lifeasmission

Recent Comments

• 

  joshua elek said...

  1

  Emerging from what?

  Emerging to what?

  Or are we just emerging?

  P.S. I wrote this comment on my MacBook.

  07/20/07 5:21 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Sean Savage said...

  2

  A.) My blog sucks, I don’t have anything cool or good writing to make up for it

  B.) I saw guy playing Fender . . . mmm, I miss him, is he still the best fender acoustic ever made?

  c.) Is it good or bad that you are able to make such general statements about that church movement and not really ruffle feathers?

  07/22/07 7:25 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Andy Hall said...

  3

  You can’t help but make general statements about a movement that is entirely without substance. Only McLaren and his troupe of sychophants could hope to believe that they are suggesting something new or adding to a wordlview that is anything other than Gnosticism-redux.

  07/23/07 1:38 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  4

  Hi Andy. Who are ya? Can you say more about what you mean by your comments here?

  07/23/07 2:28 PM | Comment Link

• 

  joshua elek said...

  5

  I’m not sure that suggesting new ways to practice religion goes hand in hand with Gnosticism, and I think saying so is vainglory and boisterous. But I do think the question should be there… what is the substance? And if you would read through JRs blog a bit more, I think you would see him trying to hammer that out. (If Missional and Emerging Church are part of the same thing. I’m ignorant about this stuff, I honestly don’t know.) I think McLaren and others are also trying to hammer that out. What you seem frustrated with is the lack of cohesive vision for this movement. But, then again, that’s what you get in the beginning stages of an organic change. I think the real test of this “Missional” or whatever movement, is going to be how they answer “What do you stand for?” (And “Jesus” is not a good answer.)

  What are you? What need do you address, and how do you address it?

  If it’s just a bunch of Christians giving themselves and excuse for owning expensive computers, then I’m not interested. However, if there is a real need that this movement is filling, then I say let’s hammer it out and get it right.

  That’s sort of the long version of my earlier question. Emerging from what? To what? I think it’s a basic, but pretty important question. Certainly one I don’t expect to be well elucidated in under 200 pages or so, but it warrants asking.

  P.S. I keep getting your spam protection wrong and I feel like an idiot. 4+9… C’mon!

  07/24/07 5:50 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Andy Hall said...

  6

  Josh,

  I think your points are well stated and informative. I did not mean to suggest that “new” equals “gnostic”. That indeed would be ridiculously uninformed and superfluous. However, McLaren in his book “The Secret Message of Jesus” makes a number of assumptions that seem to indicate that even Jesus’ disciples did not understand his “true message.” Unfortunately this presents a number of large and potentially insurmountable problems. The first and most obvious being, how can those Jesus physicall instructed and who he specifically empowered with His Spirit, miss His greater purpose? Was Jesus really speaking in such coded language and if so, doesn’t that seem to negate the entire purpose of the Incarnation? It is this near obsession, by McLaren and many of his advocates, with a “secret message” that promoted my gnosticism comment. I apologize for dropping such a quote with little or no background information. You have rightly corrected me. I hope this better explains my statement.

  I also want to reinforce the idea that something “new” is not always bad, but I hesitate to even call it “new”. The foundational beliefs of the emerging church or missional church are hardly new. Perhaps it is an attempt at “rebirth”, but their tendency to recoil from any established church is confusing and often off-putting. Not every institutional church is wrong. They are not all missing the Gospel. The heart and truth of the Gospel is not only found in small group, informal “sharing” sessions where every opinion is equally valid and equally substantive.

  Anyways, I ramble. I hope this doesn’t provoke any angry responses. That seems to be the norm on most blogs. Most blogs are populated by people who are far to sensitive to actually have any real discussion. Again, I am not suggesting that this is the case for this blog. I am just stating my intention that I am not trying to upset anyone.

  07/24/07 8:06 AM | Comment Link

• 

  joshua elek said...

  7

  I wasn’t aware of McLaren’s book, but it is certainly frightening if it implies the sentiments you gleaned from it. I think I’m going to have to give this one a read, it certainly would be very difficult to divorce a book titled “The Secret Message of Jesus” from Gnosticism…

  I too agree that blogs are populated by people who are far too sensitive and I hope my response wasn’t in that vain.

  I couldn’t agree more with the your views regarding the missional church. The whole church is not wrong, not every denomination is inauthentic. But the vast majority of church services I have been to, have been grossly disingenuous. I think this needs to be fixed. If the missional/emerging church is driving at changing this, then let’s go. (I’m still uncertain… are the terms interchangeable?)

  So… I guess this question is really for JR… what is the missional church? What is the emerging church? Is it possible to answer those questions in a few words/paragraphs? I know you have described the missional movement many times, I guess I just don’t yet really understand it. If the missional church intends to replace Denominations with home church, then I certainly have a problem with that. But I think that description is a horrible exaggeration of the truth.

  In short… thanks Andy. Well said. JR, Andy, anyone… what is this movement? What is it trying to accomplish and how is it trying to accomplish it?

  Talk about rambling…

  07/24/07 10:23 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Andy Hall said...

  8

  Josh,

  In which ways have the services been disingenuous?

  07/24/07 1:08 PM | Comment Link

• 

  JR Rozko said...

  9

  Wow, never expected this post to get so much play – I love it and thanks for playing nice

  I will attempt a brief answer in my next post.

  07/24/07 6:23 PM | Comment Link

• 

  joshua elek said...

  10

  In what ways are Church services disingenuous… this could be a very long response. But I’ll abbreviate it to say, you can just feel it when someone blows smoke up your rear.

  I have been to church services that are totally authentic, and I have experienced congregations that worship authentically each and every Sunday. (Well, maybe not each and every, but almost all.) Those are the places where God is absolutely swimming around. He’s in the candles, the sheets on the walls, whatever.

  But then, I’ve been to services where the drummer can’t quit smiling as he pounds away on the crappy digital drums and a big haired lady sings “Ain’t Nobody… Gonna love me like Jesus…” and you can tell they are all smiling the way people do in a photograph at Grandpa’s funeral. Not because they’re happy, but because there’s a camera, and you’re supposed to smile in front of the camera.

  It’s hard to say objectively in what ways services are inauthentic, but when you go to one, you feel it. The hardest part is that there is always one or two people there who are bleeding authenticity all over the place. (Frequently its the pastor.) And I can’t help but feel badly for that person. He or she is up there knowing full well that the guy on the keyboard hates the bassist, and someone back there is upset about the patchwork quilt, and no one can see past the ceiling mounted Bose speakers to find God among the pews. All that guy or girl wants is for people to be with God, and it’s just not happening.

  I guess this isn’t a really helpful response, it’s a tough question. In what ways have services been disingenuous? I can’t say they’ve all been disingenuous with worship, or with prayer, or with preaching. Maybe, the disingenuous nature has most often been in the smiles and handshakes, the pretty dresses and new Bibles. It feels like the pews are full of little kids with combed hair, mischievous grins, and cherry bombs in their pockets. Meanwhile there are two or three people really, honestly, praying, and there are a handful of judgemental jerks like me saying… “This is all bankrupt. Every shred of it.”

  07/25/07 5:40 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Andy Hall said...

  11

  And what part of us is not bankrupt? This is the perennial problem of humanity, even when that humanity is mixed with the redemption of Christ. Can we escape it? Sometimes we simply “force” ourselves to proclaim the Gospel. Is this wrong? Do we ever really want to live and serve with the heart of Christ? Now I don’t mean to suggest that we avoid this problem or worse yet pretend it doesn’t exist, but each and everyone of us is a liar and a hypocrite more times than we would care to admit. When we gather together as the “visible” Church, this only increases the problem. But, perhaps we need to simply accept our brokeness in such a way that it leads us to greater dependence on the Spirit of Christ. It is too easy to get into the midset that someone else is disingenuous. It can often be a crutch to avoid our own depravity. Now, I am not saying that this is you. I think your observations about the state of most churches is dead-on and profoundly eloquent. I have experienced the same thing on a number of occassions. However, I suppose I am much more aware, of late, of my own brokeness and I how I desperately need God’s forgiveness. That is why gathering as a community for the celebration of the Eucharist is so important. It calls to the liars, the deprave to come and receive the victory over sin and self that the cross provides.

  07/25/07 12:53 PM | Comment Link

• 

  joshua elek said...

  12

  The question is: “Are people in America today really gathering as a community for the celebration of the Eucharist?” Are people really going to Church because they understand that sometimes they must “force” themselves to proclaim the Gospel?

  A gathering of broken people trying to worship God is much different from a gathering of broken people trying to do the culturally acceptable thing on Sunday morning. “People going to Church because they want to gather as a community for the celebration of the Eucharist” is very different from “People going to Church because they want to be Churchgoers.” The latter, is a problem. I would be so bold as to say it’s not okay. I’m not saying that I’ve never been guilty of going to church because I want to be seen going to Church. That has been true for me. But that does not make it okay. We must demand more of our congregations-and I’m not saying throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to fix Church, fix denominations, fix worship, not abandon them. We have to hold our congregations accountable for their attendance in some fashion. Or at least, we must truly inform them that God desires more than mere attendance.

  We need to ask ourselves, honestly, what are we? Churchgoers? Or Worshipers? Are all Churchgoers Worshipers? Are all Worshipers Churchgoers?

  Andy, I really, honestly appreciate this dialogue. It is challenging me in a lot of ways, and I am being forced to come to a lot of conclusions about myself as we discuss this. I recognize that you and I may come to an impass. If so, I accept that. But I do want to thank you for being willing to disagree with me in such a respectful manner. I honestly hope I’m showing you the same good grace in return.

  07/26/07 5:28 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Andy Hall said...

  13

  Josh,

  I am in total agreement with you that we must “fix” the problems that exist within churches. Obviously the first “fix” is confronting the blackness of our own hearts. That is where the Spirit will begin to change the Church at large. I am totally, emphatically opposed to people going to church just to “go”. I think that is totally against the Gospel and against the intention that God has for us in our worship gatherings. I did not want to suggest that it is “okay” to go to church just to be there and without and intention of humbling oneself before God in worship and proclamation of the Gospel. I simply wanted to suggest that there are often times, far too many, where we do not want to gather or forgive each other (and many more things) and there does come a point where we have to “force” ourselves to do them. What I want rarely corresponds to the Kingdom message of Christ. That is where the difficulty of the journey, the “picking up the cross and following after Christ” comes into play. I guess I am expressing this in awkward ways, I just wanted to suggest that we may not “want” to gather as believers at all, but it is important that we do in ways that are faithful to the ministry and intentions of Christ. Does this at all clarify what I was trying to say?

  Josh, I too deeply appreciate this discussion. I appreciate on many levels your eloquence and pursuit of the truth. I do not think that we are really divergent in our thoughts, we just express them differently. I hope we can continue to discuss this and learn from each other in humility and grace.

  07/26/07 7:50 AM | Comment Link

• 

  joshua elek said...

  14

  Well said. All too true that we frequently need to do the spiritual tasks that we do not “want” to do. And you’re right. At those times, we should try all that much harder to do “What we do not want to do.”

  I think my fear in discussions like this is that the church will be excused of bad behaviors merely because we are all sinners. I’m don’t think you are guilty of this, but I think my reactions to your statements were fueled by previous experience. In the past, I have seen many leaders, and friends, excuse Christians with the “We are all sinners” argument. People in a congregation fight about the Christmas Lillies, and everyone knows it’s petty, and unbecoming, but the fight is permitted because “Are we any better?” Of course not. Of course, we are all sinners, and we are all guilty of the things we hold each other accountable for. But being afraid to throw the first stone implies that the only response to sin is a stoning.

  When a discussion about church ensues, and I hear sentiments like “We can’t correct people, because we are sinners as well” makes me afraid that it’s happening again.

  But in this circumstance, I think you are largely correct. It is not okay to go to Church merely to go to Church. We should hold each other accountable, but more importantly, we should have the grace that you are lovingly holding me accountable to. We should allow others to have a dry spell, and allow them to attend church in their spiritual underwear. If we stop letting people come to Church unprepared, we will gradually turn everyone away.

  Thanks Andy.

  07/26/07 3:32 PM | Comment Link