Sunday, September 10, 2006
Emerging Churches
While I extracted only some paragraphs that cover the "emerging church"concept, this article (registration required but free) goes into much more detail about it as well as some opposing views.
Will emerging churches serve to alter the continuing trend away from religion in the USA? I doubt it. It will appeal to some, for sure, and focusing on social justice rather than political power is a good thing, but the rift between progressive church goers and the vast legions aligned with the christian right will only serve to highlight what many non-believers attribute for their disenchantment with religion today: the hypocritical stances of both sides going at each other with "I'm right. No, I'm right" about their recipes.
This rift between these groups only serves to justify what I'll crudely refer to as a common atheist mantra: if these assholes are going to heaven, to hell with paradise; I'll take my chances with the unknown.
[Brian] McLaren has emerged as one of the most prominent voices in an increasingly active group of progressive evangelicals who are challenging the theological orthodoxy and political dominance of the religious right. He also is an intellectual guru of "emerging church," a grass-roots movement among young evangelicals exploring new models of living out their Christian faith.
McLaren, 50, offers an evangelical vision that emphasizes tolerance and social justice. He contends that people can follow Jesus's way without becoming Christian. In the latest of his eight books, "The Secret Message of Jesus," which has sold 55,000 copies since its April release, he argues that Christians should be more concerned about creating a just "Kingdom of God" on earth than about getting into heaven... "When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels," McLaren said in a recent interview
"Emerging church" is a loose network of mostly young evangelicals who believe the Christian message needs to be made more relevant in a time of rapid technological and societal change, particularly to those who've never been part of any church.
McLaren said the name "emerging church" came out of a 2001 discussion he had with Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, about "why the megachurches were not attracting young people." The reasons, experts said, were becoming evident in the 1990s: dissatisfaction with the rightward drift in evangelical politics; worship styles so contemporary and casual they had no spiritual uplift; a lack of emphasis on social justice; and a theology that some say reduced Christianity to a recipe.
Will emerging churches serve to alter the continuing trend away from religion in the USA? I doubt it. It will appeal to some, for sure, and focusing on social justice rather than political power is a good thing, but the rift between progressive church goers and the vast legions aligned with the christian right will only serve to highlight what many non-believers attribute for their disenchantment with religion today: the hypocritical stances of both sides going at each other with "I'm right. No, I'm right" about their recipes.
This rift between these groups only serves to justify what I'll crudely refer to as a common atheist mantra: if these assholes are going to heaven, to hell with paradise; I'll take my chances with the unknown.
Comments:
<< Home
Don't be too cynical. Emerging style churches do appeal to many who wouldn't be part of most more typical churches. So they do contribute something to slowing the move away from religion. Not that there'll be a quick reversal or anything, but it does provide hope.
But how can the "pastor" preach that you don't have to be Christian to follow the teachings of Jesus? As a PASTOR of a Christian church, he's giving the wrong message. Yeah, we are called, as Christians, to share the gospel. If people want to accept it or not, that's their choice. But I would NEVER say, "Yeah, well, you don't have to be Christian...just do what Jesus said." I mean, doing what Jesus said--wouldn't that mean you BELIEVED in the teachings as truth? And all you are to have to be to be Christian is a *believer*. So why follow it if you didn't believe in it?? I just don't get what this guy's goal is???
Bill,
I hear you. I said I think, "it will appeal to some" but frankly, I don't think it'll make much of a dent. Those who become faithful will be more like Stacy for whom the Bible is the law with no wiggle room, or they are non-believers who may like the message but without the blind faith. Yes, the pastor seems to be opening the door to non-believers, but that doesn’t make sense to me; non-believers do not need a church to go to, they just live their lives in a way that’s consistent with the teachings they subscribe too (most of which are not unique to Jesus but in fact are common among most religions anyway).
Stacy,
I don't want to speak for the pastor but to me it seems he's saying that results, that is, more people interested in a JUST Kingdom of God on earth (which I interpret to mean, people being nicer to each other, turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbor, stop supporting disastrous wars, etc.) is more important than process and ritual, which people like you place above all else for “salvation”.
I think many of us believe in being nice to each other WITHOUT having to accept the whole blind faith package. Yes, we can believe in the message of Jesus WITHOUT all the other myths associated with the messenger. And to understand what I mean, you have to understand that many of us do not think of the Bible as the word of God but the thought of controlling mere mortals, therefore we can accept that which makes sense to us, and discard what which does not.
I hear you. I said I think, "it will appeal to some" but frankly, I don't think it'll make much of a dent. Those who become faithful will be more like Stacy for whom the Bible is the law with no wiggle room, or they are non-believers who may like the message but without the blind faith. Yes, the pastor seems to be opening the door to non-believers, but that doesn’t make sense to me; non-believers do not need a church to go to, they just live their lives in a way that’s consistent with the teachings they subscribe too (most of which are not unique to Jesus but in fact are common among most religions anyway).
Stacy,
I don't want to speak for the pastor but to me it seems he's saying that results, that is, more people interested in a JUST Kingdom of God on earth (which I interpret to mean, people being nicer to each other, turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbor, stop supporting disastrous wars, etc.) is more important than process and ritual, which people like you place above all else for “salvation”.
I think many of us believe in being nice to each other WITHOUT having to accept the whole blind faith package. Yes, we can believe in the message of Jesus WITHOUT all the other myths associated with the messenger. And to understand what I mean, you have to understand that many of us do not think of the Bible as the word of God but the thought of controlling mere mortals, therefore we can accept that which makes sense to us, and discard what which does not.
Absolutely, Victor. I agree. You can follow Jesus' teachings without being Christian. I mean, Jesus said to forgive, to love, be compassionate--definitely don't have to be Christian to do so. My problem is with a pastor teaching as long as you follow it, that's okay--you don't have to believe in it. It's just a contradictory message he's sending. Why make it more confusing? Stick to one belief--don't try to bend it to make it more "easy to swallow."
Post a Comment
<< Home
