(e)mergent Voyageurs

As I mentioned recently, a current writing project has me emersed in the histories, cultures, traditions, etc. of St. Francis and the Franciscans.  As an inevitable extension of this, I have also been looking at other monastic traditions, religious orders and practices of faith from these different fields, which has been incredibly rewarding.  One particular shift in perspective that has captured me is the idea of mission as pilgrimage.  Of course, this idea is by no means new, though it is new to me.  While not a comprehensive approach to mission, it does provide a powerful corrective that is needed in our context.

To be a pilgrim is to enter into a journey, where our hearts are changed along with our surroundings.  It is not- cannot be- a static reality, but a dynamic story that moves us further and deeper into the heart of God, engaging the missional vocation He has called the Church to embrace.  If we enter into this task with the prideful assumption that we have arrived, we alienate ourselves from the world and thus them from Christ.

To be a pilgrim is to longingly pursue, an acknowledgment of that we are found wanting.  Why else do we undertake this journey if not to learn, to grow and to discover?  We are not coming to the world as its saviours, but as fellow travellers we meet on the road of life, with whom we share the love we have received, not by our own merit, but by God's grace.  It is summed up in the quote by Australia Aboriginal activist, Lilla Watson, who said: "If you have come here to help me,  you are wasting your time.  But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together."

To be a pilgrim is to share the road with fellow pilgrims.  Our journey of discovery and growth finds its fullest expression in the life of missional community.  Our pilgramage towards Christ is a journey in becoming more like Him.  With every step, we die to self and resurrect together into His Body, incarnationally embodying His mission as a community where we could not as individuals.

To be a pilgrim is to willing embace marginality, leaving behind the security of the freedom and affluence of our lives.  As we leave the center for the margins, we inevitably (and necessarily) identify with those on the margins.  We cannot make a missional journey towards Christ without moving in the direction of the poor.  After all, what better destination is there for pilgrimage than Jesus, who Himself taught that we would discover Him in the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and the prisoner (Matthew 25).

In an age where triumphalism, colonialism and individualism undermine and corrupt our missional life, embracing mission as pilgrimage can help us rediscover God's intention for us in exciting new (or old) ways.  Beyond the abstraction of these ideas, I am eager to explore the implications of this on my life and ministry.

Previous Post - Am I Really An Emerging Christian - Part 2

I had two more posts in this series- the last being my conclusions, which I will touch on here- the next being a look at how I weigh in with respect to common hot topic issues and criticisms. However, I have changed my mind. Or rather, I have had a change of heart. As most of you know, there is a fair bit of... energy in respect to criticisms and character attacks on the blogosphere just now. I won't weigh in, because I think there are serious issues on either side of the argument(s) both in respect to the nature of the "debate" and the substance being discussed. I am afraid my intended post would only serve as fuel to the fire.

So, am I really an emerging church Christian? Yes and no. Yes, I am clearly engaged in the conversation and affirm much of its direction and intention. Yes, I find resonance in much of the content and praxis of the emerging church. Some would cite my blog title as a clear indication, though in truth it is emergence as scientific, philosophic and systems phenomena that originally inspired me. That said, to say an absolute no on this would be silly. On the other hand, I can also say no- with some qualifications.

For me, the emerging church conversation has been about finding a voice and community to go along with the natural direction of my faith journey as an Evangelical Christian. There was a time where even identifying with the "E" word would have been something I would have avoided. While I still avoid the title, it has less to do with wanting to distance myself from anything or anyone as it is not wanting to burden my faith with too loaded a title. Perhaps that is why I am also hesitant to taking on "emerging" as a title too.

Perhaps it is semantic- and I certain don't people to think I am heading for cover to avoid attack- but I have been inspired, challenged and somewhat shaped by the emerging church, but not defined by it. I don't look at it as a theological field in which I want to pitch my tent, but an inspiration the gives me direction. I am glad it is here, but I do fear that by over defining, organizing and consolidating the movement, it will become something it is not- namely one distinct option against the others.

Now I am not so blind as to say it is without fault. I cannot affirm everything that many who speak from it's context say or do. Mind you, neither will I use this blog to call out their failures- it isn't fear or compromise, but context. I won't use this medium in that way, whether it is to correct emerging Christians who I think go too far or their/our critics who I feel have it wrong. The emerging expressions of Christianity need genuine critics, as we are all too prone to become the thing we seek to avoid. When that criticism comes unjustly, we should be VERY sure before firing back in response. Is it really necessary?

All this to say that I believe we see things change in the emerging church in coming years. From the outside it will look like interest is waning, conversation breaking down- which some critics will wrongly interpret as the whole thing collapsing in on itself as they predicted. In truth, this is the pattern of change. From the idylic vision of community in Acts 4 to the heated debates of Act 15. In some ways, the emerging church as we know it will die (and is already doing so), but as it's seeds are scattered and die, so too is new life being birth in the Church in places where the "conversation" had never been.

So what does that mean for me? It simply means that the emerging church is not a hill I am willing to die on, but neither am I calling retreat. I think both options work off the wrong premise. I am one Christian out of millions seeking to be faithful in serving and loving God, His Children, His Church, His Creation. If the emerging church conversation plays a part in that process, then so be. If it ever stops doing so, I have lost nothing.

Does this make sense?

In part one of this series, I weighed in on how emerging I was based on Scot McKnight's 5 Streams. While I clearly resonated with many of the points, a fair amount of it did not come as a result of the emerging church conversation, but from my child upbringing. The points and degree of engagement on said points are not that uncommon to the Evangelical circles I move in who would not identify as emerging. So, let's keep looking.

So let's look at the denifition of the emerging church put forward by Bolger and Gibbs in their book "Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures":

"Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities."

Again, let's go point by point:

-"Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures": As my previous post in this series stated, the postmodern aspect of my journey is not a explicitly central. Where it is there is probably a result of living in a farily postmodern nation (Canada) not through intentional engagement.

-"identify with the life of Jesus": Of course this point is important, but if my emerging church journey has done anything, it has strengthened by Trinitarian theology, with an emphasis on perichoresis. However, genuinely trying to shape my life (in community) around the teaching and example of Jesus is important, but I dare say is not so exclusively "emerging" as some might suggest.

-"transform the secular realm": The complexities of the "how" and "why" in this point make it hard to address here, but I cannot deny that I affirm it. That said, it is rooted in a conviction that the sacred/secular dichotomy is inadequate. YWAM is strong on this conviction, though somewhat poor in the actual practice. The degree to which this is affirmed in some emerging circles makes me cautious, but generally I think it is important to explore.

-"live highly communal lives": My communal living experience comes entirely out of my ministry with YWAM, though I have had to look outside the mission to discover depth of theology and practice. This critique of individualism and affirming of the essential communal reality of our participation as Body is something that I affirm in the emerging church, though (again) it certainly isn't exclusive to the movement.

-"welcome the stranger": Again, YWAM is strong on the practice of hospitality. Granted, YWAM's context (being missional and communal) makes it a more natural expression of faith, posing more of a challenge to traditional church models. I do believe that the emerging church must become more intentional in it's evangelistic effort, both in general and specifically within this point. Be clear, I believe "evangelistic" is a broader and more inclusive concept than it's more common meaning, but I still believe the emerging church can fall short too often in this respect.

-"serve with generosity": There is a sad irony that, while indulgences played such a huge role in birthing the Reformation, so many Protestants believe that service and generosity can be bought with financial giving. I am not blind to the fact that my ministry depends on such giving, but the need for giving of our lives within the church is critical. I affirm this point, as I am sure most Evangelical Christians would as well.

-"participate as producers": It is very easy in our consumeristic culture for churches to come to depend on growth models that attract people by providing for the wants and needs of others. While there is nothing wrong with serving others with excellence, shifting our models to a place where it is common for most members of the community are contributing or producing, as opposed to "consuming" is critical. I believe this conviction is truly at the heart of Evangelical Christianity, if it has been lost. It is good that the emerging church reminds of this and models it.

-"create as created beings": Dealing largely with worship, I enjoy the creativity that is emerging in these circles. In addition to exploring new approaches, it has also attempted to rediscover the ancient traditions as well. This is important, but as I said in the previous post, it is not something that I am particularly engaged in or drawn to.

-"lead as a body": This is perhaps one of the strongest points where I resonate with the conversation. While I believe that hierarchy can be used well and is at times necessary, I do believe that communal leadership needs to become more of the norm than the exception. I have not done a lot of research, but I am sure how functional this value is in most emerging churches. I hope it is increasing, but I understand if it is a slow transition.

-"take part in spiritual activities": The development of a healthy spirituality is important, but the means and degree taken varies greatly in the emerging church. I have seen/heard some that I strongly affirm, some that I wouldn't be drawn to but could still affirm and others that I feel go too far. While I affirm these things, I am not sure I am personally as good at practicing this. Or perhaps I am. Not sure.

Clearly, I also resonate with much in this definition as well, though the degree varies similarly to my first post.

What do you think of this definition? Is it distinctive enough to merit it's own category? What are your thoughts?

My next post on this topic will look at some of the hot spot issues that critics cite in respect to the emerging church, such as atonement theology, homosexuality, inclusion and others. What other important critiques should I address?

 

While we are still wrestling through the red tape, set-up and finances for the bookstore (anyone want to help?), I am excited to announce that The Dusty Cover website is up and running. Now, it isn't 100% yet, so ignore the typos and growing content. However, I thought it would be fun to share it here with you. The website design and hosting have been donated by my gifted brother, Troy Ricci. If you are looking for a designer or hosting services, get in touch. He is good at what he does.

Lately I have been asking myself some questions about my relationship to the emerging church movement/conversation. It is not so much that I am second guessing my affliation with certain people or doctrines as it is that I am consider the nature of my existing connection. So, here is my attempt to look at how things play out:

I am not now (nor have I ever been) a member of a church that would fit the description of an emerging church. I will acknowledge that, largely a result of my rural upbringing, that I had positive experiences with a broad spectrum of Christian tradition (including Evangelical, Anabaptist, Charismatic, Sacramental and Reformed). Since then, I have worshipped and ministered from an Evangelical context (both in respect to my home church and YWAM) with fair amounts of Anabaptist influence.

So, what of my theology, doctrinal convictions and Christian practice? How do I measure these things? Let me start with Scot McKnight's very helpful "Five Streams of the Emerging Church". (NOTE: I will be exploring each point in general, so see McKnight's article for details):

The first stream is called the "Prophet/Provocative Stream", denoting the strong, public call for the Church to change. While I have certainly seen areas where the Church, specifically in our Western, Evangelical context. However, I have been very intentional in my attempt to do so without the scorn and absolute rejection that others might use. I have endeavoured (though not always successfully) to critique with grace, humility and hope. I do not reject my Evangelical heritage, but rather stand within it, acknowledging it's strengths and weaknesses. However, I believe this to be true of far more emerging Christians than the critics will acknowledge, so this does not answer my question.

The second stream, the "Postmodern Stream" is far more difficult. The expressions of postmodernism are broad, complexified further by the degrees of embrace. One thing is clear: I am not a hard postmodernist. I do believe in absolute truth. I affirm the importance (though I question our tendency to over-state it) of propositional understanding of truth. There are aspects of postmodernity that are dangerous with others that offer great opportunity and maturity for the Church. Much of it is neutral, determined in value through our response to it. Postmodernity cannot be absolutely embraced or rejected, but above all, it must not be ignored. It offers essential critiques of modernity, as well as some of our current socio-cultural and historical expressions of faith. However, the fact is that the postmodern stream has not been as central to my faith journey as other areas.

The "Praxis-Oriented Stream" is without a doubt the most significant stream for me. McKnight further subcategorizes this stream into three focuses- worship, orthopraxy and missionality. While I believe my Evangelical heritage did not provide a robust enough a theology and practice in respect to worship, I have not rejected it. In fact, it is still primarily the context I worship in. In respect to orthopraxy, few would argue that we need right living as much as we need right belief, though emerging Christian contend that the former has not been a natural product of the latter (though I would say the definition of "belief" is primarily what is the problem). The statment "by their fruits you will know them" speaks as much to the incarnational fruit as it does to the seeds of belief that birth them. It is the missional sub-stream, however, that is most significant to me. The space is too limited here to explore all that it means to be missional, but it should be said that missionality and emerging are not one and the same, despite much overlap.

The fourth stream is the "Post-evangelical Stream", representing suspision of systematic theology and caution towards "in or out" formulas to who is saved. There is unquestionably great value in systematic theology. However, an over-emphasis and confidence in these systems fails to acknowledge the very historical, cultural nature of the approach and it's inherent limitations. Rather than rejecting it outright, I believe it needs to be honoured responsibly along side other approaches (which also must be evaluated). With respect to the "in or out" angst within emerging Christianity, I share the emotional struggle it raises, but would far rather err on the side of clumsy evangelism than silence. (Note: I am not saying all emerging Christians are evangelistically silent, but I do believe it is a clear weakness in the larger movement- one which I struggle with too).

The fifth and final stream, the "Political Stream", is largely (though not exclusively) an American phenomenon. I have discussed this socio-historical reality before, but suffice it to say that the political aspect of the emerging church is not as central or divisive outside of the US. So while this will be a focal point for the American conversation, I suspect it is more on the merits of American Evangelicalism than it does with the emerging church itself. At any rate, it plays a very, very small part of my own emerging journey.

While there is likely enough influence in these dynamics for me to identify with the emerging church, I know many Christians who share these same dynamics who would in no way identify with the movement. Obviously, from my blog I clearly engaging emerging church topics, move in emerging church circles (at least virtually) and affirm much of what I find in the conversation. I ask these questions not out of some desire to distance myself from the movement, as I openly identify with much of it. However, given how very little difference there is between these dynamics and many non-emerging Evangelicals I know, is it fair to use it as a descriptive label? Or is it simply an influence?

What do you think? Am I missing points that would qualify or disqualify me? Should "emerging" even be a defining type at all? Let's hear what you have to say.

Most of you know that I have had the wonderful pleasure of being married to a gorgeous Aussie gal, Kim, for nearly 6 years now. We are excited to be heading to Canberra to visit the family over Christmas, as it has been 5 years since we have been there. A few years ago, I spent some time online looking for people in the Canberra area engaging in the missional conversation, but didn't come up with anything at the time.

However, since then, my Aussie family have been participating in an exciting new gathering called Basement (because they meet in a basement... no, really!). Technically defined as an "Anglican ministry unit", they are a passionate and missional group, developing true community in their city. I hope to get a chance the connect with them while in Australia later this year.

You can find their website Here and their Facebook group Here. Check out the following video introduction to Basement (Note that the first woman interviewed is my mother-in-law. Others in the family can be seen too):

This morning I came across an excellent post my Josh Brown (who was inspired by Jordon Cooper who in turn was quoting Thomas Friedman) about how critical it is to address consumerism (and consumption) if we expect to have any impact on protecting and/or restoring our suffering environment. While Josh doesn't dismiss the importance of the many popular eco-friendly changes people are adopting (such as using compact fluorescent light bulbs), these small gestures do not address the root causes and contributors to our current ecological situation.

I am not fully convinced that Friedman makes his case on all points, the point is that we can easily become distracted from the core focuses we should be concentrating on. Further, in our market driven culture, our best intentions can often be taken advantage of, resulting in our increased consumption. Many articulations of the eco-revolution are simply too one-dimensional and this must change.

This reminded me of my own journey in search of the relationship between ecology (including, but not limited to, the environmental issues it raises) and Christianity. As I have said in several earlier posts, I truly believe that for all the good it does, the environmentalism movement (or the Green Revolution) is simple inadequate. And yet, many Christians who want to do the right thing ecologically have no other foundation to build from.

I believe that in order for Christians to begin to adequately, responsibly and effectively play our role in the ecology movement, we must first develop a Biblical theology and spirituality in respect to Creation. It is hard for us to understand how fundamentally our worldview has been shaped and shift over the last few centuries to severe the natural relationship to Creation. Most of the Bible is written through those former lenses, and while our understanding of Scriptures is still possible, it does rob us of some of it's depth. It what I have begun to call moving towards a sacramental ecology.

I will explore what this means more thoroughly in a future post, but I would first like to hear from you:

1. What can we do to rediscover this sacramental ecology in Scripture?
2. In what ways can we adjust out lives to embrace this new worldview?
3. Beyond individual application, what can we do as communities/churches?

 

It has been nearly 8 months since I first posted my "Homosexuality: A Personal Reflection" post. I was touched by all the encouragement and honesty people expressed as a result. It was a challenging time for me, but very rewarding in so many ways. However, not wanting the topic to become the central focus of my blog, I decided to put it aside for awhile.

However, a recent post by John Stackhouse entitled "Jesus, I'm NOT in Love with You" (ht: Bill Kinnon) brought something to mind. In the post, Stackhouse bemoans the increasing appearance of what he calls the "love songs to Jesus" genre of worship. In a largely fair critique, he points out that to say that we are "in love" with Jesus is an inappropriate expression of worship for any Christian. Jesus, he reminds us, "is not your boyfriend, not your fiancé, and not your eventual husband". (On a side note, I think that Stackhouse misses the point a little on this one, not placing enough emphasis on the part individualism and poor concepts of romance play in this problem. He also underplays the significance of Christ as bridegroom to be fair).

It was when he said "...it gives me the homoerotic creeps to declare that I am 'in love with' another man" that I feel he crossed the line. That he would make such an insensitive and irresponsible comment surprised me a great deal. If he has an issue with saying he is "in love with' another man, that is his right. However, to say it gives him the "homoerotic creeps" shows no consideration to those of us who live with homosexual orientation every day. Further, if he real experiences homoerotic creeps, that is an issue of his own he needs to deal with, regardless of how legitimate his point might be. He finishes the sentence with "And I don’t apologize for saying so", which seems to suggest to me that he considered how some might take this comment, but still felt it appropriate to say it.

Let me be clear. I have a great deal of respect for John Stackhouse. I think he is responding to a real issue in this post. It is not my intention to single him out. Rather, I think the fact that this came from someone as widely respected as him, can help us see how easily and thoughtlessly we can casually or inappropriately reference homosexuality. Whether we are trying to be emphatic or deliberately shocking, given the current experience of most homosexuals with Christianity, this is something that we all need to stop doing.

Am I being over-sensitive? Let me know what you think.

One of the reasons I have not had the time to write more of substance here of late is one of my major writing projects I have been working on. While I'll hold off on the details, it has had me doing some in depth studying into the life of Saint Francis of Assisi. As a result, you will probably see him come up more often in the coming months.

Among the many interesting aspects of his life, a unique pair of characteristics emerged that I just love. Most of us think about nature and Creation when we think of St. Francis, as he has become the patron saint of enviromentalism. At the same time, he was the pioneer of a new kind of monasticism, one that centered the rhythm of its life in urban centers rather than the typical rural seclusion. The more I study this, the more important I think it is for us today for several reasons.

First, the nature of the Franciscan order became one that embraced the pastoral engagement of the priesthood with the communal life according to a strict rule of the monastics. The resulting expression was remarkably powerful in its model of Christlikeness. The people were drawn to these selfless, devout and relational men who (while far from faultless) represented spiritual authority free of abuse, agenda and politics.

Second, he modelled a relationship to Creation that was sacramental in its reverance without compromising his love and commitment to people. This is critical for Christians who believe ecological issue are important to our faith. It is not that many are likely to focus on environmental issue at the expense of people, but rather that we still see these spheres are important but separate. Francis had an inclusive view of Creation, which saw humanity as centrally important, but inseperably connected to all of Creation.

When we look beyond the stereotypes of St. Francis' life, we find him to be a man of God with a complex faith from which we have much to learn. And we can learn as much from his flawed humanity- and be sure, he could be way out there- as from his admirable passion. I am eager to see what else lies in store as I continue my research and writing.

What about you? What do you love about Francis? Are there anythings you don't like?

When I saw this video at Rick's blog, I was immediately angry. Something needs to happen to see justice served. Learn more about the Jena Six here. I don't often make so bold a request, but I want to ask you all to do three things:

1. Watch the video and visit the website.

2. Sign the online petition. It doesn't matter if you are American or not, it will help.

3. Send this information to everyone you know. If you have a blog or a website, please post the video and these three simply options. (click here for the YouTube source)

Thanks everyone.