to me, that this movement transcends beyond denominational and doctrinal lines, thus becoming undefinable by way of doctrine.
Here’s what I know, from reading the EC blogs..
EC guys like to write and self publish books.
EC guys like to go to EC conferences.
EC guys like Mutemath.. (I like Mutemath too.. but not EC)
January 18, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I agree; the ECM tends to be very fluid on everything that counts – and whenever those of us on the outside point that out, they cry “foul!” and say “nuh-uh! nuh-uh! We’ve defined ourselves! We have, we have!” …so then when we proceed to comment on their (current) self-definitions, they cry “foul!” and say something along the lines of…
“You’re broad-brushing!”
“That’s only one guy!”
“You misunderstand!”
“Instead of throwing rocks, you should be in dialog!”
“Why is everybody always pickin’ on me…???”
…or some variation thereof.
Very tiring, and it becomes really old really quick.
I again state: I don’t think the ECM has any real staying power. It’s come, it’s currently blowing around a bit stirring things up (admittedly, some things that SHOULD be stirred up), but will inevitably blow back out again.
The Word remains.
January 26, 2007 at 11:19 am
Mike!
I cannot tell you who I am, but it sure is great to see you around! I will be reading!
January 26, 2007 at 11:40 am
Oh, come on, Brian MacLaren… I know it’s you…
;D