Tribal Church

So the Wall Street Journal has proclaimed that Emerging Church has fizzled out. Brett McCracken has declared it a hipster trend and we’re moving on, because the hipsters were never about Jesus.

I don’t really want to talk about whether it’s dead or not. I don’t know. I know a lot of intelligent people who are still involved, and I think that it will have a huge impact on American religion for many years to come. My sense is that what died was “emerging” as an evangelical re-branding effort. The evangelical movement could not control the Gen Xers, so they will declare them dead. But the people who were writing interesting things are still writing. Those reeling from the after-effects of evangelicalism have not gone away. People who struggle to respond faithfully to postmodernism have not gone away. Whatever is happening, it’s clear that a transition is occurring and there are things that we can learn right now.

I say “we” with discomfort. I have felt shut out of the “Emergent” movement. I am a pastor in a historic, intergenerational congregation with traditional liturgy. A few years ago, when I asked an Emergent writer and leader if there was room for me, if the conversation could be about both/and (both innovation and tradition), he told me clearly and emphatically, “No.” Denominations were going to die at any moment, and I was holding onto a lumbering dinosaur. I was not part of a denominational church so that I could live out the fullness of my calling in a community of faith, but in order to gain power for myself.

As someone who grew up in a church that systematically oppressed women, who was constantly told that my calling into ministry was a sin and the only reason I felt a longing to minister was because I could not accept my God-given role of submission, and I was all about power, the soundtrack sounded the same…even though the intent was different. I feared that people in the movement did not understand the difference between abusive power and spiritual empowerment. I bolted.

(And, yes, for anyone who doesn’t believe me, I’ll be happy to give anyone the name, place, date and precise time of the conversation. I will email it to you though. I won’t do it publicly. But, remember, if you keep questioning the validity of people who complain because your experience has been different, then you just might be contributing to the problem.)

Many people wonder why I often make a distinction that I am not a part of the capital “E” “Emergent” movement, even though I write about being faithful in the midst of postmodernism and cultural shifts. Not to mention the fact that I dearly love many who are in the heart of the movement. It’s because that was one of many conversations that I’ve had. In spite of this, I have found friends among the loyal radicals—those who are in the midst of denominations, understand the shifts in culture, and are working to respond faithfully to them.

The Emergent movement might be dead. Denominations might die. But God’s not dead. I guess the question is, what we can learn in all this? How can we retool? How can we keep being the hands and feet of Christ in the midst of the shifts and changes? What is God calling us to become? Here are a couple of things that I have learned from this larger conversation.

First, we need each other. We need the tradition and wisdom of the generations who have come before us. We need the Boomers and the Builders. And we need the church movements of the past. We need the wisdom that comes from church structures and we need the passion that breeds in the postevangelical movement. There is no way that we can shut out all evangelicals and all denominational Christians and expect that a movement will survive.

Second, we will need to be kind with each other when it comes to financial security. Often times, in our new church movements, we can heap shame on each other for not starting new churches, or guilt one another for not giving everything up and living with the poor. If a person receives a pension then she’s a sell-out. If he receives book royalties then he’s a sell-out. Shoot… if a person runs ads on her blog and gets a monthly check for $1.27, she’s a sell-out. If he blogs for Beliefnet, he’s a sell-out.

If we continue this sort of hardcore attitude, it may be difficult for us to sustain in the long run. Many of us have families. We have student loans and mortgage payments. We love Jesus, but our kids need backpacks to go back to school. Many of us hope that we will not be eating dog food when we retire. We will keep having difficulty planting churches and working for social justice if we don’t have some realization that sometimes we need money. Our ministries need money. That doesn’t make us greedy capitalists. That doesn’t make us all about power. It’s just reality.

Third (and I have been clumsy as I’ve talked about this in the past, but I still think there’s more to say), when people complain that they are being left out (women, LGBTs, different ethnicities), there has been an assumption in the Emergent movement that there is no power structure, so there is no way that people can be left out.

It’s important to understand when we have power. And it’s vital that we use it to empower others in their ministries. If we want a diverse conversation, we will need to make sure that it happens. There are many people who have been historically left out of church leadership. Some have been ill-treated blatantly or discreetly. As a result, they just don’t have sharp elbows. They will not push themselves up to the table and make a place with ease. Those of us who are people of privilege will need to understand this. We will need to keep making spaces and extending invitations.

18 Comments »

A commissioner to the General Assembly (our denomination’s national meeting that happens every two years), came back to report on what he did. He was a bit disappointed that he was on the church growth committee. The first day they sat down and talked about how if the church continues to decline at the same rate, then there will be no members left in forty years. The second day, they studied Matthew 25. The third day, they studied Matthew 25. They went on a couple of field trips, and they studied Matthew 25 some more.

The people hearing the report were shocked. That was it? I mean Matthew 25 is super, but… that’s it?

Perhaps there was more to it than that, and that’s just what the commissioner reported, but wow. Why not come up with a strategic plan for growth? I realize that there is no denominational master plan that we can follow. We tend to be much more grassroots. But we had the best and the brightest minds of our denomination gathered in one place, why not dream a bit about what we could do? We have a lot of money, a lot of property, and some of the most gifted pastors… what could we do? Here’s what I would love to see happen:

1) Become determined to keep our recent grads. If anyone has met anyone who has recently graduated from seminary, you will know that we have a glut of qualified candidates, and no place for them to go. Actually. Let me rephrase that. We have some of the most brilliant people in our church who are unemployed. I have seen the most incredibly gifted minds walking around, wanting to be ordained, and we have no place for them. Some of them are finding jobs as interns, or working in seminaries, or non-profits, but they can’t get ordained without a traditional call. Can we begin to open up our idea of what a validated ministry is? Can we make sure that we track these graduates? Could Presbyteries support them and encourage them while they look for positions? Can we offer internships and educational opportunities for them? (I know you guys need jobs, not more education, but untill then….) We’re going to need them soon, and we don’t want to lose them.

2) Quit giving incentives to ministers who are past retirement to stay employed. I’m not sure what other denominations are doing, but in the Presbyterian Church (USA), pastors get incentives to stay in their jobs beyond the age of 65. This is going to take action from the General Assembly to change. I’ve written on this before, and here’s a comment from a Pension representative to explain exactly what they’re doing. With grads not able to get jobs, this seems like a bad idea.

3) Help churches to die well. There are many things that we do, as pastors, when we stand beside the bed of someone who is dying, and there are many things that we don’t do. It’s the same with our churches. We don’t tell churches that they are failures because they are dying. We don’t shame them for not living a few years longer. We celebrate their lives. And with churches, we can help them to imagine how they can use their resources and assets to plant new churches.

4) Support people who want to plant churches. While going to Bible School, I was told there was one way to “make disciples” and that was to plant churches. In our denomination, only a couple of New Church Developments were started nationally in the last couple of years, but I know at least twelve people who would start a church tomorrow, if they could. Many of them have been approved by the denomination. They are raring to go, but there’s no place for them to go. They have been told to just plant the church, and then look for denominational support. But they have children. They need insurance. They need some support.

I’m a part of a group of pastors who are starting to fundraise for NCDs outside of the denominational systems. They are DOC, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Post-evangelicals.

There will be some NCD failures, just like a percentage of new businesses fail. We can plan for those. And we can let the pastors decide what makes sense in their context—a traditional church, an emerging church, a monastic community, a coffeehouse church, a nesting church, or whatever…. There are a million ways to do it now.

Generation X is an entrepreneurial, innovative generation. We start businesses. We create new technology. And we are itching to start new churches. (The DOC is doing a great job of this.) And the Millenials are a very large generation. Can we begin to imagine congregations that make sense in their context?

Will we support our innovators? Will we allow people to retire? Will we give dignity to churches who are dying? Can we have a better vision for the next forty years? What would you like to see happen?

22 Comments »

Season Two of God Complex Radio has begun, and Bruce Reyes-Chow had a wonderful conversation with Diana Butler-Bass. Join us as we talk about civility and graciousness.

No Comments »

At a conference I was helping to lead recently, a really nice and interesting person asked me, “Why are you a part of presbymergent? I read your blog, and I just don’t get the connection.” He was confused, because I am a pastor at a traditional, progressive, mainline congregation, and he sees the emerging movement as neo-Evangelical.

There are a lot of ways that I answer this question (it’s a questions I get a lot). The main one is that Karen Sloan asked me to be a part of it, and it would be pretty ridiculous of me to write about encouraging young leaders in the church, and then say that I would not be a part of a group of (mostly) young leaders in the church. Plus, other people started calling me “emerging.” It wasn’t really a namebadge that I picked out for myself.

Since the initial ask, though, I have grown very fond of this creative, eclectic, quirky community. We argue and pray together. We dream of what the church could be. We have a lot of warts–gigantic egos (mine included), evangelical baggage, and too many collars. We’re extremely weak on social justice, ethnic diversity, and the number of men far exceeds the number of women.

Some people have joined the conversation through the Emergent Village, and others are like me, we don’t resonate a whole lot with EV, we disagree with many things that the EV leadership has to say, but we’re still excited about what the church might become. We have three main goals for this year: (1) set up cohorts where conversations can take place and connections can be made, (2) set up spaces for events to take place and creative energy to be stimulated, and (3) encourage and raise funds for new churches (or communities).

After explaining all of this, my new friend responded, “So… if you change the name, I’d love to be a part of it.”

I am following these emerging conversations, which are pretty interesting. In the comments of the initial blog post, one of the responders says …

it’s like a group of kids who just got finished playing kickball for 7-8 years straight. and now a new group of kids from another school just showed up and want to play again and act like kickball is their idea and their game. and a bunch of media conglomerates show up and slap logos on the kickballs. and they bring in announcers. set up all of their bleachers and stuff on our home turf. and try and start a game of kickball with us.

it just seems laughable.

I did laugh pretty hard at the comment, but after I stopped giggling, I had to admit that this is the most annoying part of the emerging church movement. Or…can you call something a movement when they look with disdain on people who join? What’s that called? A stopment?

There is the hope for revolution, but then there’s a pernicious elitism that questions people who join the conversation later, or who might be a part of a denomination, or those who fall under that most amorphous and damning category–the people who “just don’t get it.”

How long can the hyphen-mergent hang in there, while we’re being constantly criticized for our loyalty to our denominations and our ordinations? How can a movement be a part of a 500-year reformation, when they look with disdain at those who join the conversation after ten?

So, will presbymergents change their name? Maybe. But it probably won’t occur because of the “-mergent” part. It would be to change the “presby-” part, since a couple of our important leaders have had to defect to other denominations because of the pernicious ordination hazing that can occur in certain areas of our country. (But, then if we changed the name, then we would have to change the logo, and that would be a serious headache.)

Either way would be okay, since I’m not sure that it’s about the name. It’s more about the interesting people and conversations that have arisen, and the relationships that have formed. We might not cause a revolution, we may not overturn the whole course of Christianity, but we’ll keep working in our own small corners, and we’ll keep dreaming about what could be.

23 Comments »

I’m holding in my hand a thick manuscript. One that needs a whole lot of editing and a summary chapter, but it’s in good enough shape that I feel like I can start blogging again.

Dave Eggers says that if you’re writing a book, an important thing to do is to print out the manuscript, hold the paper in your hand, feel the weight of it. Pay to have it bound, if it’s not going to a publisher.

It’s a good exercise. I don’t like to waste the trees, so I try to do as much electronically as I possibly can, but a couple times in the process, I print it out. I’ve learned to take care of the papers, too. Treat the words with respect. It’s easy for me to let them get lost in the shuffle of school notices and church minutes, let them get dog-eared and coffee-stained, but it’s a vital practice to act as if they’re important thoughts (even when in the midst of editing, I feel like they’ll never be fit for public consumption).

For those of you who write, I’ll update you a bit on the editing process. Because it’s excruciating some days, and wonderful the next day. Right now, it’s difficult, because it all seems out of order, parts of it are bloated, while other parts feel anemic. It kind of reminds me of when I was a kid, and I would find a smelly roadkill possum on some deserted road. In the Florida heat, some of the parts would swell, and others would be all flat….

So, I’m just concentrating on the volume, the quantity, the structure, and trying to feel good about it.

Thanks for your patience, while I concentrated more on it.

There have been some other wonderful developments in our lives around here in the last month, while I was away. I’ve been to the Presbymergent coordinating group gathering (Leslie Scanlon wrote an insightful article on it). I’ve also been with the Disciples in D.C., the Methodists in New Jersey, and the Presbyterians in Pennsylvania, as well as a Fund for Theological Education event at my Alma Mater in Texas.

The most exciting thing that happened was that Michelle Obama came to serve our guests at Miriam’s Kitchen, the breakfast and social service program that’s housed in our church. She wanted to highlight Miriam’s commitment to fresh food and their healthy menu. I was impressed by her warmth and generous spirit. She kept her secret service on their toes as she greeted the homeless men and women. 

Also, Bruce Reyes-Chow–our esteemed Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)–and I are starting an Internet Radio Show, which you can read about more here. We are incredibly thankful that Landon Whitsitt will be the Program Producer and Heather Scott will be the Tech Producer and Engineer. We’ll be discussing politics, faith, and culture, beginning on May 4 (well… we might talk about those things before May 4, but on May 4 is when we’re going on air). Andrew Sherman came up with the name “The God Complex,” and now we need to think of a tagline.

Any thoughts? The Twitter feedback has been fun:

• God Complex: 2 people with 3 names talking about 1 God with many names (Camille LeBron Powell)
• The God Complex: How We Live in this Earthly Rental Community (Fritz Gutwein)
• The God Complex: WIIFM Alternative Radio (What’s In It For Me) (Zach Sasser)
• God Complex: scrutting the inscrutable (Jim Bonewald)
• God Complex: conversation as complex and inscrutable as God (Jim Bonewald)
• God Complex: it is really not that difficult (Brian Merritt)
• God Complex: We’ve Figured it Out (Brian Merritt)
• God Complex: Easy Cures (Brian Merritt)
• The God Complex: If Years of Theologians didn’t confuse you, we’ll give it a shot (Mark Smith) 
• The God Complex: We Tried The God Simple and that didn’t work (Mark Smith)
• God Complex: you wouldn’t understand. (Brian Merritt)
• The God Complex: It’s Only A Neurosis if the majority think it is (Mark Smith)
•  The God Complex: No Longer a Gated Community (Mark Smith)
• The God Complex: Catch It! (Mark Smith)
• God Complex: Does This Divinity Make Me Look Fat? (Brian Merritt)

Visit Bruce’s blog and join the discussion, and I’ll make sure I post more information when we know it. 

It’s good to be back. Life wasn’t quite the same without y’all.

photo by objecthoag

7 Comments »

I’m banging my way through this book, ever concerned about the deadline that’s looming, close on the horizon. I’m writing about cultural shifts, and how they affect our spiritual communities in a new generation.

MaryAnn McKibben Dana, who is in my writing group and is helping me with the project a great deal, asked me, “It’s like emerging church for the mainline?”

“Hmmm… well… yes… sort of … I guess….”

I am, as many of you know, in a constant struggle with realizing that paramount shifts to postmodernism have occurred, knowing that I am postmodern, and accepting that people label me emerging. I am a part of presbymergent and have great hope for the creative energy that flows there, but not entirely comfortable with all things emerging. Yet, as Shawn Coons and Jim Bonewald have reminded me on occasion, there are different emerging church movements, not just one. That’s comforting.

One of the main things that I have difficulty with within the emerging church movements (even the denominational-mergents) is the quick assumption that those who are emerging from an evangelical tradition are somehow more in touch with culture than us—the stuffy, old, hierarchical mainliners.

We are far from perfect. We have important questions to ask ourselves, significant changes that will be made. And many of those questions are being asked in emerging church circles. 

If I’m honest, I’ll tell you that I’m not only emerging from the mainline church, but also from the evangelical church in which I grew up. I was educated in both. They both reside uncomfortably within me. With that perspective, the thought that evangelicalism is more in tune with postmodern culture than mainline denominations is really, really odd.

Evangelicalism is, on the surface, much more culturally flexible. Many evangelical congregations will change their worship style if they know that it will attract more members. They may not like it, but they’ll do it. Since the focus is outward, they easily alter their traditions to the surrounding culture. Their main goal is evangelizing, so they adapt to different advertising techniques, image makeovers, and technological advances. Evangelicals quickly grasp on to trends.

And, most importantly, they plant new churches. They have a deep sense that the best way to reach out to a “different people group” is to start a new congregation.

In comparison, when we talk about planting churches in Presbyterian circles, we instantly point out the failure rate, and argue that it’s a bad investment (as if closing churches, hoarding money, and turning away new leadership is a really great business plan…). Our cultural standards and advertising almost always favor the tastes and preferences of the elderly, and in an established church, any deviation is rare and difficult to pull off. There can be a sense that new generations need to develop an appreciation for our practices, while we have little patience for any adaptation of our traditions.

Yet, I have to say, beyond that surface level, when you scratch just a little bit, the mainline church makes a lot more sense than the evangelical tradition in a postmodern era. That’s why I converted and that’s why I stay.

We have embraced scientific thought, not expecting the newest discoveries to bow and bend to a six-day creation story. We have wrestled with biblical literalism, and taken postmodern insights in hermeneutics seriously. We have questioned theories of atonement for decades. We have upheld the inherent value and equality of women in our homes, workplaces, political arenas, and congregations. We have been engaging in social justice issues, caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, responding to disasters, and helping the homeless. We do not do these things only for Christians or as a manipulative evangelistic tool. But we have also been doing it in the public sphere, working for change in people’s lives, because we believe in the inherent dignity and worth of humans, of “the Other.”

Communities that are emerging from the evangelical tradition are beginning to wrestle with many of these things, but they have a lot of work ahead of them before they catch up with the mainlines.

Where does that leave us now?  We have a cadre of congregations that have been formed in the mold, tastes, and expectations of fifty years ago. Will we, the mainline church, be able to open ourselves up a bit, and welcome a culture of people who do not long for the 50s or even 60s? Will we be able to welcome the reforming of our sacred traditions in a new culture? Or, will we allow our fears to overwhelm us?

I guess what I’m asking is this: Will we allow our congregational cultures to be as vigorous and engaging as our great academic and theological traditions have been? Will we begin to wrestle with the important questions of planting churches? And will we allow our congregations to be reformed and always reforming?

the photo’s by Diana Pappas

15 Comments »

I recently read The Great Emergence. It is an important piece in the conversation and there’s a lot to talk about in it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s an easy read, and it’s friendly for lay people. Phyllis Tickle places the emerging church in the context of gritty history, and her writing style shines when she reminisces. The way that she details the women’s movement, for instance, is charming.

Tickle has a refreshing perspective, and much different than most Episcopalians that I’ve met. As an example, she highlights John Wimber and the Vineyard Church has an important moment in church history, while I’m often hard-pressed to find a mainliner who knows what that is.

At the heart of Tickle’s analysis, there is the question of power. And in particular, she points out the threat to sola scriptura. In the Reformation, “scripture alone” (along with the five other sola’s) became the source of authority as well as the passionate cry for so many who wanted to critique the Roman Catholic Church.

And now, in the midst of postmodern upheaval, with the evolution of literary criticism, we are beginning to realize how one cannot rely on the words of Scripture alone. There has to be someone reading, there has to be someone interpreting. And since we are all different, with a multiplicity of passions and histories, when we sit down with the Scriptures, we cannot divorce ourselves from the process.

We bring ourselves into it. We have on that page, not only the words, but also the context of the author. And the choices of the translators. Add to that, we have our own our educational background, our personal history, our historical context, our motivations. The page gets very crowded. And so, we realize that a plain reading is not possible. When there is a text, there is disagreement. And sola scriptura breaks down.

So, where is the power now?

It is in Scripture and in the community, the conversation, the network.

I appreciate the way that Tickle broadens the conversation, explaining the upheaval not only from the conservative corner of the church (which we most often hear about), but also pointing out what is happening with Social Justice Christians (Mainline denominations like PCUSA), Liturgicals (Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics), Renewalists (Charismatics, Pentacostals), and Conservatives (Evangelicals).

There are a couple of places that I have some disagreement, maybe in what was left out more than what was there. Although Tickle brought up the women’s movement and much of her conversation hinged on Diana Butler Bass’ important idea of sacred re-traditioning, I was hoping that she would write more about women.

All of the amazing and fresh work that is happening in theology, where women’s voices are being heard and taught. They have been earth shattering and courageous as they have take on texts of terror and demanded that their perspective be heard in our academies, with all of their particularities. What women have been doing in our pulpits for the past fifty years, surely that has shaken the foundations of Christendom. Feminist critiques, whether they be from Julia Kristeva or Rita Nakashima Brock, have had a highly significant impact on our faith in the midst of postmodernity.

Unfortunately, The Great Emergence does not reflect the great diversity of gender or ethnicities that are causing shifts in American religion. It is an account of players who are almost exclusively white males. This is not a new critique of the emerging church, and certainly not a new one from me. I was just hoping that Tickle would bring a much-needed corrective to the conversation.

There are other points of discussion that I could bring up. For instance, we could talk about technology, crowd-sourcing, and whether is it truly egalitarian (Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s convincing me otherwise).

There also seems to be a sense, from Tickle’s analysis of the gathering center, that there are pure emergents, and others who are more on the edges (she nods to the metaphor of rose petals).

I would tend to disagree with this. It seems to me that we are all emerging from something, but Tickle seems to be saying that those who are emerging from evangelicalism are somehow more central to what is happening in the whole Christianity.

Am I understanding this correctly? And if I am, if evangelical emergence is at the heart, then that could explain the movement’s propensity for glossing over important women’s voices.

I’ll close with a question. In the pages, Tickle says that the hyphen-mergents (presbymergents, Angli-mergents, Metho-mergents, Luther-mergents) will need to decide, “Which are we, and where do we belong?”

This aside is probably the one place where I disagree with Tickle the most. I am a postmodern Presbyterian. I may not fit into a chart very easily, I may not fit into my own denomination very easily. But I do not feel any pressure to make a decision one way or the other about who I am or where I belong.

So, what do you think?

6 Comments »

It’s fascinating to watch current church movements. This is such an exciting time.

And, as I look around, I wonder, what will become of the emerging church? Emerging church leaders are beginning to define themselves more and more, not necessarily by what they are, but by what they are not. And, it seems, that they are not denominational. Some of them see denominations as structures that hinder innovation, as stagnant relics of church gone by. Which, I understand and respect. I just don’t find myself in the same place.

I find myself in the same position as most of the women leaders in the movement–I am also a part of a denominational church. A church that saw my potential for the pastorate even before I noticed it myself.

I wonder what will happen in the movement. The emerging church gained a whole lot of momentum through anglimergents, presbymergents, emerginglutherans and emerging umc. We are people who aren’t ready to pack up and leave our denominations–even if we might be frustrated with them. Even if we know that they are not going to look the same in a few years.

Yet we are excited about how God is moving in a new generation through the reclaiming of spiritual practices, a hunger to do something about poverty and the environment. We are innovative and interested in new ways to organize and form conversations through technology. We are comfortable with the questions of faith, and we have humility about what we can know about God. And we see how power is shifting to the margins, how much our local churches matter.

But it makes curious…are we being kicked out of the emergent church movement? Is the movement becoming more and more exclusive? Or do we stay and continue to shrug off the attacks on our denominations? And, will the emergent movement be able to survive if they cut the denominational churches off?

I wonder what will become of people like me. People who have no problem stating clearly what they believe about LGBTQ inclusion or women in leadership. People who have no qualms about being socially progressive. People who have no hesitation with some “-isms” (like feminism–the stream where so much great postmodern philosophy and theology comes from). Church leaders who are thoroughly postmodern, love reading Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Michel Foucault, Luce Irigaray, and still see value in structures that empower the powerless and give voice to the voiceless. People who see the ability to of denominational structures to keep power in check. People who like democracy. Postmodern pastors who are still really happy about having a pension.

There are a lot of us out here. So where do you think all of this is going? Will there be a new movement of Christians who are disenfranchised by the disenfranchised?

21 Comments »

So, our General Assembly’s meeting this week in San Jose. My husband’s there, and I stayed home so that my daughter could live out her final days of being a first-grader. I’m in D.C., keeping track via the blogosphere, twitter updates, emails, and facebook status updates.

From what I can tell of the one-line testimonials, it’s been a fun GA, so far. Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected moderator. There’s a presbymergent booth and activities set up. A lot of people who have been talking a lot over the Internets are meeting each other face-to-face. As Shawn Coons twittered, “I met two of my imaginary friends so far.”

Most people who go to GA know what it’s about. We make statements as a denomination, and then we try to act on them, lobby for them, live them out. Sometimes we make big mistakes, and other times, great minds come out with some pretty amazing positions.

We’re doing what Christians have done since the first council of Nicea. Gathering to think about who we are, what we believe. Asking how we can best live out our faith in our current context. Praying and worshiping together. Asking for God’s guidance. It is often too political. It’s often frustrating. We are well aware that our statements have very little legislative muscle nationally. We often ask, “Why even bother?”

But I tell you, there is a warm and wonderful feeling when the assembly comes up with a masterpiece statement of social justice…. Words matter. And sometimes it’s important to say things, even when you know that nobody’s listening. I don’t expect anyone outside of our denomination to understand this. I’m just letting you know what it’s like.

Anyways, one of the main Presbymergent activities was the Church Basement Roadshow, a book promotion for Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette. The promo was located at a Presbyterian Church about a mile away from where the GA met, so the good folks at the Presbymergent booth publicized the books, passed out hundreds of flyers, blogged positively. They bought the books, recommended the books. They put Jones’ book on display. All-in-all, they worked tirelessly getting the word out for the event.

In response to the love, Tony Jones blogged about the GA, briefly, on beliefnet:

We’ll have lunch over here before we head down to San Jose for tonight’s show. I’m looking forward to seeing how many PC(USA) pastors show up from their nearby General Assembly debacle meeting.

Now. That’s…awkward.

I’m not sure how to respond. Is this the vestigial tail of evangelicalism? Evangelicals have spent a couple of decades putting down the mainlines, saying that we’re an irrelevant social club. But I thought we were getting beyond all that with the whole emergent movement.

I just gave it a good, old-fashioned eye rolling and moved on.

But then I went back. Perhaps it’s my sense of humor that has not evolved enough. But… you know… I do a lot of book signings. I know how much goes into them on both ends. After all the work the Presbyterians put into promoting Jones, hosting him, hyping his work… I don’t know… is it too much to ask for a little respect?

23 Comments »

 I will answer Adam’s great question shortly. I’m still stewing over it.

Until then… I’m writing a book about the shifts in culture and church that are occurring, trying to paint large brush strokes, describing what’s happening with new technologies and the fluidity of American religion. I’m committed to intergenerational denominational ministry, becoming a part of the emerging mainline conversation, and watching the formation of presbymergents. To me, this is one of the most exciting and interesting times to be a church leader. I’m on the edge of my seat. I can’t wait to see what happens.

Usually, when I talk to anyone over the age of sixty about this, they say, “None of this is new, Carol. All of this happened before, in the sixties. There were coffeehouse churches everywhere.”

And I nod. I’m not arrogant enough to think that we’re doing everything differently. There’s some truth to the analysis, for sure. Actually, that scared me away from the emerging church movement for a long time. I grew up in a laid-back beach town in Florida and became a member of a Calvary Chapel Church when I was in high school and college. It was such an awkward, dysfunctional place. All of our churches are to some degree, of course. But this one had a rock-and-roll preacher, who wore spiky hair way after it was respectable….

Let me back off a bit. I could mock, but I won’t. After all, I ache for the pastor now, as I think about him. I recall him as someone who was desperately lonely. I know that now. I remember an entertainer’s solitude and depression. An exhaustion from so many years of being admired, almost idolized. He had very few authentic connections with his congregation, with other clergy, with any friends. The people in the folding chairs had no connection with one another. We were all bound by his charismatic personality. And that had to be so enervating for him.

It was one of the most sexist environments that I’ve ever experienced. Women had a place, on stage even. As back-up singers. But they all looked a certain way. I guess I just have to say it…the most beautiful women in the congregation were on stage singing. It felt like they were accessories. We were taught that women could not discipline their own children. That was a father’s job.

When I made a decision to go into the ministry, I was told that I was sinning. The experience. It was creepy. That’s why I feel much more comfortable in a denominational setting. It’s just a culture where women have been taken seriously for a long time.

My husband, Brian, bought the movie Frisbee. It’s about a guy named Lonnie Frisbee, an “icon” of the Jesus People movement, who had a hand in starting the Calvary Chapel and Vineyard churches, then he died of AIDS. And we’ve watched a documentary about Keith Green.

All of this to say, I wasn’t alive in the 60s, but I know about the Jesus People movement, from first-hand experience and from hours and hours of serious You-Tube research (did I actually just write You Tube and research in the same sentence?). I know many of the leaders in the evangelical emerging church movement and in the emerging mainline. There are a few similarities, and there are differences. Here are a couple of differences:

First, the education level is much higher in the emerging church movement. It’s true that Brian McLaren didn’t go to seminary. He’s ABD in Literature. Shane Claiborne didn’t finish seminary. But they’re the only ones that I know of. Almost everyone else I know has a Masters or a Doctorate. (What’s Phyllis Tickle’s education like? Does it matter after she’s written a thousand books?) In the Calvary Chapel church, the men went to six-weeks of training, and ta-da, they were pastors.

In addition, some of these movements in the 60’s seemed to spring out of addiction recovery. I mean, it’s a common theme in so many of these stories, especially Keith Green’s. Most people need God when they’re in rehab. They form strong communities because they need that support.

That’s not what’s happening now. It’s different. Clearly.

So, I could go on and on. But, let me ask you. Do you agree with the “been there, done that” critics of the church? What are the similarities? What are the differences? What excites you? What scares you? If you were alive in the sixties, what were the mistakes that we should avoid?

One more thing… we in the mainline tend to dismiss the movement because this already happened in the sixties. As if what happened in the 60s was an insignificant fad that quickly faded. But look at how much Christianity radically changed in those forty years. The mainline’s certainly not the mainline any longer.

8 Comments »