Sound bite from Mark Pierson, formally Pastor, Cityside Baptist, Auckland. The context was a report on his April visit to the USA for Worship Arts and Liturgy Conference Kentucky
“…I remain convinced that the future of the Church in the West doesn’t lie in the Emerging Church movement. The value of this movement is to influence and provoke the inherited church forms into change rather than to replace them. Still a vital role…”
Good point. I think Mark is right; however I think the other vital role of the so-called “emerging church movement” is in its permission-giving; permission to dream, to imagine, to innovate, to explore the missional/cultural matrix’ permission to challenge notions of what church is and what church is for…the merging church movement agitates, challenges, experiments, and innovates – that’s the emerging church at it’s best; at it’s worst it’ll be a superficially trend that never addresses the ecclesiological and missional heart of church reform.
Paul, that's magnificent. Is there a link for the report?
Posted by: Rev. Mike | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 08:44 AM
Never mind ... I read your previous post and backtracked to Mark's blog. Thanks anyway! :)
Posted by: Rev. Mike | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 08:49 AM
i'd totally agree with mark.
Posted by: gavin | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 09:08 AM
That may be, but I hope we can get around to forming Christians better than we provoke other Christians...
Posted by: Kyle | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 09:16 AM
Still love me if I step aside from that statement and say I tend to disagree. I have no such faith in such systems to change no matter how much they are challenged. And that's not about some supposed "movement" called the "emerging church." Even if they stay around, I doubt it will be because they've changed. I'm not really worried whether they do or not. That's not really the point. There is always a begged question which remains in the shadows - why is it we want them to remain? Why do we seem to be so concerned about it? Two parts of the answer as I have seen it: Fear and Vested Interest. I hope that doesn't keep us from going where we need to go. Peace to all whether we agree or not.
Posted by: + Alan | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 02:19 PM
I have to say that there is some truth that exists somewhere between saving the existing church structure (which many find irrelevant) and a total abandonment of the concept of a church structure (which anarchy would cause an even greater irrelevance to the idea of church). Emerging churches are internal seekers. Its members ask deeper questions of faith and its importance in an increasingly secular world. The mysticism of the early church has been lost in pragmatic consumerism of the current church. The pragmatics of the early church is lost in the "spirituality" of the pluralistic 21st Century society.
So here's my point: We have to find a way be the Good Samaritan church (Luke 15), the Sheep church as opposed to the Goats church of Matthew 25. While we may all debate the importance of the "deeper" issues of faith, we moderns and emergents alike are forgetting that the pre-Christians around us have real, tangible, God-revealing needs that are not being met. Should we not all wake up to that first?
Posted by: Frank | Tuesday, 21 June 2005 at 03:20 PM
Hi all
Thought I'd throw my comment in the mix. If the movement Mark is referring to is the one that is most interested in issues of spirituality and theology in the postmodern situation, I agree. Like the postmodern phenomenonon of which it is a part, it is a passing cultural phase. BUT, if Mark is refering to what we (Forge) call the Emerging Missional Movement (emphasis on missional), or what David Barret calls the Neo-Apostolic Movement/s, I couldn't agree less. If we place the EMC within the broader worldwide movement/s happening (including China) then I believe we are seeing the future of the Church in the West. I just don't think the Christendom paradigm can pull it off...and the vast majority of contemporary churches operate squarely in this out-moded paradigm. The missional one is the future of the church. And it is happening!
Posted by: Alan Hirsch | Thursday, 23 June 2005 at 07:10 PM
+Alan's comment saddens me. Just a few days ago I wrote this
"There is a gap. Where are the Pauls and Paulinas from the past? Did we drive them out with an attitude of “The previous generation(s) blew their opportunity to do great things for God.” If so, how do we avoid making the same mistake again this time round, so that we can be obedient to the call of mentoring those who follow in our steps?
The attitute that we are the chosen generation, group, church or denomination quite frankly stinks. God will use anyone of us, but only if we are willing to give Him the glory."
It's NOT about preserving something - it's about recognising that diversity is good. The God of the Universe didn't make two snowflakes the same. To me that's the heart of the church emergent - diversity, and yes permission to dream and to challenge, but not the right to be arrogant, proud or dismissive.
Sorry Alan if I've read you wrong, this just hit a nerve. Be blessed, and keep clawing back the Kingdom for Him - in all you do. All of you!
Posted by: Lorna | Monday, 25 July 2005 at 05:45 PM