Geez Magazine, YWAM & Emerging Church
I recieved by Winter edition of Geez Magazine today and eagerly (though nervously) flipped through it. A few months ago I sat for an interview for this issue, which is provocatively entitled “Let’s get Evangelical”, focusing largely on our ministry as YWAM here in Winnipeg. The article, called “Where the evangelists are” by J Unrau, recounts the authors search for old school, door-to-door style Evangelicals in Winnipeg. His journey starts at local churches in the city, then turns to our ministry, finishing with an email dialogue with a Winnipeger serving with YWAM in Australia.
While tongue-in-cheek, the article is fair, if too brief, in its treatment of each ministry. It did get some details about YWAM wrong (for example, it confuseded to our Discipleship Training School (DTS), a 5 month spiritual and missional formation program, with our Mission Adventures program, which is more short term urban possibilities for teams. In one quote, he says of our ministry, “The main focus is on living in an urban community and being exposed to the problems prostitutes, refugees and poor youth face”. This frames our relationship to our community as primarily built on the negative challenges of the neighbourhood in a somewhat paternalistic stance. Rather, I would say we seek to live as a true neighbours, sharing as much as we can, the good and bad of life there. Outside of that, it was a fair portrayal.
In another article in this issue, entitled “An evangelical body, broken for you… into six convenient types”, Anna Bowen gives quick overiews of different expressions of Evangelicalism (as she sees them): Fundamentalist (or Conservative Evangelicals); Pentecostal Charismatics; Liberal Evangelicals; Emergent Church (or Vintage Church); Social Justice Folks; Christian Leftists (or Progressive Reconstructionists). Each group was flanked by a description and an image of an “Evangometer”, where the degree of Evangelicalism is measured. As you might guess, from he beginning of the list to the end, the degree decreases, with Fundamentalists reaching 100, Emergent settling at 50 ad Christian Leftists hitting 0 (which should disqualify them from the list, no?).
While Bowen affirms that these are generalized and over-lapping groups, the fact is that the a few paragraphs cannot represent the complexity of any of these groups. In some cases, I feel she missed the boat significantly. For example, here is what she wrote for the “Emergent Church (or Vintage Church)”:
The shift into what some would call the postmodern age has uprooted these Christians and sent them scrambling to find new ways to make their Christianity “relevant” (a key but sometimes nebulous term).
The issue for Emergent types is to assert Christianity in a time when binary ideas like heaven and hell, Christian and non-Christian, spirit and body, male and female are being challenged and seen as too dualistic. Emerging Christians value individual stories more than ascribing to one grand overarching and possibly oppressive “metanarrative.” This allows emergent church Christians to have a new openness to different ways of interpreting the Bible – everyone’s perspective is relevant and should be expressed.
As with so much post-structural and postmodern theory, the emergent gospel tends to come from the top down, drawing analysis from academic discourse surrounding postmodernity. Adherents tend to be internet savvy and have a heavy presence in the blogosphere, which could be deemed inaccessible.
I am not sure if it is the definition itself (which I find significantly off the central mark) or that it would be used as one of the groups (as I think it is too broad and complex to be in the grouping), but I found myself frustrated with the outcome of the article.
Along with my magazine came a subscription renewal notice. Geez Magazine is a creative, challenging and provocative publication that I have recommended to many people. That being said, I have found it, at times, needlessly antagonistic, unhelpfully critcal of America, shallow in its engagement with socio-historical material, and perhaps most disappointing, it sometimes seems to be written only for those who already agree with them. I do not mean to be harsh, as I think it is a great edition to world of publications. However, I will not be renewing my subscription, choosing to purchase on an issue by issue basis.
Anyone disagree and care to weigh in? Please let us know.
My wife was supposed to be interviewed as a “liberal evangelical”, but she procrastinated too long. Ah well.
I like Geez because it’s different than anything out there. It’s talking about things that very few Christians (that I know of) are. The last issue on sustainable architecture, for example, was a veritable bonanza for my wife. Thinking generally about environmental stuff is something that evangelicals are starting to do, but here was a great example of some people struggling to live it out.
That said, I do feel like the mag is sensationalist and has a smug attitude about it that I could do without. I’m a subscriber, so I guess that my issue should come in the mail pretty soon. I’ve generally found that there are things that I both like and dislike in every issue, so this looks to be another.
Matt,
All your affirming comments about Geez are true, though their last issue represented aspects of First Nations history in a slightly revisionist perspective. I am a diplomat by nature, so I find the divisiveness of the publication a it much. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Somebody should have told me i was supposed to have trouble with the duality of body and spirit. here i was just going along like everything’s fine.
Cindy,
LOL! Well said.
Peace,
Jamie
Hmm… I didn’t really get a chance to read through that issue much. School was too busy and then my wife lent it out. I’ll have to check it. Agreed on the dislike of divisiveness.
Don’t know anything about Geez magazine but that quote in the box is accurate in my opinion.
I look for evidence of God at work in the emerging church conversation and don’t read much about that. I don’t read stories of transformed lives for His glory. I read a lot about how people are getting helped with the social gospel but I don’t read anything of total life transformation from darkness to light.
If a ministry is being energized by Almighty God and people are getting changed and salvation is being found, you would think we’d read something about that. I can’t find evidence of that in the conversation but please show me where that is happening in the emerging church I’d love to check that out.
Matt,
I look forward to hearing you view of the issue. Like I said, generally speaking, I like Geez. I just take issue with it enough not to renew the subscription.
Peace,
Jamie
George,
I don’t want to be rude, but your comment reveals that either you are completely unqualified to comment on the emerging church for lack of genuine understanding and engagement or your standard of measure for the quality of the emerging church is the precise reason that the emerging church exists in the first place. I suspect that both are true.
I can say unequivocally that peoples lives are being forever transformed by the power of Almighty God. Not only is this the case, but they are being helped with a whole Gospel, one that does not divide the Gospel into the false dichotomy of spiritual gospel and social gospel.
The fact is that I could show example after example of emerging churches where this is happening, but you would continue to narrow your definition down to exactly what you believe is right. The kind of Christianity that I see you present, while genuine, is why the emerging church emerged in the first place- I see it as inadequate, individualistic and moderately gnostic in its division of “spiritual” vs. “social” gospel.
If you did genuine research into the emerging church online you would find example after example to answer your own question. However, if you have looked and do not find any examples to your liking, I suspect that there is nothing I can do improve the results. You would say it is due to a lack of genuine transformation, I would it is is due to your overly narrow definitions. Let’s agree to disagree.
Peace,
Jamie
In the “six convenient types” of evangelicals, is it me or does there appear to be a big gap between Fundamentalist and Liberal Evangelicals (who are not Pentecostal Charismatics)? As an evangelical, I would not classify myself as a Fundamentalist (not even close), but I would not fit into the Liberal label either. The thousands of Jesus followers I know or associate with are the same. Not a big deal, just an observation.
Oh George, I see more people being transformed in the EC/Missional communities than in the more traditional faith communities, including, sadly, my own where it is rare to have a baptism.
“If you did genuine research into the emerging church online you would find example after example to answer your own question. “
That’s what I’m asking, please show me. Point me in the right direction.
bb,
Yeah, I found the same flaw in the categories. The author exposes their ow biases in the spectrum. Alas, I guess it is hard to avoid for anyone.
Peace,
Jamie
George,
You told me you had looked into emerging church sites & blogs. You dismissed Resonate.ca and others I mentioned. What exactly are you looking for?
Peace,
Jamie
What am I looking for? Evidence of God at work in the emrging church transforming lives.
The emerging church leaders in Canada are big time on the internet. Point me to a blog or someplace where I can read about this life transformation happening in the emerging church. Not where I can read about the social gospel of helping people with their felt needs as you say, as important as that is also, but where I can read about how the gospel of Jesus Christ is being proclaimed resulting in the Spirit of God convicting people of sin and bringing new life.
Jeus Christ came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost and commands us a His followers to do the same in His name.
I agree with you, the emerging church is good at talking community and all these buzz words like missional and all those sub titles of the chapters of your proposed book but where is there a call to deal with the problem of sin? Where is there a call to righteousness and holiness and godliness in Christ. Don’t read about that much if at all.
George,
I am sorry. We are obviously having a failure to communicate. I have answered you and you have found my answers lacking. Fair enough. If you want to ask specific people about what they are doing within the emerging church in Canada, you can contact them and ask.
You throw around Scripture as though it clearly represents your understanding while I see the same Scriptures meaning something different, or rather something more. I once believed very similarly to what you are expressing, so I understand what you are asking. I can only hope you will attempt to understand what I am sharing beyond your own perspective.
You accuse the emerging church at being good a “talking community” and of using “buzzwords”, suggesting that we are all talk while avoiding the real issues. If you are not seeing clear calls and examples of righteousness and holiness and godliness in Christ from those within the emerging church than, frankly, you are either not looking or refuse to acknowledge it when you see it.
Righteousness and holiness are not merely lives of moral uprightness. To diminish the holiness of God to an avoidance of immorality is to rob God of the very heart of His nature. Yes, God calls us to shun immorality, but moral living is a by-product of righteousness, not the thing itself.
When we stand before God, by what measure is He going to determine the nature of our salvation? Will it be those who have abstained from sin more? Will be it be those who have most accurately articulated the right beliefs about God? No! Jesus clearly taught that true salvation is reflected in how we serve the truly marginalized- the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned, etc. The “social gospel” is intrinsically and irrevocably connected to the whole Gospel. To suggest that you can have one without the other is tantamount to blasphemy.
Throughout Old & New Testament Scripture, the core message seems to ring true again and again- righteousness and justice. Right and reconciled relationship with God, His people, ourselves and His Creation, made manifest in our uncompromising love against the constant injustices of the world around us. Of course forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ is essential in that process. Of course people need to embrace the Lordship of Christ and belief in Him as God. These things are critical parts of a much bigger whole, not ends in themselves.
If you want to see lives transformed in the emerging church, then visit a few. Spend some time with them. Genuinely seek to understand them, acknowledging, at the very least, the possibility that you might be too narrow in your understand that they might have something to teach you. If you genuinely do this, you will see evidence of lives transformed by power of God.
I will not, however, continue to talk in circles over this issue, with you asking me to do for you what you are unwilling to do for yourself. It seems to me (and I could very well be wrong) that you have already decided what you believe about the emerging church, and that your questions are not designed to understand, but rather to expose what you see as a failure. If this is true, then please do not abuse this space for your purposes.
Peace,
Jamie
No problem Jamie I’ll move along. Thanks for your answers. You’re right, in my limited interaction with those in the emerging church I don’t see much that causes me to want to join in with them. In my opinion, it is mostly social gospel that they are engaged in. What that really comes down to often is a works gospel. We should never forget the reason why Jesus came in the first place. It wasn’t for social issues, it was to take away the sin of the world. He didn’t die on a cross so we’d get better in reaching out to the poor, he died for our sins. He died for the sins of those who would put their trust in Him. He died for my sins and as He drew me to Himself and made me a child of God. With this new life I have in Him, to now reach out to people and especially those who are suffering without telling them about this awesome God and what He has done makes no sense to me. But that’s what’s going on in so many places. There is all this talk about societal structure and poverty and the criminalization of poverty and on and on but the root problem is not talked about. The root problem is sin.
We can only become this new creature in Him as we turn from our sin and embrace Him by faith as the sole basis for our forgiveness and right standing before God. Unless that occurrs there can be no peace with God.
That is the message the world despearately needs to hear. As we reach out with those practical needs, if that is not part of what we do, it makes no sense. I wonder if you might agree with the following synopsis from JI Packer’s book Knowing God. It sums up the gospel and also gives an indictment of what if going on in many places. With this I will leave you. Thanks for your time. Read the last 2 paragraphs very closely and see if you agree.
“The gospel tells us that our Creator had become our Redeemer. It announces that the Son of God has become man “for us men and for our salvation” and has died on the cross to save us from eternal judgment. The basic description of the saving death of Christ in the Bible is as a propitiation, that is, as that which quenched God’s wrath against us by obliterating our sins from his sight. God’s wrath is his righteousness reacting against unrighteousness; it shows itself in retributive justice. But Jesus Christ has shielded us from the nightmare prospect of retributive justice by becoming our representative substitute, in obedience to His Father’s will, and receiving the wages of our sin in our place.
By this means justice has been done, for the sins of all that will ever be pardoned were judged and punished in the person of God the Son, and it is on this basis that pardon is now offered to us offenders. Redeeming love and retributive justice joined hands, so to speak, at Calvary, for there God showed himself to be “just, and the justice of him that hath faith in Jesus”
Do you understand this? If you do, you are now seeing to the very heart of the Christian gospel. No version of that message goes deeper than that which declares man’s root problem before God to be his sin, which evokes wrath, and God’s basic provision for man to be propitiation, which out of wrath brings peace. Some versions of the gospel, indeed, are open to blame because they never get down to this level.
We have all heard the gospel presented as God’s triumphant answer to human problems-problems of our relation with ourselves and our fellow humans and our environment. Well, there is no doubt that the gospel does bring us to solutions to these problems, but it does so by first solving a deeper problem-the deepest of all human problems, the problem of man’s relation with his Maker. And unless we make it plain that the solution of these former problems depends on the settling of this latter one, we are misrepresenting the message and becoming false witnesses of God-for a half-truth presented as it it were the whole truth becomes something of a falsehood by that very fact.. No reader of the New Testament can miss the fact that it knows all about our human problems-fear,moral cowardice, illness of the body and mind, loneliness, insecurity, hopelessness, despair, cruelty, abuse of power and the rest-but equally no reader of the New Testament can miss the fact that it resolves all these problems, one way or another, into the fundamental problem of sin against God.
By sin the New Testament means not social error or failure in the first instance, but rebellion against, defiance of, retreat from and consequent guilt before God the Creator; and sin, says the New Testament, is the basic evil from which we need deliverance, and from which Christ died to save us. All that has gone wrong in human life between man and man is ultimately due to sin, and our presnt state of being in the wrong with our selves and our fellows cannot be cured as long as we remain in the wrong with God. “
George,
sigh… Thank you for sharing. Clearly our understand of what you shared above is significantly different.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, Packer’s quote begin with the paragraph that starts with “The gospel….and ends at the ned of that comment
George,
While I agree with much of what Packer says here, I do not think it is the whole story, but only one aspect (as I think Packer would say also). However, if you want a more fully developed response to this question, the best possible answer I can give is for you to read Scot McKnight’s book “Embracing Grace”. To try and represent what he explained here would be futile. Get the book. It is well worth it.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, wanted to refer you to this website http://www.sfpulpit.com/ for your info. Another great book coming out by McArthur soon and also as you scroll down a bit on your right you will see some good stuff on the emrging church by Phil Johnson.
As I consider my interaction with emerging church types I resonate with what McArthur says and I quote:
“Certain avant-garde evangelicals sometimes act as if the demise of certainty is a dramatic new intellectual development, rather than seeing it for what it actually is: an echo of the old unbelief. It is unbelief cloaked in a religious disguise and seeking legitimacy as if it were merely a humbler kind of faith. But it’s not faith at all. In reality, the contemporary refusal to regard any truth as sure and certain is the worst kind of infidelity.” (end of quote)
Its true that many in the emergent movement are doubting if we can be sure of absolute truths as God has revealed and are questioning them and wondering if its important to know them.
An example in recent discussions I’ve had is questioning the existence of hell, is Jesus the only way or can I get there through good works, is it important to believe in the virgin birth, stuff like that.
Check it out, very informative.
George,
It should be known that McArthur’s new book is not a fair representation or critique of the emerging church. McArthur, sadly, showed little research, charity or willingness to understand. Read Dan Kimball’s response here:
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/12/saddened_by_joh.html
Further, the emerging is not one, unified group of people, but a generalized category that represents very different people, very much like “evangelical” represents a very diverse expression. The example you cited may well be found in the emerging church, but this is not representative of all emerging church people.
I appreciate your willingness to share what you have found, but remember two rules of thumb. First, make sure all comments are on topic for the post. While your most recent comment might fit, it is a bit of a stretch. Second, unless it is the topic of the post, comments that are designed to argue against the emerging church are not entirely relevant, as this site is dedicated to the topic. If you want to share something that is off topic, feel free to email it.
Finally, I would encourage you to read, with an open mind and hear, the link I posted above, as well as the book (“Embracing Grace” by Scot McKnight) that I mentioned to you earlier.
Peace,
Jamie
In Anna Bouwen’s article, she put John Stackhouse in the “Liberal Evangelical” category. Here’s his response called “GEEZ – Am I A Liberal Evangelical” from his new blog at stackhouse.wordpress.com
http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/geez-am-i-a-liberal-evangelical/
Hope his comments are helpful to the conversation.
Cheers – Preston