Dan Kimball has composed a compelling post on the evolution of the Emerging Church and his view of his involvement therein. Andrew Faris of Christians in Context has provided some choice quotes from Dan's post:
But I began missing the conversations I had which were the reasons I was originally in all this. Evangelism - as in seeing "lost" people (using that word in a healthy way) come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, repenting, experiencing grace and recieving [sic] new life by the Spirit and joining in on the mission. We can do alternative worship, but what about non-Christians being saved? We can talk about theology, but what about non-Christians being saved? We can talk about feeding the poor (and absolutely should), but what also about the non-Christian next to us in the office who isn't saved? I got into into the emerging church world because of dreaming and praying for them to experience grace and salvation and then not just being converted but being a disciple of Jesus. But a lot of the discussions I was in was understandably leaning more towards disgruntledness. Which can then have us spend more time on discussions Christians have with each other (ironically kind of like this one!) than on the mission.And:
But... the terms have changed since 5 years ago. You say "emerging church" and it means almost anything any more. So using the terms "emerging church" now have to define it, explain it, correct a lot of misperceptions. I am not wedded to any term and I don't think most people are. I am wedded to the gospel and to Jesus' command of making new disciples not a term. It is incredible thinking back 5 years as I would have had absolutely no ideas that these kind of questions would ever be coming up about "emerging church". I understand why they come up, as the internet has a dark side where it can spread inaccurate reporting and people don't check sources quite often. I also understand because part of the emerging church world does raise theological questions and even make proposals that understandably cause questioning. I have found myself at theological disagreement in the emerging church world in significant ways and with what I feel are very central doctrines. And I want to personally be back to what I was originally in this all for. So, the terminolgy [sic] seems to have been very helpful, but now it is not as helpful if not distracting from that.
13 comments:
These are very good and encouraging words to hear from Dan Kimball (especially for those of us, like me, who have been concerned about some of the more radical voices in the emerging and Emergent camps).
I wonder how, or if, Dan will work with other people in the "emerging/Emergent movements" in the future, such as Tony Jones? (I hate to use terminology that Dan himself doesn't wish to use anymore, but I don't know what other terms to employ here.) Has Dan already publicly moved away from Jones and Doug Pagitt? Maybe Dan will work with Mark Driscoll in the future? It will be interesting to watch these things unfold. I'll be praying for Kimball in his decisions.
As a strong believer in the regulative principle of worship for church services, I continue to have certain theological/methodological (because methods tend to flow from one's theology) differences with the emerging/Emergent camps. It's very good and encouraging, though, to see Kimball taking a strong stand for orthodox Christian beliefs and practices when certain other people in his former movement(s) are moving away from those beliefs and practices.
Why does every current preacher or youth minister in the contemporary movement have to do this with their hair?
Some of this article annoyed me a bit...
How do you think people come to know Christ? Feeding and clothing the poor would be a biggie in my book. Jesus certainly seemed to think so. Jesus said that "what you do to these, you do to me."
A part of me is growing to believe that the single biggest job of a youth minister is to make every youth believe that they are an evangelists. Though well-intended, I believe this can be ultimately damaging.
There is a difference between a disciple and an evangelist though both are at the core followers of Christ, which is the simplest explanation of a disciple. So a disciple may not be an evangelist, but an evangelist will always be a disciple.
Evangelism is a spiritual gift, given to some, being a disciple and making disciples of men is something that is in every believer.
The gift of Evangelism is powerful, but is not the only way to bring some one to Christ. Sometimes a life comes to Christ through the careful and purposed orchestration of the father through many people with many different gifts, like Paul described, but there would be no music if everyone in the orchestra was trying to be the conductor.
Loving your neighbor with a meal, is just as important and vital to bringing someone to Christ as the evangelist who is there to seal the deal. Reason being is that Love comes from the Holy Spirit. And sometimes thank God I don't say things, the Holy Spirit was doing something that would have been ruined if I had opened my big mouth and tried to share the 4 spirchal laws.
Sorry to dog on it... maybe I'm taking some of this wrong...
Hey Seth,
When I am taking about evangelism, I am talking about leaders creating a culture of mission for their church or youth ministry. You mentioned: "How do you think people come to know Christ? Feeding and clothing the poor would be a biggie in my book." I would agree, for those who are homeless that there are specific ministries that we can be involved with which proclaim the gospel etc.
But most people in suburban America aren't homeless, so that isn't how we go about evangelism and mission to them. Creating a missional culture in leading a youth ministry or church is how I have observed churches who are seeing conversion growth and disciples made. Not everyone has the gift of evangelism as you rightfuly say, but every church can create a missional and evangelistic culture for the average person of their town or city. Feeding the poor is of course part of being a disciple of Jesus. But I am thinking broader than that to the average person or youth in an average town or city. When a church or a youth ministry develops a missional culture by its strategy, efforts, time, prayers etc. - then not everyone needs to have the gift of evangelism, but the gospel permeates everything so strongly and is communicted in so many ways you see churches growing by new disciples being made. So you are right about not assuming everyone has the gift of evangelism, but that is not what I am thinking. I am thinking that church leaders design their whole ministries to develop an evangelistic culture.
Big discussion, but hope this makes sense. Sorry for the short response back!
Dan
"When I am taking about evangelism, I am talking about leaders creating a culture of mission for their church or youth ministry."
Nicely said. Thank you for clarifying that.
I may be a little gunshy from growing up in an evangelical culture that led me to think that only certain spiritual gifts connote "real" or "on fire" or "effective" Christianity. Throughout scripture God has shown us that his primary way of speaking truth to his people is through the still small voice of the Holy Spirit.
The great awakening of the late 18th-19th century and the following evangelism up to the early-mid 20th century was powerful and God used those evangelists as his megaphone as he sometimes must resort to doing, but we are in a different time today, and I think that many times ministers are preoccupied with recreating the glitz and fire of the great evangelical movement (revivals, etc.) rather than digging into the hard and thankless Christian work that usually comes in between those events. (Opening up our Church to the Victims of Katrina was hard. I was hard to stand and serve free food and have it thrown in your face.) We seem want the raised hands-thrill of the upper room but we don't want to get the sweat from washing feet on our palms.
What you described is a new kind of "evangelism" and I like it. Missional is a great word for it. In fact, in my opinion it more closely resembles the Lord's last command than the term evangelism. After all he said, "make disciples" not "make evangelists."
Some of it may be semantics, but the term "evangelism" has an "outside-in" connotation. Now, evangelism is highly important to the growth of the Kingdom but the Kingdom has always been primarily an inside-out Job. Even most evangelists would agree that the conversion of people under their evangelism was at the end of a great chain of events set in motion by several humble and unnamed servants of Christ.
Even Jesus did not "tell" the disciples who he was in the beginning (if he would have, and if they would have really believed Him, them being Jews would have fallen on their face and never got up) rather Jesus, teaching, healing, and Loving the loveless "showed" them, or rather let the Holy Spirit "show" them who He was, when they were ready to see who He was.
Thanks for the further explanation. I hope there was no offense taken.
Peace.
Seth,
"Throughout scripture God has shown us that his primary way of speaking truth to his people is through the still small voice of the Holy Spirit."
I would be curious to know where you find this "still small voice" in Scripture. I am not saying it's not there, I am just saying I can't think of where that can be supported Biblically.
Seems like in the Bible, when God speaks, its an incredibly frightening experience (Mt. Sinai, through angels, etc) and there is nothing mysterious or unclear about it. It is very clear and unmistakable. The almost universal testimony of the Bible is that when God speaks, it's pretty darn scary.
He does speak in dreams quite a bit in the Bible and those don't appear to be quite as terrifying. I just can't think of where there was a "still small voice" in the Bible. The book of Acts certainly testifies to the leading of the Spirit. "The Spirit told" (Acts 11:12, Acts 13:2, Acts 13:4)
Seems like in this day and age the primary means of God speaking is through his objective word and not the subjective, "still small voice"
Just my take.
z
"And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the
rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake,
but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the
fire; and after the fire a still small voice." 1 KINGS 19:11-12
I think that the beautiful irony of the Gospel is God expressing his infinite power in the humblest of events.
It wasn't the calming of winds that the Lord taught the Disciples to do, it was the washing of feet.
It wasn't the pounding fist of the preacher that brought me down the isle, it was the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit spoken through the stumbling words of a reluctant Sunday School teacher that first drew me to Him.
I would argue that the small kindnesses of the average Christian, done in Love, do more - or have or have a more resounding effect - in representing the Kingdom than the great thunders of Sunday morning praise. If not more, then equal. After all, it was the Holy Spirit working through the words of a humble country sunday school teacher that led Billy Graham to the Lord.
But you are right in saying that when God speaks, it no matter how great or small, it inspires a righteous fear, as it should.
I would say that the only reason that God resorts to the great and sometimes terrifying is because of our unwillingness to listen when he was whispering.
Sidenote: One of my favorite stories of conversion is that of St. Augustine where, while in his garden in Milan, the voice of an unseen child telling him in a sing-song voice to "take up and read." He followed the voice and found a copy of one of St. Paul's letters. What followed afterward was the conversion of the greatest theologian after St. Paul. All set in motion by the singing of a child, in a quiet garden.
It also seems that the goal of any Christian is to arrive at the point to where we can hear the silent and earth-shaking voice of God amidst the worst catastrophic events - the ability to "be still, and know that He is God." Stillness and peace seem to be the perfect conduits of the Holy Spirit, not dark and terrifying events. As a matter of observation, it seems that man has tended stumble into the worst sinful activity after God has done something great and terrible... the Israelites after the parting of the sea and the pillar of fire... What happened?: An orgy and an golden calf.
I suppose for me, the scripture is full of instances where the simplicity of God's voice brings about his greatest wonders. "An the Lord spoke, "Let there be light," and there was light." or "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..." Not "pound," but knock, and most awesomely -the birth of God into creation in a cave through a humble and poor shepherd girl.
It has been my experience that God does not initially yell, but He will if He must, and woe is the man who stands at the receiving end of that megaphone. You might end up blind for days on end and struggling with a life long "thorn in your side"... like Paul, or in the belly of a big fish like Jonah, or dead on the spot like the husband and wife who was cheating money out of early Christian Church.
Sorry, "shepherd" snuck in front of the "girl"... typing fast... doubt she was a shepherd... ;-)
Seth,
How do you, personally, know when you are hearing God's voice, outside of the practice of reading the Scriptures (in which every Christian can hear God "speak," because the Bible is His word to man) and outside of the Holy Spirit's clear conviction of sin?
Christopher, I don't. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "outside the Holy Spirit's clear conviction of sin." Do you mean in congruence to what the Scripture teaches is sin? If that's the case then those two are still the same thing... Anyways, I hope any of my statements didn't imply something otherwise.
I do hear God's voice though, but it is always kept in check by the authority of scripture - and the interpretation of that scripture is held in check by the orthodox teachings of the Church. Any 'revelation' from God will always thankfully be a revelation in line with the churches teaching, and no new revelation at that. Thankfully. It is an incredibly faith-strengthening event when it is shown to be in line with the Church.
When I do hear God's voice, outside of reading the scripture, I find that God's voice, or the Holy Spirit, is less into the "go here an do that" business and more into the "repent for this and ask forgiveness for that" revealing. After that is all settled, then I am to use the sound mind He has given me and walk in faith following the passions and dreams He has set afire in me. If I am not pure in heart, then I can hardly trust those passions to do anything other than betray me.
So, day to day, the balance of "knowing" the voice of God comes from striving for purity in heart. "The pure in heart shall see God."
This, to me, is the surest way to know that you are following the right "inner voice." But even there, it still takes faith to trust that God will set me right when I go wrong. So in that way, everything starts and finishes with faith.
But EVEN IN THAT, the striving of purity comes from prayer and meditation upon scripture which God uses to renew my mind.
I also believe that the greater knowledge you have of the tremendous mystery that is the scripture, the greater need you have for accountability to church orthodox doctrine. Left to my own intellect and "inner promptings," I can come up with some mighty strange notions on things like the trinity or the "hypostatic union" of man and God or polygamy or the Rapture... DOH!
So as for the interpretation of the scripture, I find a great relief in knowing that I have a tremendous wealth of tradition stemming back from saints who actually knew the disciples.
Sorry for the bunch of stuff you didn't ask to hear.
Seth,
Sorry for the not-so-clear phasing there-- about the Holy Spirit and conviction of sin, I did mean in congruence with what the Bible teaches us about sin. Thanks for the clarification on what you meant about hearing God's voice. I agree with what you wrote in your reply to me. I had been wondering if you meant something more mystical and possibly less clearly based in Scripture. I'm glad that that wasn't the case!
I wish that more Christians today had the sound Biblical view on "hearing God's voice" that you have. Other views (such as the one expressed in Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God) can help to create great anxiety in Christians, as they wonder if ever know for sure that they are "hearing and knowing God's voice and will" for their lives! I'm so glad that God used more Biblically-based books (such as Step by Step, by James C. Petty, and Decision Making and the Will of God, by Gary Friesen) to help to free me of that anxiety!
I meant "phrasing," not "phasing," in my first sentence (phasing sounds like something from Star Trek)! :-)
Post a Comment