Poll: Do you consider yourself to be part of the emergent church?

[Bob Hunter]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

[Billy Cox]

Well, the encouraging thing about the self-ID of emergence is that the participants are probably not out stealing hubcaps.

Plus the fact that the hubcap business isn't the racket that it used to be.

[Billy Cox]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

I have been surprised at some of the people in this thread who typically talk and think like postmoderns, but who tersely say they are not emergent. I suppose that for the time being, postmoderns are vastly more employable if they speak modernism as though it was their first language.

I also am intrigued by the impatience with coming to a consensus on a working definition of 'emergent'. Without a shared definition, we are left with caricatures - such as the one that sees emergents as so-called christians who drink alcohol, use foul language, distrust evangelical authority, and ask irreverent questions.

[John Kennedy]

Would emergents ever be able to agree on a working definition?
Would there be any advantage for them in doing so?

Who is most advantaged by lack of such an agreed working definition - the pros or the antis?

[Hans Deventer]

There is a sense in which we must join the emergence, however that is defined and whatever that might mean for us, or get left behind. I fear that large segments of the CotN will get left behind. This may take 20 years to shake out, but we'll see who's still standing in 10 years, 20 or so.

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

The key, as it was from the beginning of the CotN, is unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all. The only thing is that nowadays, we must define those essentials for two reasons:

1. The church is developing in very different ways. We need to be clear on what unites us and must keep uniting us and where the limits are.
2. We need protection from false accusations of "heresy".

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Hi Scott, I think we need to define emergent.

One of my goals in this thread is to let self-identified emergents define for us why they think of themselves as emerget. I can promise you from past experience that if I started a thread "this is an emerget, does it describe you?" that the entire thread would be about my definition.

[Marsha Lynn]

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

Personally, I have a problem with the 50s-style model being submitted as a viable option for today. As a librarian in a small town one task that often presents itself is that of resisting pressure to turn the library into a museum. Ah, the good old days when the librarian shushed children and opened doors into the world of reading, when the building was full of BOOKS instead of overrun with computers and videos. Why don't we keep the old card catalog, do things the old comfortable ways, and let some other institution provide computers and internet access? If some libraries don't want to change with the times can't we be tolerant and allow them to preserve the glory days of books?

Museums are good, but communities need libraries as well as museums. And, the truth is, today's library needs to provide its community more than books. The library never was about books. It was about introducing local residents to a world beyond themselves. As one library motto says, "Books are only the beginning." It takes computers and internet access to do today what was done with books in the 50s. Many reference works from the past aren't even in print today. For example, I have kept the last bound edition of the Indiana State Law on the reference shelves but it is now dated enough that even the most technophobic library patrons are going to appreciate someone bringing up the latest version on a computer and being able to quickly search out the exact statute they need to see. A library without computers would have no access to the latest changes in the law. (In fact, writing this makes me realize that the time has come to finally give up that last print edition from 1992.) We still offer books but have different criteria for selecting them and supplement them greatly through resource-sharing with other libraries. Those who want to use the library for books can still do so, but they will need to adapt to a computer-based "card catalog" if they want to do their own searches,

It's not a perfect analogy by far, but at some level there is a need to insist that churches resist the pressure to become museums. Can we afford to put the eternal God in a box that spans so short a time as the era of American revivalism? We need to incorporate ancient forms of worship into what we do today, but we also need to be cutting-edge worshipers as a service to the people around us who have to live and worship in the here-and-now.

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

Marsha

[Bob Hunter]

I would not want the whole church to become emergent. I would rather see that we define our essentials and let each pastor and congregation look for the best ways to reach their community, within those essentials. If in some corner, a 50's style church service does it, great! If somewhere else, it's going to be a "ancient future" style, fine. If still somewhere else it's Southern Gospel or mainstream evangelical, great!

The key, as it was from the beginning of the CotN, is unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all. The only thing is that nowadays, we must define those essentials for two reasons:

1. The church is developing in very different ways. We need to be clear on what unites us and must keep uniting us and where the limits are.
2. We need protection from false accusations of "heresy".

Hans, I think we are basically saying the same thing, hence the reason why I am careful to say "however that is defined and whatever that might mean." I have a Pastor friend in Tennessee that pastors very differently because of his particular culture. What is considered emerging in rural TN is going to look quite different than what I might consider it to be here in Oregon. I think we have to determine what it means to do ministry in our given context and start there. But we have little choice when it comes to being emergent. The train has left the station my friends, post modernism is here to stay. Putting our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

[Hans Deventer]

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Those who have claimed here that we are all part of the emergent/emerging church make a good point. We can't stand still in time without becoming a museum -- an interesting place to visit and gawk, but with nothing except the lessons of history to offer to today's world. We must move into the future together.

I like your library/church analogy. Being married to a librarian, I've heard the pros and cons of the subject.

I also agree that to some extent we're all a part of the church that is emerging. In fact, I think that growth, innovation, re-examination have always been part of Christianity with one flavor of the Church at times surging forward while another flavor lags behind.

The wild card is, apparently, a culture sea change that is, reportedly, major and accelerating. A certain amount of stress is introduced as the Church absorbs this change, allows itself to be influenced by it, and at the same time keeps checking to be sure its anchors are still in place that its not just being swept away into being something other than "Christian" by the cultural tide.

It's a challenging moment. The church, in general I think, senses that it needs to respond to a big cultural change. However, at the same time, it knows that there are some absolutes that (culturally acceptable or not) it must not abandon. It knows that how the Gospel is put in play must be reconsidered and that how its doctrines are stated needs to be reworded. It realizes that mainly it's the youth of the church who best understand these things but it also knows that youth sometimes goes too far and might just give away too much.

Because of these things I tend to feel hopeful but cautious as I deal with some who are on the front lines of the church-that-is-emerging.

[Marsha Lynn]

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

I was reading an article recently about how the Amish population in the US is growing and expanding into new areas. Almost 100% of that growth is biological. Converts are extremely rare. Any church resisting change that strongly will need to either drop the label "evangelical" (or "missional") or accept year after year of failure to live up to that label.

Unlike the Amish, we in the Church of the Nazarene do not have a good record of retaining our offspring in the church. There are multiple culture-based reasons for that. However, what it means in this discussion is a local church must change with the culture or die. We can't depend on the biological growth the Amish are experiencing.

At some level I agree with you that if a church insists on dying, we should allow it to happen. On the other hand, are we also letting go of our corporate influence on the community where that congregation meets? Do we have any obligation to maintain a sustainable presence in that place for the sake of the lost and dying there?

I'm reluctant to grant approval to those around me who are committing suicide regardless of how slow a process they choose. When their death means a significant loss of life-saving capability in their community, it bothers me even more. However, my main response is to learn from what is happening to them and work on avoiding the same path in my own community where I might have hope of making a difference.

In the library world, the state has stepped in to make sure libraries keep up with the times for the sake of the community residents where those libraries reside. We don't have an equivalent level of authority in the Church of the Nazarene. But it still bothers me to see someone offer "no change" as an acceptable option for a church, to see the life-endangering choices of a congregation needed by its community as simply an alternate lifestyle of no concern to the rest of us.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

I'm reluctant to grant approval to those around me who are committing suicide regardless of how slow a process they choose.

I think we're coming from different directions. You see old style worship as a slow death. Could be, but it might also be they serve a community that simply likes to worship that way.

The Amish should at least be respected for their non-violence. At least in that respect, there is life there.

Anyway, the point is moot, for whether you are reluctant to grant permission, and I am happy to do so, reality is that nobody will ask our permission and chances are, we're not going to change people who have their mind set in a certain direction.

In fact, it seems that even God Himself rarely does so. Pauls conversions happen, but are rare. Usually He will let us have our way. He simply starts anew with the people who are willing to listen. Until they themselves start to care more about tradition than the Word of God.

[Marsha Lynn]

I think we're coming from different directions. You see old style worship as a slow death. Could be, but it might also be they serve a community that simply likes to worship that way.

Theoretically, yes, as long as the community is made up of old-fashioned evangelicals who don't care about reaching anyone not already part of the church subculture. Are you aware of any churches that fit that description? I'm not sure such a church exists. I have been in an old-fashioned church with a 50s air, but I certainly didn't find much contentment or potential for long-term survival there! Rather, there was much frustration concerning our inability to make disciples who would appreciate and help preserve our old-fashioned ways.

Anyway, the point is moot, for whether you are reluctant to grant permission, and I am happy to do so, reality is that nobody will ask our permission and chances are, we're not going to change people who have their mind set in a certain direction.

Where's that laughing smilie? Since when is this a criteria for discussing something on NazNet? Have you been over to the current events board lately? I'm pretty sure that world leaders don't really care about our opinion on what's happening in the world either, but it certainly doesn't keep people from beating subjects to death!



Marsha

[David Pettigrew]

I consider myself part of the Church, at least on most days. I consider the church emerging, though some are being dragged along kicking and screaming. Therefore, we are all part of the emergent church. There's only one church and there's only one Jesus.

[Billy Cox]

I don't know. If some folks would like to become like the Amish, am I the one to say that they cannot? I simply don't want to prescribe HOW people should worship God.

I don't think of emergent in terms of style, but rather as an open-ended conversation in missiology and spiritual identity.

Maybe emergent is an urban thing and rural/small town churches are a shelter for people fleeing those changes.

[Bob Hunter]

I don't think of emergent in terms of style, but rather as an open-ended conversation in missiology and spiritual identity.

Maybe emergent is an urban thing and rural/small town churches are a shelter for people fleeing those changes.

A sure sign of Christianity emerging and adapting to post modern culture is growing diversity. The Church of Nazarene in some respects functioned as a monolith as many denominations did decades ago. We had a hymnal that set the stage for worship, denominational wide Sunday School programs, Missions events, etc. We basically applied the same formula everywhere. Now it seems we have quite a diversity within many of our Churches and hopefully that reflects what society is becoming. For example, there are some Nazarene Churches that are borderline charismatic, others that are presbyterian like, some that Southern Baptist, or maybe even Amish (just kidding), Liturgical, Seeker sensitive, etc. And I don't know if you have heard or not, but we even have reformed Nazarenes. All kidding aside, I think diverse expressions of what it means to be Nazarene are healthy for our denomination. Maybe we are more emergent than we care to admit. Or maybe I'm confused. I just know that society has drastically changed, my community is quite colorful and culturally diverse.

[Billy Cox]

I consider myself part of the Church, at least on most days. I consider the church emerging, though some are being dragged along kicking and screaming. Therefore, we are all part of the emergent church. There's only one church and there's only one Jesus.

In my experience, it's not so much about dragging people kicking and screaming as much as a gradual acquiescence as people realize that most of the reasons to be afraid were totally unfounded.