DISQUS

I have a similar problem, however it is additionally complicated by the fact that I am at Luther Sem where the way that things get framed is different from my Bethel days. They don't tend to see the distinctions that people at Bethel see as so important. Instead of asking my denominational background, they ask my confessional tradition. I feel as if I can say a lot of different things and have them all be true of me (i.e. "Emergant" or "Anabaptist" or "House Church") but none of them seems absolutely comfortable. I have had to just let that identity part go and to just say house church and wait for follow-up questions to give out the exact nuances based on their level of interest and categories. If someone is just asking to make small-talk, then why bother giving out the full view? When it becomes relevant, I'll distinguish further.

What if it were called "renuning" the church? It could have an added dimention of social justice.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Is anyone else going to take the course with you at UST?

The fact that the emerging church is complex is exemplified by the fact that four out of his five core areas have "and" in them. They're linking different ideas (and ways of doing and being things) together.

Tim,
I don't think it's reductionistic or mathematical, per se. I think it's just a building of rhetorical weight that is meant to tap into something deeper inside of you. It's the difference between saying that the world is a bad place, and the world is a bad place because of the turmoil in Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Russia, China, Venezuela, Colombia, North Korea, Iran, etc.

When I say the world is a bad place, you can choose whether to agree with me. If I say that the world is a bad place because of a large number of concrete reasons, it seems less etherial and more basic. More flesh and blood.

The idea of moral evil that is caused by free choices we make is one thing, but physical evil seems to be more difficult. I didn't choose to have a birth defect, just like the Sri Lankans didn't choose to have a tsunami.

I agree, Em that we have a choice with how to deal with this, but it is still horrifying when I think about how many people suffer in the world.

How did it go?

What about the idea of Christendom? I'd argue that Charlemagne was probably as "bad" a figure as Constantine was in terms of solidifying this synthesis.

Constantine paved the path with the Edict of Milan in 313 for the state to stop persecuting the Christians, but it took a few generations before Christianity became the state religion and that's why I especially dislike Theodosius and the Theodosian Codes which formed the bedrock of the church-state relationship all the way up until the 20th century.

I really dislike Charlemagne because his baptism in 800 marked the true beginning of "Christendom" with the Holy Roman Empire (which was non of the three nomers).

If you're going to use a term, I think that Christendom helps, but you have to recognize the path it took to get there.

Mark,
I found your post to be very insightful. I have had a hard time with people who say that church is all of the things you've said above, but then still go to megachurches or even traditional churches.

We all have dichotomies between what we say we believe and what we live out, but shouldn't the goal be to heal the disconnect as we're sanctified in Christ?

Is this the Muhammed I know from the 2nd Moon?

I'd like to talk to him again sometime, but I'm not going to the 2nd moon as much anymore for various reasons.

Design is significant, but changing things to make them look flashier is part of consumer fetishism. You, the bloger are alienating the reader because you keep on changing the look, making it difficult for people to find what they're looking for. It's a classical case of the alienation of the masses.

Long live Marx! (oh, wait...)

I agree, Mike.

Substance over style!

DLW-
Why should we deal with the political dimension as well? What is the proper response, politically?

Isn't welcoming glbt people into a Christian community a political act/statement in itsself?

Mark,
When is accumulation of property ok? You said you're not a Marxist, but you seemed to say that the accumulation of property is contrary to being a good social person.

Mark,
why exactly do you still want to be considered "in"? What benefit do you see? How does it fit within your structures to see yourself as "in"?

I'm not saying that to be rude, but I think I've pretty much given up on wanting to be "in" but it's more because I define it rather narrowly as well, and have rejected the narrower group. Maybe that's not fair, but that's where I'm at.

Mark,
This was a good post, the only feedback I'd have is in reguard to your last bulletpoint. I'd argue that the message of Evangelicals is oddly contextual, but it is the wrong context for todays audience. The message of the gospel that is often preached in Evangelical churches makes some sense within Evangelical subculture, but even so, I'd argue that there are ways of articulating the gospel that make more sense within Evangelical subculture, if not within greater American culture(s). The main problem with the preaching of the gospel is that it is being presented in a way that you have to already be an insider in order to "get" and if you're not, then it either doesn't make any sense, or is not very attractive, or a mix of both.

Mark,
I'm just saying that we don't always call a spade a spade. If you're making major differences, then say it, but if you're making small changes, don't call them big ones. Any pastor worth their weight in salt should have at least a cursory understanding of the ecclesial landscape and should understand that they're not offering a revolutionary new thing. Call it what it is.

I agree. It's like protesting dress socks by wearing striped toe-socks. They're still socks, they just have individually-seperated spaces for the toes to go into.

Maybe this is covered in hospitality, but growing in intimacy with eachother. Confessing sins to eachother and spurring eachother on towards holiness seems to be necessary as well.

knightofpan-
Where has your path of seeking truth taken you? Do you as if it has been worthwhile?

(I'm not trying to bait you, I'm just curious. It's a question I ask of anyone who has made a conscious decision to leave Christianity).

(feel free to email me, if you'd like: blorge@gmail.com)

I've been giving it some thought and I've realized that it's ok for people to go out and start drinking beer and getting tattoos so long as they try to separate them from our ecclesiology.

What I'm trying to get at is the fact that we all have to establish our own independence from our parents and institutions that have shaped us. It's natural to push away at various points in our lives (let's not be harsh on teeniebopers or frat house boys because they're not the only ones).

It's ok, in this sense for people to start being "counter cultural" in this sense because they're showing the conservative church that they have a culture that isn't necessarily worth keeping in tact.

I've found this exchange interesting because I'm not sure that people have given a specifically theological reason for justifying participation in governmental activities/legislation/lobbying/etc.

I've seen logical ones, but not theological ones, per se.

This may seem like an odd list, but it's probably because I'm more of a theologian (and because I haven't taken any church leadership courses or workshops because I was in the Christian Thought program at Sem).

The Faces of Forgiveness (F. LeRon Shults & Steven Sandage)

Life Together, and Sanctorum Communio (Bonhoeffer)

Resident Alians (Hauerwas)

I second the Wendell Berry one, Jeremy ;)

Part of the problem is that Christians have formed a "counter culture" that is really just a "sub-culture" and thus takes on all of the characteristics of the regular culture, but with a twist. We've become vanilla coke when we should have become jolt.

Interesting tagline, I'd qualify it, though by adding that all societies throughout time have been "mad" in the sense that they all offer challanges and oppertunities to follow the Lord. The Middle Ages was just as "mad" as the Golden Age of Greece, or the Victorian Era.