-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/10/deep-church-reflection-1-emergents-like.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I have been in the church (not necessarily the Nazarene church) my entire life, and have always been gripped by the vast difference between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in the church, to the degree that Orthopraxy is actively preached against in many places, because it has become associated with salvation by works.
I think that the reason that Emergent questions are seen as somehow only protesting is that those that find these questions or protestations invalid believe that they're already doing things the proper way, and aren't going to listen to any suggestions to find alternatives. Why fix what ain't broke, right?
I am generally extremely unhappy going to church...but only slightly less unhappy than I'd be not going at all. I attend church in answer to a need, in hopes of finding connection, despite an attending conviction that I will likely not find that answer, connection, or inspiration there, at least not any time soon. So I attend from duty, rather than inspiration or pleasure. And then I find time with my Lord elsewhere.
I find that the church generally clings to order and structure over inspiration and grace. I suspect that so long as we remain in this world, this will continue to be the case.
We do find great comfort in form and structure. It is not as if we don't find some of these pieces in the early church or in scripture, but we certainly like to rely upon it more than the Spirit, quite frequently.
I think you have some interesting and innovative ideas to share and on the same level I also believe the Concerned Nazarenes has valid points to share. In another frame of reference Brian Mclaren has some worhty ideas to share, but he is not a Nazarene. My understanding from your very own writings are of your being a confessed Nazarene by your beliefs of John Wesley's propagations. My main point that I want to stress borders upon your method of execution, which is nugatory and gives the impression of a negative disposition. The word "emergent nazarene" bears an offensive nature to those in favor of their Nazarene heritage, and I am one of these people. Love people, all people, even to those we most disagree. Preach/ live your faith, and share it to your heart's content, and I don't really believe you can honestly tell me you agree with all Mclaren propagates, I don't and neither does he agree with all the Nazarene doctrines. He is wise who winneth souls says the Bible and this is what we are about. Me, I am a middle of the road guy, I am not in the fight between the concerned or emergent... Ya'll have fun, but please consider the damage you do to the Gospel of Christ! Peace of Christ - Roy
Or, in other words, most "Concerned" Nazarenes really need to find a nice Baptist or Church of Christ church to attend, because those churches already teach everything they believe.
Lastly, have you actually read mcLaren's books to see what he propogates, or are you just repeating the propaganda of your peers?
i am not sure who your comment is directed to. I assume it is to James Diggs, althought I am the author of the post, but I wanted to respond regardless.
I would say that it is true that emergent nazarene can be offensive to some people. I would say that concerned nazarene is offensive to some people. I am certainly offended by its inference that others are unconcerned.
But why is any of this conversation about Brian McLaren. Brian is a great writer, has been a very good pastor, and is trying to do the work of the kingdom. In the time I have spent with him I have found him to be an extraordinarily spiritual, Christ filled, and caring individual. That being said I don't agree with everything he writes, and the point of this post and an examination of these specific critiques of the traditional church, is that bearing the name emergent does not mean that we must identify ourselves with Brian or any other individual.
What is taking place in this movement is a reexamination of the our faith by those who have been dissatisfied with the expression of Christianity exhibited by the church we have grown up with and encounter today.
So I would challenge you to look at some of the specific points I have brought up for this conversation and wrestle with them. Maybe you are asking some of the same questions.
Thanks for the comments Roy.
A. A true Christian is always Joyful (happy) and encouraging,
B. A true Christian is always faithful, and eschews things like works as a sign of faith,
C. A true Christian becomes sanctified, at which point he no longer sins,
D. Everything is happening according to God's plan.
All of these statements are flawed, and none of them are precisely laid out this way in the bible. Every statement we get from the New Testament ties faith and belief directly to action...Orthodoxy (right belief) without Orthopraxy (right action) is empty and meaningless, and Orthopraxy is not the summation of "sins I don't commit".
Additionally, if the world were working according to God's will, there wouldn't be sin in it, and people wouldn't be turning from Him. So there has to be some element at work in which, in this world, people can act in a way contrary to God, without it defying his Sovereignty for Creation. But we don't deal a lot with this.
The Gospel (Isaiah 61) as laid out by Christ, is about remaking the world in the image of God by way of servanthood. No grand gestures or ruling church buildings, no power plays or political appointments, but service and gratitude and self sacrifice, active lives empty of fear and full of forgiveness and charity.
But we don't teach these things, and we certainly don't live them.
Dallas Willard says that if you were a professional baseball player, you wouldn't expect that you'd just show up and hit a home run. No, you'd practice, and exercise, and spend a lot of time playing baseball.
But as Protestants, we spend most of our time just believing, and expecting that when the defining moment shows up, we'll magically be equal to it. For which there is no empirical evidence of this working.
All of the people that I know of who are touched by God, who always say the right thing at the right time, who work miracles, live in and through God constantly, and their lives are lives of humility, sacrifice, and servanthood. I'm always suspicious of people who talk about all that they've done for God who display no humility or servanthood.
Additionally, stating that something is broken and needs work is not a negative statement, or a discouraging statement.
And Joy is not equal to happiness. Paul talked about having Joy in Sorrow.
What's ironic is both extremes fall into an over emphasis on ortho-praxy. Liberalism falls into a social ortho-praxy and legalism/fundamentalism into legal ortho-praxy.
I left MNU with a Religion degree and absolutely no grasp on how to actually go out and interact with our world in such a way that the Gospel of Christ was a relevant point by which we could begin to have relationship. Instead it defined who I should relate to or not. The gospel I had to work with was ideal for feeding a bunch of overfed believers; but not meaningful interaction and evangelism in a postmodern, post Christendom, re-Paganized, pre-Christian and globalized culture. It took me 8 years, but I finally found a seminary that is 'getting it' and providing me with the framework and education I actually needed those years ago.
So yes, I am protesting; I am angry for the waves of ill-equipped men and women that were released under a gospel built more on Jerry Falwell and James Dobson than on Jesus Christ and the love he has made manifest.
Thanks for grabbing on the question I was most interested in. I think the 7 points are a helpful starting point in a debate that has struggled to find any good ones.
I think the point about a narrow view of salvation and a weak ecclessiology have been especially strong in my own resonance with the emerging church. I had a better seminary experience than you did, but a couple of years out of school I realized that my preaching, my view of the church, and my own understanding of my salvation were inadequate with what I was finally grasping in scripture. There were several voices within emerging circles that first help me put a finger on the questions I kept running into.
And yes, both sides within the traditional church, liberal and conservative, have fallen into traps of orthopraxy that misses the point.
The point on worship is intriguing. Sometimes we take this to mean that music and creeds are outdated, but there is nothing wrong with music, liturgy, and communal participation being updated to fit the context that community finds itself in.
Hope that makes a little sense, anyway.
Jim Cendrowski
I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. Liturgy is literally the work of the people. But if it doesn't have root in the community that is using it, much of the meaning can be lost. I have really enjoyed writing new liturgy to fit my particular community and have found it life giving.
The point on worship is intriguing. Sometimes we take this to mean that music and creeds are outdated, but there is nothing wrong with music, liturgy, and communal participation being updated to fit the context that particular community finds itself in.
Hope that makes a little sense, anyway.
Jim Cendrowski
Peace,
Steven
What is the meaning of the term "relevant" as used here?
Relevent as in having a bearing on the matter at hand, as in the worship of God. In that reguard Orthodox worship is far more relevent than any guitar solo I have heard. Getting back to the heart of worship might meaning going back 1500 years. Orthodox worship is timeless, it has spoken to the hearts of christians for near 2000 years, thats what I call relevant. Only people can worship God, instruments don't make worship more relent, just more entertaining.
Peace,
Steven
Most of these large church idiots have fake doctorates: aka: honorary doctorates.
Now they are lowering the pension for the small church pastor if their church doesn't pay it's pension budgets. Why penalize a pastor for pastoring a small struggling church? I don't get it.
The Nazarene pension program is a joke. I know a pastor who just retired with 40 years of service and get's $440 per month. That is an absolute shame. How can our leadership even sleep at night? It's a good thing he wasn't under the current program, he might be getting $200 oer month.
what does it matter what is vailed or hailed if something else is meant?
The answer...
Thats it, The ANSWER is what matters.
Well, that line came from my last google seach result that asked above the first result, "Did you mean..." .
Ole_ship
Search terms Nazarite, Nazerite, Nazarene, Nazerene
Well, I mispelled it, but I landed somewhere on an interesting note to this topic, and not without a note to the regaurd it has to this topic (VAILED AND HAILED).
tHE WEBSITE i SURFED And almost commented there, but I reserved that for later, and after vmore of my own studies , , the outline they posed on this topic TITLE is linked
Deep Church: Reflection #1 - Emergents Like to Protest {from Wednesday, October 14, 2009}
Somehow your concepts of emerging v traditional don't make sense in this context, do they? Shaping culture is essential when you are taking the gospel message to this audience.