Category: Emerging Church

Defining and Defending the Blog

Posted on

This past week fellow Daily Scribe blogger Nick Norelli asked the following questions on his blog – “Is a blog a blog if it doesn’t allow comments? And if it is then is it a blog worth reading?” My initial response was to answer “no” to both questions. Something may perhaps fit the technical definition of a blog and may even contain good information, but in my opinion, a good blog is one that allows conversation, that invites interaction and doesn’t hide dissenting opinions. I find blogs where the authors pontificate on their own opinions but don’t allow questions or criticisms to represent the height of arrogance. It’s even worse when comments appear to be allowed, but dissenting opinions are deleted or edited or when only pre-approved voices are allowed access. Now I’ve deleted a handful of comments here, but only the spam and the super-creepy sexual ones. I prefer the open comment policy. But from my experience the bloggers who don’t allow comments aren’t interested in conversation at all – just in attempting to get everyone to think they are right. They tell the world what to believe, or (more commonly) ridicule ideas or people they don’t like and then walk away. Sure some bloggers don’t have time to respond to every comment, but not allowing commentary at all seems like a way of avoiding responsibility for one’s opinions. But then again, I’m not a fan of having some authority on high telling me what I should believe without allowing me to question or examine their ideas.

These questions reminded me of the recent discussion we had over at the Emerging Women blog regarding the benefits blogging has brought to marginalized voices. In the church world where the voices of white men predominate (or are at least perceived to do so), blogs have provided women and others on the margins with the opportunity to have a voice. So I find it interesting that it is generally white males in positions of power who don’t allow comments on their blogs or who complain (on their blog) about too many voices out there blogging. Why? Some dislike the open source nature of blog discussion preferring instead good old traditional authority. Others think there are too many voices out there for conversation to be meaningful and therefore blogging should be restricted (to those with authority perhaps?). Others don’t like giving the “uneducated” or “unsupervised” the opportunity to have a voice. And perhaps some just want theirs to be the only voice that gets heard.

I admit, there can be issues with blogs. I’ve encountered the crazies out there (blogrush is such great entertainment – did you know that aliens will aid Jesus in his second coming by bringing him to Roswell??), I see the dangers of posting pictures of yourself partying in Cancun that any potential employer can google, and I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth on a few too many occasions – but I still support the freedoms it brings. I like that blogging helps me to examine my world and think critically about ideas I encounter. I like that I get pushed to justify my opinions (not that I always succeed at doing so). I like that as a mom who is often confined to the house I can have adult conversations and maintain friendships with people around the world. I like that women are breaking free from the lies the church has told them and realizing that yes, they can do theology and have a voice in these sorts of discussions. Without the blog many post-evangelical women would be left with no one to talk to, no one to encourage them, and no way to move forward in their faith. So for a man who has never experienced the same confines and dismissal as these women to say that our blogs are just noise that need to go away in order for the important voices to be better heard really irks me (even though I know that most of the men making such statements are not necessarily directing them at women).

I’m all for the conversation. I want to learn from others and I want to question, challenge, and clarify what I read online. To me, such interaction is the trademark of a good discussion, a good educational setting, or a good church not to mention a good blog. I find it frustrating these days to listen to a sermon or read a book and not be able to push deeper by questioning it. I recall the most frustrating classes in college were the ones where the profs refused to respond to questions – instead saying meaningless things like “that’s a good question” and continue on with their lecture. I didn’t want more notes to take, I wanted to engage with what I was learning. Blogs have provided me with that opportunity to continue learning by engaging my world. Sure I enjoy “real-life” conversations, but once a month or so is far too infrequent and I don’t have the babysitting funds for much more (and don’t even get me started on the local Feminist Thought Club I tried to join which ended up being a bunch of college guys trying to pick up women…). I need more than that.  So I am grateful for blogs and for the discussion they should support. I am not afraid of the hard questions nor do I think the “simple questions” are just creating noise. The opportunity to read and engage daily with others is needed at this stage in my life. For me, it’s what helps me grow.

Read more

Embracing Deconstruction

Posted on

So I was feeling well enough the other night to actually get out and make it to our local Emergent Cohort. Let’s just say that with all of this sickness and complications with the pregnancy I haven’t been outside the house for adult interaction since October. So even though I paid for it the next day, it was really really nice to get out and interact (can you tell I’m getting a tad stir crazy?).

Anyway at Up-rooted West we are making our way through McLaren’s latest book Everything Must Change. At the very start of our conversation the other night someone mentioned appreciating the book because it helped point the way forward. Too many books or discussions in the emerging church focused on deconstruction apparently and not enough gave constructive ways to move forward. While I fully appreciate the need for positive constructive books, I am wary of the tendency to avoid deconstruction. To many in the church the term “deconstruction” is just code for unnecessary negative criticism that hurts and destroys. I have a few issues with that view. While I see merit in the need to avoid negative attitudes all the time, to deny people the right to criticize and expressing disappointment (just because those are negative things) restricts the telling of truth and silences prophetic voices. (I wrote about that here recently). But I also think that to view deconstruction as solely a negative act is a misunderstanding of the term.

Although my philosophical understanding is rusty and it’s been years since I’ve read Derrida, I seem to recall that deconstruction is less about the evil practice of tearing down and destroying that many Christians have made it out to be and more about understanding and justice. It involves discovering and understanding the underlying assumptions present in an idea, system, or belief. The goal of deconstruction ultimately is justice (the one thing that cannot be deconstructed) – for as one seeks better understanding one is able to better love the Other. In all something whose goal is love and justice seems to be a fairly positive endeavour in my view. I see much of the conversation that is occurring in the emerging church to be based on these habits of deconstruction – attempting to understand the church and the systems of the world in order to increase love and justice. Deconstruction is part of what it means to move forward as followers of Christ.

Which is why I am loving what I have read so far in John Caputo’s latest book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? – The Good News of Postmodernity for the Church. He writes –

But in the view I am advancing here, deconstruction is treated as the hermeneutics of the kingdom of God, as an interpretive style that helps get at the prophetic spirit of Jesus – who was a surprising and sometimes strident outsider, who took a stand with the “other” … In my view, a deconstruction is good news, because it delivers the shock of the other to the forces of the same, the shock of the good (the “ought”) to the forces of being (”what is”). (p. 26-27)

and as James K.A. Smith writes in the introduction –

Caputo plays here the role of witness and midwife, giving voice to the ways in which Jesus’s vision of the kingdom deconstructs all our domestications – not to leave the institution razed to the ground, but merely flattened. In fact, the whole project is animated by a passion for just institutions – a desire to see things otherwise, to see an institution open to the Other, to the future, and most importantly, to a Jesus who will surprise us.” (p.16)

Deconstruction is about creating a positive vision. It is about moving forward and for us as Christians that involves living with the expectant hope found in Jesus. Discovering ways to fulfill the “on earth as it is in heaven” description of the Kingdom. It is about understanding ourselves and what we believe so that we can respond to the call to love.

Read more

Book Review – Rising from the Ashes

Posted on

I recently finished reading Becky Garrison’s new book Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church (we have also been discussing this book over at Emerging Women for this month’s book discussion). This book is different from the typical offering on this subject in that it consists solely of interviews Becky conducted with a wide diversity of people who have experimented with “rethinking church.” I found this pure inclusion of various voices refreshing and a good representation of the vast array of changes happening in the church today. These voices come from mainline and evangelical backgrounds; and while many of them are involved in the emerging church conversation, this book is a good reminder that streams of change are present across the broad spectrum of church and are not just limited to the emerging camp. That said, I was interested to see how even amongst the emerging voices the expressions of how church is being rethought varies from culture to culture and church to church. The voices often disagree or place emphasis on differing areas, but I found that to lend validity to the widespread nature of this conversation on the need to rethink church.

I found a quote in the interview with Brian McLaren to be helpful in summarizing this diversity in the conversation –

There’s so much going on, and people are at all different places. I mean, I started asking certain questions fifteen years ago, and one question led to another and another, and here I am now. other people are just asking the first set of questions, or they’re asking the questions in a different order. But what all of us have in common, I think, is this sense that we’re trying to be faithful to God in the aftermath of modernity and colonialism and all that they entail. (p. 51)

So as the conversation is explored in this book we hear from voices like Phyllis Tickle, Jonny Baker, Shane Claiborne, Diana Butler Bass, Tony Jones, Ian Mobsby, and Nadia Bolz-Weber on topics such as the state of the church, the Gospel of the Kingdom, Christian community, and worship practices. Many of those interviews hold tight to particular church traditions as they attempt to understand the church in this day and age. Others seek to question existing structures or to examine our very conception of church itself. In their responses one sees a mix of theology and practice as well as a deep commitment to serving God in whatever way they can. Rethinking church for them is not about being new or different, but about being faithful and committed followers.

I find this book to be a necessary offering at this stage in the conversation as it serves to highlight the diversity of voices present therein. It is a needed reminder that around the world and across denominations the conversations do not look the same although they may have common elements. I hope this book can help raise that awareness and heighten the appreciation of those who are coming at this conversation differently from us (whoever “us” may be). Not everyone is rethinking church in the same way and there is much to be learned from each other. I recommend this book as a great resource and glimpse into the currents moving the church today. It is helpful to know where we are headed and prudent to understand the passions and rationale of others during these times.

Read more

Talents and Stewardship

Posted on

The tension between using one’s God given talent and being a good steward of God given resources is an issue I keep returning to. I do believe that God gives people gifts that should be used – He sent the Spirit to the craftsmen of the Tabernacle as they used their skills. I also believe that the resources we have are blessings from God (not in the health and wealth sort of way), and we should use them wisely and unselfishly. But sometimes those two ideas collide.

If one is to sell all one has and give it to the poor, or even just live a modest lifestyle, it become fairly difficult to develop and use certain talents, even for the greater good. If one has the gift of music like David, the acquisition and upkeep of musical equipment costs a lot of money. Much time must be spent on practice which much be subsidized in some way. The same is true of any of the performing arts or sports – dance, skating, drama, skiing, cycling… A great deal of money is required to develop one’s talent in any of those areas. Generally only those who have money already and spend that money on themselves can develop that talent. Is that good stewardship?

It could be easy to just deny that certain things even qualify as “God-given talents.” The guitar player that leads our church band with his $1000 guitar can have talent from God, but the privileged white figure skater doesn’t count. Michaelangelo’s in, but the ballerina is out. And then what about the talents that are often scoffed at by Christians – especially emerging missional Christians? What about the fashion designer or the interior designer? Are their talent’s a gift if they feed lifestyles of greed and consumption? What about the person who is really really good at preaching? Are such skills meaningless? Or are they gifts from God?

The tension bothers me. There is the part of me that wants to affirm who people are and say that God gave them the skills to do certain things. And many of those skills can and have been used to serve God. But it is hard to reconcile how privileged one has to be in order to develop those talents. Even if one gives glory to God and blesses others with their talent are the vast amount of resources spent justified?

I have no answers, but this question returns to me every so often. I personally have spent lots of money developing who God made me to be (college comes to mind). I want to affirm developing talent, but I just can’t always justify it as good stewardship. Any thoughts?

Read more

What’s In A Name?

Posted on

I like reading socio-cultural histories and following the patterns of cultural trends. I am in no way fashionable or trendy myself. I couldn’t tell you what sort of music is popular these days or what sort of clothing is in (I wear blue jeans, t-shirts, and birks). But I love reading about how the evolution of fashion affected, say, the women’s right’s movement. Or even about how the transformation of the “book” from scroll to codex to electronic medium influences how we psychologically interact with the text. So books like A History of Reading and Freakonomics fascinated me.

Since reading Freakonomics a couple of years ago, I’ve been intrigued by the history of names. The rise and fall of naming trends, the sounds that enchant a generation, the cultural events that send a name soaring or plummeting in the charts. I look forward to the Social Security Administration’s yearly Mother’s Day gift of the 1000 most popular names from the previous year. I am addicted to sites like the Baby Name Wizard that tracks current trends and reports of historical patterns. Yes, it is nerdy, but I like these attempts to understand the cultural zeitgeist.

So I’ve been lurking at the edges of recent conversation at Andrew Jones’ blog about the names emerging and emergent. The question posed was if those terms are a help or a hindrance to those of us within this conversation. Or as some interpreted it – is the shelf life of those terms rapidly coming to an end. Are emerging and emergent the ministry equivalents of Jennifer and Jason, or to be contemporary, Madison and Jacob – useful popular names for a season but which have become so overused and trendy that those who think about such things don’t want to use them anymore?

I found the comments in the discussion interesting. Sure there were those who freaked out about using any labels at all. Others threw up their hands in despair at the idea that some people have given emerging/emergent a bad name and so therefore we must promptly abandon them. Some were more ambivalent saying that a name doesn’t define who they are as Christians, and a small few actually said they liked the names.

What I found most intriguing was how this name discussion parallelled the biggest trends in baby naming – essentially that the trend these days is to be unique (not trendy). Of course the irony is that everyone is just giving into the trend of not being trendy. But our culture places so much value on individuality and not being one of the crowd that of course anti-trendiness and uniqueness have become virtues.

But have we ever stopped to think that in the mad dash to avoid cultural trends what we are really doing is refusing to be part of a community. By snubbing our nose at a label we are rejecting those who own that label. We say “we are different and better than you so therefore we don’t want to be associated with you.” Sure in the history of naming there perhaps are appropriate occasions to do such things (did all the Adolph’s start going by their middle name after WW2?). But to eschew a name/label because it isn’t unique enough or just isn’t “me” represents the height of individuality. And I thought that one of the things that pesky emerging/emergent label conveyed was a shift away from individuality towards community. But maybe that’s not what people really want.

Read more

Being Negative

Posted on

Yesterday in church as we began our celebration of Advent we focused on Idolatry. Granted that isn’t one of the common themes of the season, but the advent of this different type of Messiah calls one to examine idolatry of empire versus allegiance to the Kingdom of God. As one stands against the false messages of empire, it become important to not only live differently but to have a prophetic voice where one is at. One needs to have the ability, the right, and the courage to stand up at times and say “this isn’t right.” Unfortunately that prophetic voice is generally suspect or corrupted in the church and in American society. As we discussed this, I was reminded of a recent quote of Tony Campolo to Tony Jones that I have seen posted on a couple of blogs (HT – Brother Maynard and Steve Knight)

“Don’t emerge. The Church needs you to not emerge. Keep being emergent. Keep saying what you’re not. Keep saying what you’re against. Be a prophetic voice in the Church, ’cause as soon as you say, ‘OK we’re done being against, we’re done kind of calling out the failings of the modern church, the weaknesses of the modern church,’ then you will become something, and you’ll no longer be Emergent. Then you’ll start ‘workin’ for The Man.’ You’ll become part of the big institution.”

While I am sure that more was meant in this statement than just what I am perceiving here, I think this holds some good advice for the church. One of the most common complaints I hear against us emergent types is that we are too negative – we just complain about the system and don’t actually ever say what we are for. While I often wonder if those making such accusations are just too miffed that our complaints hit too close to home to bother looking at what we do believe, these sorts of accusations generally end up shutting down constructive conversation. Conflict avoidance is next to godliness in most church settings I’ve been a part of, and so to accuse someone of being negative and inciting conflict is a sure way to silence opposition. In effect prophetic voices get muzzled or tainted with the label rabble-rouser. We can’t have people being negative now can we? Or as someone asked in church yesterday, did people tell Martin Luther to stop being so negative as he nailed his complaints to the door?
Granted, some attempts at having a prophetic voice are anything but helpful. Thoughtful engagement and criticism appear instead as hatred and judgementalism. Those voices are not looking for dialogue or change, but to merely tell others why they obviously are wrong. They kinda forget the whole “speak the truth in love” mandate or Peter’s advice to give a reason for the hope we have with gentleness and respect.
There needs to be a balance here. Judgementalism must be avoided in favor of respect and love, but prophetic voices shouldn’t be shamed into silence either. There is nothing wrong with calling for reform of the church or of the country – even though such a call is by its very nature negative. In exploring flaws and providing constructive criticism one is not necessarily rejecting those structures, just hoping to make them better. So while positive outlooks have their place, so do negative criticisms. We need to cling to the ability to be self-reflective of the cultures we inhabit (including the church) and continue to have a prophetic voice within those realms – no matter how uncomfortable it may be for others to hear.

Read more

Everything Must Change

Posted on

So I am slowly making my way through Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change and have to this point not engaged in many of the conversations about it. I’ve lurked, but wanted to have actually read the book before I engaged. As usual I am most annoyed with all the people who are upset about McLaren’s book because it is different than the type of book they want him to write. Apparently if he doesn’t feature their personal pet theology as the central aspect of every single one of his books then he is guilty of heresy, or ignoring atonement, or downplaying scripture, or whatever. Can’t people just read books for what they are for crying out loud?

But anyway, I’ve enjoyed much of what I’ve read so far (although I do admit the typos are driving me crazy) and predicably the part that has resonated with me the most has been one of the most controversial passages. McLaren at one point takes Mary’s Magnificat and rewrites it to be more in-line with the message he had been exposed to in the church. I’ve included both below, the original Bible passage and McLaren’s rewrite –

Luke 1:46 – 55
And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers.”

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my personal Savior, for he has been mindful of the correct saving faith of his servant. My spirit will go to heaven when my body dies for the Mighty One has provided forgiveness, assurance, and eternal security for me–holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who have correct saving faith and orthodox articulations of belief, from generation to generation. He will overcome the damning effects of original sin with his mighty arm; he will damn to hell those who believe they can be saved through their own efforts or through any religion other than the new one He is about to form. He will condemn followers of other religions to hell but bring to heaven those with correct belief. He has filled correct believers with spiritual blessings but will send those who are not elect to hell forever. He has helped those with correct doctrinal understanding, remembering to be merciful to those who believe in the correct theories of atonement, just as our preferred theologians through history have articulated.” Everything Must Change, p107, Brian McLaren

His rewrite has caused not a few people to become seriously angry at his audacity to reinterpret scripture as well as for his (perceived) caricaturizing of conventional evangelical theology. Many claim that his rewrite has no resemblance to any actual theology and so is unfair on his part to write as if it does. Brian McLaren clarified why he rewrote the Magnificat recently on Scot McKnight’s blog by saying, “My purpose is just to show the difference between the assumptions I was taught to bring to the text and what the text seems to me to actually be saying. It’s because I love the real Magnificat that I wanted to show how many of us unintentionally empty out its original meaning and then refill it with something different.”

I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who have never been exposed to the sorts of theological messages that McLaren presents in his rewrite. And I am sure that there are others who have been exposed to such theology, but who also are grounded in the revolutionary words of the real Magnificat. But I never was. I never even heard the Magnificat until 2 years ago. That part of the story was skipped over and dismissed, probably because it had to do with Mary and she was always avoided as “too Catholic.” I also was told that the Beatitudes only applied to the afterlife. These messages of hope for the oppressed were never ever part of the message I heard at church. But everything in McLaren’s rewrite came through loud and clear. His words were very representative of my reality. So while I am not naive enough to assume that everyone shares my reality, I would appreciate it if others would stop denying that my reality exists.

I have found deep spiritual insight through reading the Magnificat (the real one) over the last couple of years, but it took removing the lens I had been taught to encounter scripture with in order for that to be possible. So I think McLaren’s use of a possibly shocking rewrite is justified to help readers examine how they really do approach scripture. Or at least theoretically that would be the goal…

Read more

Book Review – It’s A Dance

Posted on

I recently had the opportunity to read a review copy of It’s A Dance written by Patrick Oden. When I first heard about this book I was intrigued – a theology book about the Holy Spirit written in story form. I am aware that the role of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in emerging church discussions. Perhaps the fundamentalist/evangelical roots of many of us in this conversation who grew up being told that the salvation of Pentecostals and Charismatics wasn’t for sure and that the Holy Spirit no longer works in our current dispensation may have something to do with that. But whatever the case, I haven’t heard much talk about the holy Spirit recently and so wanted to explore It’s a Dance.

The book is set up focusing on a writing assignment of a southern Californian journalist, Luke. His assignment leads him to visit and review churches in the area in search of something new and different to capture the readers attention. While the assignment is part of his job, the search echoes Luke’s own spiritual quest to arrive at some sort of understanding and expression of faith he can accept. This quest leads him to a very different sort of church that meets in a pub. Luke then discovers the hows and why of this church’s differences as he sits down for long discussions with the pastor and church attendees. Through these discussions we hear the stories of what brought people to this different church (often stories of pain) and are exposed to the basic theology driving the church. All the while the presence of the Holy Spirit makes itself known as the conversation returns again and again to how the Spirit is at the center of what drives the church.

I personally enjoyed reading the theological exploration in conversational format. Many of the conversations in the book reminded me of ones I have participated in from time to time. There were points where the writing slipped out of conversational mode into sermon mode, but then again when you are writing through the voice of a pastor, it is hard not to sermonize every once in awhile. Although the book does not use footnotes (they would have broken up the flow of the conversation), Oden lists his sources at the end of the book and one can tell that centuries of theological traditions and reflections informed the dialogue in the book. As I read I encountered ideas common in emerging church circles as well as explorations of the Holy Spirit that were new to my understanding of faith. It was a fun intellectual journey to take.

In the presentation of the “different” church Luke encounters, it is easy to recognize many of the trendy trappings of relevant churches. They met in a pub connected to a coffee shop/bookstore, they don’t do programs, they offer a prayer room for contemplative prayer, they eschew the typical patterns of modern American churches and so forth. Nothing wrong of course with any of those things, they just fit the common stereotypes of what emerging churches look like. I appreciated that Oden went beyond describing the stylistic structure of the church and told the stories of the people who identify with that church. Reading their stories and discovering how they came to find a church home there fleshed out the theology presented in the book. Their lives represented theology lived out and were a great reminder of the real life implications of all that we believe. Through them one could see the Holy Spirit moving in the never-ending dance to draw us into faith and worship.

I think this book is a needed addition to the growing library of books on how we do church in an emerging culture. It is an accessible read and will be helpful to those who understand theology more relationally than didactically.

Read more

Overhearing a Crisis of Faith

Posted on

So I had another interesting lunch yesterday. No, it didn’t involve crazy people being offended that I exist, but it did involve overhearing a rather interesting conversation. I don’t mean to eavesdrop, really, but it was impossible not to hear this conversation. And plus once I heard some of it, it was hard to tune out.

Emma and I once again had a day of appointments and errands and stopped for lunch. At the booth right behind us were two older women, they had to be at least in their late 60’s and looked the epitome of “grandma.” They were just finishing their food when we arrived, but right as I sat down I heard one of them bring up a conversation in a way that implied this conversation was the main thing she had been wanting to talk about all along. She basically told her friend that she thinks she had lost her faith. She describes going through the motions of church, still doing all the churchy stuff, but feeling like there is nothing there. She described it as being like she had been eating at a certain table her whole life but now the table just disappeared and she doesn’t know what to do. She clarified that this had nothing to do with anything bad that happened, or anything a person did, it just happened.

I missed what they discussed next, but then I heard her friend suggest she attend an evening service at another church where they do things “differently.” The lady replied that she wouldn’t be welcome there because she was too old. She then started talking about her relatives who are agnostic but who are deeply committed to a women for peace and justice group. She said this group has been around for over 100 years passionately caring about these things. She said she felt so inadequate just now discovering that she should be caring as well. Her friend just said, I kid you not, “but that’s just the social gospel”.

That’s all I overheard. You can see why I eavesdropped. I found it fascinating to listen to a much older person who has been integrally involved in the traditional church model her whole life having the same crises of faith and awakening to justice issues that many of us in the emerging church are having. Not that I think its weird, just more rare. I felt for her for not feeling welcome at what was most likely an emerging style worship service because of her age. I recall a similar issue at the last Midwest Emerging Women gathering. An older woman showed up to that event and told me that it was the first emerging event she felt welcomed at because of her age. In the promo material I had included a line about how women of all ages are welcome to attend, and it took finally seeing that in print for her to feel like she could participate. I hope this other lady from the restaurant finds a place to connect where her questions are heard and she can pursue Christ’s call to justice. I so wanted to jump in on the conversation, but I’m the type person who would never actually do that. I am just grateful for the reminder that these questions are pertinent no matter what age a person is.

Read more

He with the Loudest Voice Wins

Posted on

Forget “come let us reason together.” Forget “love wins.” These days it feels like whoever has the loudest voice wins. I know that sounds really cynical but I’m getting tired of being drowned out by those voice. Let me explain.

We do church differently at our church – call it emerging or postmodern if you like. We don’t (generally) preach at people, but instead attempt to engage people in discussion and reflection. This works really well for people who are used to us or who have an bit of an intellectual bent. But occasionally we get people who show up who after listening to part of the conversation say something like “But Joel Osteen says _____”. That’s the end of the discussion for them. Joel Osteen has a TV show so therefore his voice being the loudest and most prominent is correct. So if we are talking about self-sacrificially serving others based on texts from Luke, but Joel Osteen said that we can have it all if we just have faith, Joel Osteen must be right. There is no interacting with the issue, no trying to determine which message holds the truth, just allegiance with the guy with the loud voice.

Then there are the issues with the radio preachers (as the Out of Ur blog recently discussed). These guys can say whatever they want and because it is Christian radio people believe them as Gospel truth. It doesn’t matter if your church preaches one thing on Sunday, if the people in your church listen to Christian radio they will believe the radio guys’ over you. If they are on the radio they have the loud voice and therefore must be right. So if you are say in the emerging church, but the radio preachers tell their listeners that the emerging church is a cult where they sacrifice children and have sex with Satan (or something similar) they will believe the radio guys and condemn you to hell. No honest intelligent dialogue. No pursuit of truth. Just automatic default to whatever the guys with the loudest voice are saying.

I’ve personally experienced this phenomenon in a women’s Bible study I was in a few years ago (which yes was just as painful as it sounds). Not much deep engagement went on at this thing. Our discussions involved reading whatever answer we filled in the Beth Moore blank with or occasionally reading the study notes from the NIV. Any attempts to push the conversation further were met with confused looks of “that wasn’t in the book.” One week our topic was on Rahab, and I was determined to bring up the alternative view that perhaps she wasn’t a prostitute. Before I could one of the other ladies chose to read from Liz Curtis Higgs’ Bad Girls of the Bible on Rahab. Essentially the passage claimed that Rahab has to be a prostitute because she represents our potential to be saved from the baseness of our sexual nature as women and if you question her role as a prostitute you are unbiblical and challenging the saving work of Christ. Which of course I disagreed with even more. At the risk of being labelled unbiblical (which I eventually was at that church) I tried to speak up and was immediately shut down. Who was I to question Liz Curtis Higgs the others asked? She’s the expert on bad girls of the bible, you can’t question the expert. So faithful exploration and biblical study don’t matter in the face of a loud voice.

The “loud” voices, the ones with clout, are considered more believable because they are prominent and reach a wider audience. As we in the emerging church attempt to rethink patterns of theology we run up against these loud voices. They don’t engage us in dialogue or a willingness to learn. Instead they ridicule, spread rumors and lies, and inoculate themselves against feedback by screening their calls and emails and deleting negative (or just basically insightful) comments on their blogs (if they allowed them in the first place). I guess it’s hard to remain a loud voice if you don’t just shut out all other voices.

So what do we do with this? People are allowed their own opinions, and I can ignore individuals who make fun of what I am a part of, but what about my family and friends who believe lies about me because of a few loud voices? Or who at least write me off for things I truly believe because they have been exposed to a bad representation of those things? Or what about those of us who have lost jobs because of the loud voice of others? How can we encourage church members and friends to actually think for themselves instead of swallowing whatever the loud voices tell them to believe? How can we do this without getting too cynical?

Read more