Fads and trends are fascinating. Hearing about the Emergent church is another example. I first became aquainted with this new movement almost nine years ago -- when it was hardly on the map. Some friends were all hyped about it and thought it was the "key" to reaching the next generation. We had lots of discussion about what they saw and what they experienced and I developed some thoughts.
There was lots of praise for this new way of doing church! What I heard most was from the mouths of disillusioned second generation Christians -- church kids who had been turned off by the politics and legalism of their parents who had rejected their music and style in favor of a fifties generation way of doing church. Some of these were 20-somethings (X-ers) and some were forty-somethings. They were tired of the sanctified "out-of-dateness" of their heritage.
Many folks told me that they had "never worshiped" until they did it to a band doing an alternative rock sound. Dim lighting was crucial -- and casual dress -- and being more art sensitive. There was lots of talk about Generation X and how they did not relate to Boomers, and all that. The people I met were genuinely hungry for the Gospel and for truth. The ministry being developed was effective in many ways. I read, discussed, observed, and reflected.
Here we go. First, there is no question in my mind that the legalistic cultural rigidity of many churches is a straight-jacket. When people have been told that drums are of the devil -- along with saxophone and rap -- it is clearly way beyond Scripture and more of a prejudice than a conviction. Decibels are not evil -- though I knew a man who sat in church with a dB meter just to protest how loud the music was. The Gospel lands in any culture and transforms it -- it does not baptize any one culture. The Emergent movement in those days has hit upon a truth -- cultural rigidity is bad. And when people are loosed from that bondage, it frees them.
Second, while there is a truth there, it is a defective insight and will distort the new church if it is not tethered to the Gospel. We must be careful not to treat the symptom and miss the disease. Let me explain -- rigidity and legalistic pride is a Gospel issue. Sin is the issue -- not culture. We are all that way by nature. Only the Gospel changes our hearts. When the folks I knew began to do church differently, it was a magnet to the ones who were tired of the old wine-skins. But they did not seem to get to the heart with the Gospel -- and so those who tapped into the new way became just as rigid and legalistic and their forbears. I remember hearing of how some of them got upset when someone new tinkered with "the right way" of doing worship - toned down the guitars on one song. Same song, next verse. The old rigidity was not changed -- just put in a new place. Pride had not been broken with Gospel humility. Rigidity was not broken with Gospel freedom. People just liked the new and the cool -- and fought anyone who dared mess with their precious new style.
Third, when we focus on cultural adaptation and contextualization, rather than the Gospel, we will build on a faulty foundation. Culture is not the "head of the church, from whom the whole body is nourished" (my paraphrase of Eph 4:15-16 and Col 3:18-19). Christ is. What I have seen is that building on the wrong center leads to weakness and distortion. Reading the culture is good -- making culture Lord is dangerous. Here is where Mars Hill Church in Seattle has been culturally adjusted and biblically sound. They are an example of seeking to do this well -- with the Gospel as the center.
Fourth, I observed many worship wars in these early stages of the new churches. This took me back to the Gospel issues. An entire generation of many Christians was raised to think of the evils of rock and roll and had baptized a certain way of doing church. They considered the new way evil. The next generation became angry with how they were rejected. There was no Gospel humility and no Gospel freedom. The outcome was sad. Churches split -- older people were driven out in the name of "strong leadership."
Fifth, I saw the value of new churches. I knew godly older people who understood Gospel humility and Gospel freedom try very hard to understand and appreciate the new wineskin -- and they could not make the adjustment despite their best efforts. There is a place for new churches as new generations rise. Those new churches will look quite different to older churches. But humility will call us to look on each other with charitable judgments and to ask a few basic questions -- Is the true Gospel being preached? is the church faithful to the Scriptures? Do they seek godly and qualified leaders? Do they practice discipline? If these things are present, then how they dress and what kind of music they use is insignificant.
The issue is always the Gospel.
I would appreciate clarification on one point: is the 'emergent chruch' the same as a 'seeker church?' If not, please talk more about the differences. Thanks
MARK: Emergent is the next phase -- how to bring the Gospel to people who would never be attracted to the church. It is a wide river -- with some weird and unorthodox and some great and beautiful.
Posted by: Denise | May 23, 2006 at 01:43 PM
cool - i always like to hear history
any chance you could name the emerging type church you visited?
Posted by: andrew | May 18, 2006 at 12:32 AM