Also, in case you were wondering...

"The emerging church isn’t dead. It’s just finally wrestled with the angel and won. It’s shedding it old image, the one that got people so riled up in the first place. The conversations won’t ever go away because in the end, we’re looking for what it means to be human. We’re looking to discover the reality that Jesus was trying to present, one of infinite grace and beauty, stark reality of the kingdom of God in our midst, and a renewed sense of possibility for the restoration of the world." 


This is from the recent "State of Emergence" posted by Emergent Village, written by Jonathan Brink. 

Telling our Story?

The latest Emergent/C email newsletter linked to this post on the EV blog. Some selections:

"You have a story to tell. It’s probably a local story, the kind best told among friends over coffee on a winter day. Maybe it’s your community’s perspective, an unanticipated incandescence that brought your tribe some new Kingdom resolve. [Stories] can also be potentially profound to this, your family of friends and would-be-friends called Emergent Village. It’s no surprise that this village is also connected by—and centered around—the stories of the collective. What is surprising is how few stories filter up and lend their voices on the national and international scale. The Village is sustained by new stories, by new storytellers. Emergent|C hopes to bring your stories to the wider Village each month. Consider this your invitation to tell, retell, question, prod, report, critique, interpret or celebrate."

What is our unique story? It is worth asking, what is God doing amongst us? How are we transformed? How might our story help others in a unique way?

Could we discover our story together, and then tell it?

House Churches: More Numerous than You Might Think

The duly-respected and much-venerated, not to mention well-traveled and extremely-attractive Tall Skinny Kiwi has a couple of short posts trying to show that house churches are alive, well, and growing across the Christian West.

The first simply states that we should not ignore house churches, because there are tens of thousands across Europe and Australia. In addition, somewhere between 6 and 12 million people in America attend house churches.

The second offers six different types of house churches, per Wolfgang Simpson.

A couple of quick thoughts: 1) It's cool to see that Xianity in the "West" isn't totally dying, but is just growing in uncharted and unusual ways. IMO, house churches are really interesting and exciting. 2) Now that we have a bit of track record (more than 2 years for the COEC now!!), would we consider ourselves a "house church"?? Would we be in the first category, that of an "off the grid," the "God-yes-church-no" crowd? Not that definitions really matter, but, you know - for the sake of conversation ;)

Definitions....

Here is an interesting post that discusses evangelicalism's obsessions with defining who is "in" and "out." I thought there were some interesting points for those of us who have come "out of" evangelicalism, and also now struggle with defining what exactly "is" the "emerging/ent church."

It is astonishing that so many intelligent Christians seem to believe there is a deficit in emphasis on evangelism and scriptural literalism, and that, if the hatches are just battened down on a more solid “worldview,” evangelicalism can resume explaining the universe to new generations of believers. In this respect, evangelicalism’s true believers resemble the faction of the Republican Party that asserts with a straight face that returning to “core principles,” and not a radical restructuring of priorities, will bring waves of Americans back to the right wing.

But so many twenty-somethings are not calling themselves “post-evangelical” because they know too little theology or have put too small an effort into synthesizing it with reality. They have come from the most apologetics-obsessed generation of Christians in American history, and have realized that many of their prepared answers are for questions that no one is asking. Adrift in the cultural sea, many turned to traditions and theological systems of the past, only to find those similarly unequipped to address the questions of our time. The only choice has been to begin the messy and at times overwhelming process of drafting something new.

The growing collection of post-evangelicals is what the defensive, definitional evangelical fears the most, and could by itself explain the recent obsession with protecting the label. Surely many of the intelligent professors, students, writers and bloggers rushing to its defense have also felt the naggings of cognitive dissonance and the inkling that the world might make more sense if they abandoned some of their cultural presuppositions. But haggling over the details of theology provides a psuedo-intellectual haven from real-world questions, where evangelicals can exercise their minds without coming to any unsettling conclusions. And thus the cycle of definition and redefinition continues, providing endless diversion as it cuts deeper and deeper ruts into what was once known as the Christian dialogue.

Refusing to align squarely with evangelical shibboleths requires courage, but the sooner it happens on a larger scale the better. All signs point to a near future where religion will play an increasingly climactic role in global culture and politics. Men and women who, as Mark Noll puts it in the final pages of The Evangelical Scandal, “think like a Christian”—by which he means “take seriously the sovereignty of God over the world he created”—should be leading the way on the meta questions that are already besieging society. But as long as they are busy drafting manifestos in their barricaded salons, hubristic rationalism will continue charging unchecked into the 21st century.

Discussion about Emergent

Around the "blog-o-sphere" this week there has been a lot of discussion regarding "the death of Emergent" or being "disappointed" with the movement. The posts have been very thoughtful, and the discussion lively. To me, this is a perfect example of what I love about the "emergent conversation" - I see this happening right in our midst.

However, I also thought that some of the words written this week might express the thoughts of members of our own cohort. Our cohort has grown, shrunk, gained and lost members, worked through changes and phases, and is something different today that perhaps we had envisioned months, or maybe even years ago.

So take a look at a few of the posts listed below, and perhaps comment about what resonated with you personally.

Tony Jones posts a "round up"

Response on EV.com from Jonathan Brink

The post by Nick Fiedler that got it started (discussing disappointments with Emergent)

A long (and brutally honest and informative) response from Tony Jones

Another good response from Makeesha Fisher

[Non] Membership

I've enjoyed the extended (virtual) conversations that have occurred on the blog in recent weeks. One term that pops up now and again that I find interesting is "membership." Clearly an important part of most American churches, membership is defined by different communities in different ways. It could be cognitive assent to certain doctrinal statements, attendance and/or giving record, perhaps even membership classes. A key term like "membership" is defined by each community, but is also an indicator of how a community is formed and functions. Therefore it could also be one more example of emergent is re-framing what it means to be a community of Christ-followers.

[reposted from ASBO Jesus]

So who is a "member" of the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort?

We might all have different ideas, and I'd love to hear what others think, but I'll venture my own (extended) answer here...as always feel free to engage, push back, etc.

Bounded and Centered Sets

I first learned about the difference between bounded and centered sets while reading a swath of books about emerging churches last summer. The concept is not new to emerging churches (this site claims that Paul Hiebert first developed the idea), but it helps me to understand how membership is drastically different in an emergent community.

A "bounded set" is one in which there is a standard. It may be behavioral, doctrinal or both. But a person is "in" or "out," a member or a non-member. While the qualifications and definitions of who is "in" or "out" may change with different churches and denominations, I would argue that that "bounded sets" are the foremost understanding of membership in American churches. Certain persons for certain reasons are "within the bounds" of what is understood to be the "accepted," "approved" or even "ordained" sets for this community.

["bounded set"]

Another way to understand a community is that of a "centered set," meaning each individual is dynamically related to the center of the community and the community at large. "Membership," as such, is not based upon performance or belief, but rather each person has some relationship to the center, albeit some are closer or further away than others. In evangelism classes, the "center" is often understood to be Jesus Christ (or the church). While that may be the case in most Christian communities, I think it is helpful to think of the larger emergent community as "the center" thereby explaining "membership" in an emergent cohort.

[note: this image of a "centered set" still maintains boundary lines that I would argue do not have to be drawn]

In a centered set model, every individual who is a part of the conversation, who is involved in the movement in a large or small way, is a member. However, this model also recognizes that not every individual is the same, and some are more or less involved than others, for any number of reasons. Our cohort certainly has a close-knit "center" of individuals who meet together throughout the week, stay in touch on a personal level, and are involved in each others' lives. However, these individuals are no more "members" than someone who casually visits discussion sessions once a month or even less. Each person is a member, but each has a different relationship to the center (i.e., the community).

Furthermore (and I want to stress), each person has complete freedom to move closer or further away from the center, at will. There are no levels, requirements or qualifications, but simply a dynamic community of individuals living in relationship to one another. In a "centered set," membership is not only "open," it is fluid. I believe that I have personally experienced this in the natural friendships that have formed in the cohort. There is never a question of "what do you believe?" or "how educated are you?" or "do you meet these standards?" But rather the question is simply, "Do you want to...." - meet for coffee? - read this book? - talk about politics? - be a more involved person in the community (whatever that may look like)?

Therefore, my answer to the question, "Who is a member of the Central Ohio Emergent Cohort?" would be - you are! If you are reading this blogpost, if you have ever visited our blogsite, if you have ever jumped in on a conversation, talked to someone in a coffee shop, picked up an emergent book in a store just to curiously flip through the pages, or even sent an email expressing disagreement - if you are engaged in the conversation at all, you are a member.

And I want to express my heartfelt joy that you and I are co-members, living in this wide community together - I am glad that you are a "member" of our cohort.

Peter Rollins at Calvin College

Our friend, Peter Rollins, was recently interviewed on "Inner Compass", a television interview show from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI.

Go to the Calvin College "Inner Compass" page. The interview with Peter is #909.

What's in a name? (part 2)

What is your response to this article? Post a comment on the Out of Ur website.

What's in a name?

This past week several emerging/emergent bloggers have written about why they are dropping the label emerging. You can read Andrew Jones' post here, Dan Kimball's here, and another sort of summary blog here. I haven't seen any responses from anyone explicitly associated with Emergent Village.

The gist of these posts seems to go like this: Emerging/Emergent conversations started 5-10 years ago as a way to rediscover what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus in our current 21st century context, especially with an emphasis on reaching non-Christians with the gospel. However, over the past few years, the name and label "emerging" has taken on new forms, and has become much more of a marketing brand that is most clearly associated with Emergent Village and corresponding authors like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt. The movement has gained recognition and has experienced a good amount of criticism (which even we in this small cohort are familiar with). Now when a person is identified as emerging, or the term is even thrown out, it is necessary to defend theological positions, explain who you are with and who you disagree with, and exhaustively locate oneself on the evangelical spectrum. So, writers/authors/bloggers/speakers are saying, "Look, this isn't worth all the hassle. And I don't agree with Emergent Village on a lot of stuff anyway. So I am no longer emerging/emergent. I am 'missional' or a part of the 'church being reformed' or simply finding new ways to faithfully follow God in my context. But I/we/our church is NOT Emergent."

**Insert deep sigh here**

I have so many mixed reactions to these posts that I've been reading over the week. On the one hand, I empathize and can understand the need to make this move and identify (or un-identify?) oneself for the sake of the ministry you feel is important. On the other hand (and this is what I really feel), I thought we were done with all this label bullshit? I thought as a post-modern Christian I was post-denominational, meaning I don't care what you call yourself, if you celebrate the Eucharist or communion, if you were baptized as an infant or an adult, or if you hold the penal substitutionary view of atonement above all others. I thought emerging/emergent was all about recognizing and even celebrating our differences.

I get the sense from these writers that they have deep differences with guys like McLaren and Jones, and thus feel the need to separate theologically. That is really sad to me. I'm also a little concerned about what this means for Emergent Village and those associated. Does this relegate these others even further out on the orthodoxy spectrum, teetering somewhere between truth and heresy? (Again, I thought we were getting beyond such words....have none of these guys read Peter Rollins?)

Alright - as always, I could say/write a lot more about all this, but perhaps you have thoughts. I would especially like to hear from those outside of our cohort, if you happen to be reading this. What are your reactions? Is mine an overreaction? I mean, it is all just a name after all right? It won't really change what we do in our cohort or what I believe about Jesus.

Nevertheless, it is an example of why I am emergent - to get past all this "label" crap.

Fun site...

Check out wordle.

What is the Emergent Movement? An analogy....

Alright, I've offered analogies before, and you have all been kind enough to offer critiques. I know the question "what is emergent" is going to come up at this little breakout session at Xenos on Thurs., and I want to be able to offer a better answer than a chuckle, a smile, and something like, "No one really knows..."

I'm not sure why I thought of it, but I was thinking about this crazy optical illusion that my dad sent to me one time. Please take a look at it here before you read on.

So the idea is that if you stare at the small cross in the middle, the blinking dot turns green, then eventually all the other dots go away and all you see is the green dot moving around the circle. It is such a clear example that what we see is not always what is there...but then when you *blink* or look away for a second, the other pink dots show up again.

So here is my analogy: The emergent movement is like *blinking* - When we are so focused, so set in our theological ways and opinions, so consumed with the absolute truth we see before our eyes, we may very well be missing something else that is also there. Doug Pagitt in his new book, "A Christianity Worth Believing" (which is surprisingly good, by the way, and you should read it) says there are 31,103 verse in the Bible. So if we memorized 300 of them (which is a lot), we'd only have 1% of the Bible. What about the other 99% What are we missing when we only focus on what we are so certain we can see, and don't step back, *blink*, and take a look around the rest of the Bible.

For me, the emergent movement is about getting a fresh look at the Bible and correcting my vision a little bit. It's being willing to admit that what I think I see may not be what is actually there. It's about allowing other verses, other perspectives, other voices to speak and to inform so I can get a better overall picture. Admittedly, after several years of looking at it this way, I'll have to blink again, and get a fresh view again. But what the optical illusion tells me is that my human nature if prone to block out what I'm not focusing on, or what I don't want to see. So sometimes I have to step back and getter a broader view, even if it messes with what I thought was really there.

Alright, what do you think? How would someone who is not favorable toward emergent respond to this analogy? Obviously it isn't the whole thing, but for me, it hints at the core - any thoughts?

Xenos Summer Institute "Pre-Discussion" - Part 3

Alright - here is question #3, with a little bit of explanation, and a few side tracks. These are the proposed topics of conversation for Sunday's meeting at Global Gallery.

Dennis' initial email asked: "How to reach postmodern young people: What should go into an approach to communication, community, church ethos, structure, practice, etc. in order to avoid losing relevance to postmodern culture?"

I was a little unsure what he was getting at, so I sent another email and asked him to explain a bit more, and this is what he wrote: "I'm referring to non-Christian postmodern people (mainly the young) and how to attract them to Jesus. What does the church need to be in order to be considered relevant to these people's lives? What would commend Jesus to them? I think one of the big arguments I've seen and heard from emergent Christians is that unless the church becomes more postmodern, it will lose its voice with postmoderns. So, the argument is that the church is too propositional, too modern, and that's why we need a change that emergent is pioneering." (btw, thanks Dennis for the great questions and quick email responses!)

Side track A: When Dennis first offered the three topics, I suggested a fourth topic, "The Kingdom of God," and from the looks of an email giving some details about the conference, this topic is also on the table. So perhaps this week we can also toss around the topic of the different understandings of the kingdom of God b/w traditional evangelicalism and emergents.

Side track B: Since the Goshen "Everything Must Change" event, a few of us have tossed around the idea of getting together with other cohorts in the MidWest region. If you haven't heard, Emergent Village officially canceled any official national cohort gathering this year in an effort to stimulate more regional, indigenous and organic gatherings. I contacted a few cohorts this week and they seem interested, so perhaps we could also toss around ideas for a regional get-together.

Beyond Sunday "Church"

Christians commonly define and describe their faith by the church they attend. Answer to questions like, "What denomination are you?" "Where do you go to church?" "What is your pastor like?" are the ways we typically describe our faith. Even in our cohort, we describe ourselves by our meetings on Sundays, and we often talk about where we went to church that week. But I am increasingly getting the sense that the Sunday gathering of Christians should be the least defining element of my religion.

A favorite verse of evangelicals is Romans 12:1 - "Therefore offer your bodies as living sacrifices....this is your spiritual act of worship." We are admonished again and again to "live a life of worship." I've usually understood that phrase to mean that I should not sin against God, and thus everything I did (meaning my life of not sinning) would be worship to God. But I've started wondering what a life - a Monday through Saturday life - of worshiping God would look like. More than that, what would a community of Monday through Saturday worshipers look like?

What would be the implications for our cohort specifically if we focused on living on entire lives together as worship to God? If our little community continues to grow and we are more and more intentional about our lives together, we may feel tempted to develop some form of "service." But what if instead of focusing our energies on one hour together with other Christians, we reflected our passion for Jesus and his life in the other 167 hours of the week in practical, purposed and Jesus-like ways?

I don't know how well I'm presenting this, but for me, this is a huge (HUGE) change in my way of thinking about what it means to be a Christian, and even more what it means to be called to "full time ministry." What are your thoughts?