I struggle with the idea of belonging to a movement, or conversation if you will. Either way, it seems to me that identifying with a group many times forces one to become segregated from those outside the group; a significant dilemma for sure. While there are many emerging voices I highly respect, and while I strongly agree with much that the emerging church stands for and believes in, I have a hard time reconciling the creation of a "new" Christianity. Reform the old, yes. But is that what we are doing? I realize that a strong resistance to change exists, however, instead of breaking off should we not be working harder from the inside? I do see the enormous benefit to creating new and emerging churches; nevertheless I see it also as another split amongst Christians. Working from within already existing churches would definitely be difficult, but by creating new churches are we not allowing those who are resistant and ineffectively stuck in their old ways to remain that way? Breaking off to form our own churches leaves the traditional church unchallenged by our presence. Can we not apply some of our emerging theologies to our own conversation? How connected are we staying to non-emerging Christian communities? Prior to exploring the movement, this dilemma was my source of resistance to the emerging conversation. And although I have begun to really embrace the movement, I continue to struggle in reconciling these concerns. Any thoughts, ideas, solutions or disagreements?
Labels: Emerging Church
Our church is actually "emerging" right now. I agree with you that at heart we really want to work from within. I personally was not involved enough until recently to speak very well for staff and leadership, but from what I have observed, it is a very hard thing to do. Our church has dropped in numbers quite a bit, but I can't say it was heavily from changes in discussion and thought. There has been a positive response from many, and many are very open to new ideas, thoughts, change in the church dynamic etc. Others however, are not liking it at all. The people I have encountered that didn't like what was happening, were very uneasy with change. Many of us "love" our comfort zones, some are even taught that opening your mind to other things, can be a dangerous path. I think our church and leadership have done a great job, easing into new territory, challenging thought etc., however, the resistance is strong in many areas. I guess it somewhat depends even on the type of "denomination" a church is linked with. Some denominations are more strict, literal, walk a more "narrow" path and are made up of lots of rules etc. Other denominations are more liberal in thoughts, theology etc. So I guess my round about answer is not much of one. There are many things that play in to "church", society, people etc. I think that a church and it's leaders should try to "emerge" thinking if they can, but in many cases, I think a churches makeup may just blow that to pieces. Hierarchy systems, group think etc can take over. Many times people who think openly are in the minority and eventually are chased out, causing start ups of new groups churches etc. There isn't an easy answer, and probably to some degree needs to be handled case by case. Personally, I am still very involved with non-emerging Christians...most of my family and many friends! I actually haven't even revealed to many of them that I consider myself "emerging" more than anything else at this point. When discussions arise, I just speak my thoughts and don't put much of a title on it. I mention books I have read, ideas that I am looking at etc. in hopes that I can influence openness in what ever way I can.