jump to navigation

Baptists and the Emerging church debate December 18, 2007

Posted by Gordon in Baptist issues.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

2004_11_04suckshirt.jpg Any consideration about the future of the Baptist church in Australia must take into account the challenges thrown up by the ‘Emerging Church’ debate. Your average Baptist suburban church is pretty much anathema to the typical ‘emergent type’.

One of the texts you can read to demonstrate the sometimes visceral rejection and intense dislike of the suburban church ‘institutionalized model’ is in the book ‘The Prodigal Project - journey into the emerging church. [Mike Riddell, Mark Pierson, Cathy Kirkpatrick].

The blurb on the back of the book is pretty inoffensive. It talks of the need to “revitalize our worship, our spirituality and our theology if the church is to remain faithful in the third millennium.”

Inside is a different story. A few classic quotes:

“The organized church structures are the brothel house of religion. I visit them because there are still some innocents among the debris. And their scandal is my scandal. But I will not prop them up.”

“On my journey, the more distance I gained between myself and my church roots the less I am able to comprehend that this institution, en masse, could be worth propping up. Not with any malice or bitterness, but just through observation and getting on with life.”

On the whole the book is fairly moderate [apart from the brothel house analogy of course] and presents an easy to read outline of how culture has changed and some practical ideas for alternative forms of worship.

To preface what I am about to say let me point out that a fair amount of links on this blog are for ‘emergent type’ blogs and resources. That’s because I like much of what they have to say and find them stimulating and refreshing and instructive to me in my role as a shepherd and leader. Furthermore I think the debate has become more moderated in terms of the caricatures painted by emergents of the ‘institutionalized church’, and our associated ills.

1. Bad call on good.

One of the things I struggle most with is the caricature of a typical suburban church and the degree to which it is supposed to be a dying form of church that is corrupt and needs to be demolished etc. If I put these points of view to the following people who are ministered to through the life and activity of our community focused church they would shake their heads:

The un-churched parents who connect with each other through the playgroups where their kids interact and where they build friendship networks, and who have a quite word with the surrogate granny/chaplain who comes along just to be available.

The women who come along and indulge in arts and crafts [yes I know that this is not sexy and on the cutting edge, but its what they are into ok?!!].

The dying who are taken to hospital and back, have cooked meals delivered, have people sitting vigil by their bedsides, who get them shopping.

The broken people and families who access our counseling service and our pastoral carers.

The mentally handicapped young adult who had a birthday party with friends for the first time in his life thanks to the friendship of young adults he has met since coming to church.

The new single father who is getting valuable support whilst grieving the suicide of his partner.

I could go on and on and on. It makes me ANGRY when such love and servanthood shown so faithfully through the life of our community of believers is caricatured in the extreme ways that it is. Show me some artsy, cutting edge, alternative worship small group that can come near the degree of community care we are driven to through the love of Jesus and I’ll show you someone who is talking it up.

I love sticking my paws in sand to make impressions, lighting candles and listening to soothing Lianna Klassen Celtic worship but when I’m done with my own preferences I get up of my backside and get my hands dirty. Give me a dowdy little suburban Baptist church any day over some artsy collective who indulge their aesthetic and intellectual preferences. Yes our services will be nothing to write home about but the real worship that counts, [ the worship you do through sacrificial service] will be far greater in most circumstances.

2. Building through dissing.

We always seem to be surrounded by at least some people who need to make themselves look good by painting contrasts with others. Not able to appear credible/admirable in their own right, they need to pull others down to paint a contrast. I can’t help but feel that this is often the case in this debate. There are way too many people out their that have become too sexy for their own T-shirt, too cool for school, and a class apart from the rest.

I’m happy to learn what I can from experimental churches. For me it’s a case of “I’ve met my critics and they are mostly right!”. But I am not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I am convinced that God is blessing churches right now as I write, who I have a fundamental problem with. I’m sure he is doing that people who I don’t like or agree with either.

Right now there are probably people who can’t believe God would bless me! In the light of that I’m not going to sign up to any part of the debate in that sense. I want to learn what I can. The best way forward for me is to combine the strengths of a typical suburban church and the new innovations [sometime revitalized ancient traditions] and new liberations that my brothers and sisters in emerging churches have moved into.

[Part II to follow] Feel free to throw in your bunch of fives.

Comments»

1. David "the preacher" Wilson - February 14, 2008

“We Suck”–

While this communicates the cynical idea that the article was about- it uses a vulgarity which has found its way into common usage. When I was in school– “You suck” was followed by a detailed description of what the person sucked– meaning it was a euphemism for gay oral sex– sometimes with a reference to bestiality.

Other words with vulgar meaning have found their way into common usage– To call someone a dork is to call them a penis.

Isn’t it time we avoid using vulgarity to get across the ideas and concepts that challenge our churches.

2. Gordon - February 14, 2008

David
Valid comment. I do think that certain words carry different connotations in different parts of the world. The word ’suck’ in the common parlance here in Australia has no sexual innuendo attached that I’m aware of.
There’s of course a long debate to be had about the Apostle Paul’s use of the word ’skubala’.
For an interesting article on that check out Jeff Wofford’s piece: http://www.jeffwofford.com/2006/11/wading-in-skubala.html

Likewise, ‘dork’ would not be understood in the sense you understand. To some degree the offense can be a projection by the hearer, an imputation of unintended meaning, and therefore an unnecessary offense.

We all have filters, and I’m sure we can ’switch’ them on when we come across a doubtful word, and try and determine the sense and context in which it is used. The golden rule of hermeneutics being ‘every text has a context’.