|
Thursday September 18, 2008 ~ 14 Comments
Outside the south, many are unaware of revivalism and its influence. Talk of saw dust trails and the like may have conjured images on the frontier, but today these trails tend to be found at home construction sites rather than under big tents. Some southern Evangelicals are still holding "sawdust revivals." Others have opted for alternate means of communicating the Gospel in ways they consider more suitable for their context. Block parties, for example, provide many avenues for connecting with people who need Jesus. So, few remember what a real tent revival looks like. A few weeks ago, I journeyed down to St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church to see an old fashioned revival depicted in the basement of a liturgical church. (I have been a bit too tied up to publish my thoughts. But, better late than never.)
The "Rollin' Gospel Revival" certainly was a throw-back to a simpler era. For too long we have practiced simplifying and packaging the Gospel for high-speed marketing and quick results. Selecting the revival theme plays to Pagitt, Jones and Scandrette's rebuke of "reductionism." The characters were well done and the helped set the stage for their readings - explaining their view of how the message of the Kingdom of God could be advanced. Let me start with some positive observations. First, it was in a basement-- no false advertising there. But, the setting did help the show. It was a rolling road show and the setting was simple so the message could be clear. The room was a mix of all ages and, as I asked around, I found evangelicals and mainline folks gathered together (about 150 I would guess, but I always guess high-- it is a pastor thing). I discovered there were several folks from St. B's. (I found it interesting that St. B's is a part of the American Anglican Council, an organization for conservative Episcopalians.) There were also several other folks from other churches in the area-- a mix from different backgrounds all gathered in an Episcopal Church basement to watch a rolling revival from three Emergent guys. An interesting juxtaposition. Second, it was a powerful story. Most preachers know the value of a good story. Doug, Tony and Mark all shared riveting stories and testimonies. Trucker Frank, the Emperor, and Christian mentors created vivid pictures for both their understanding of what it means to follow Jesus and their critique of status quo "Evangelicalism." The show was creatively put together. As Tony noted, "You can tell we all used to be youth ministers." I was challenged to consider again how I might be able to reach and serve people on the margins. Stories and testimonies draw an audience into the empathic moment. We could feel the self-discovery Mark made regarding the love of Jesus as he determined to "love as Jesus loved" someone many would consider unlovable. Powerful stuff. Third, I believe these men were genuine. If you attended the Roadshow you may have been moved, as I was, to see Doug, Tony and Mark work closely with Compassion International. It is hard to miss the kind of critique of the American church and its wealth when witnessing the poverty of developing countries and see the faces of children. I took a packet home and my family and I "adopted" a child in Honduras... and I did that partly because I was convicted at the meeting. I have already written in several places stating my concerns with parts of the emerging church. I will not rehash all of that here. And, I did not attend to write a critique, I intended to watch the show. But, as I am always thinking too much, let me share my concerns as they related to the "Roadshow." Let me say before I do that I saw little that an evangelical (even of the conservative variety, like me) would find objectionable at the show. It was not a theological presentation. It was focused on how the message should be lived out (and a not-so-subtle rebuke that it is often not lived out). I have read some reviews where people disagree with things that were, well, just not there. To my recollection, no views of inerrancy, hell, sexuality, gender, or how the Bible is or is not authoritative were presented in the basement. (Actually, in regards to gender, I was surprised that it was three men in a movement that is identified as egalitarian.) However, I would have liked to hear more about what they do believe, even if briefly in the presentation. If orthodoxy is "right praise" and church history contains statements protecting that "right praise," then I would like to have heard some corresponding convictions growing out of their right praise. It was easy to detect Doug's disconnect between The Passion Play and the placemat description of the faith Doug received. Out of our stories grow convictions that can and should be put into statements. It has been the habit of Christians through nearly 2000 years. So whether it is in 1908 or 2008 we do expect to hear "The New Christians" do the same. Perhaps time was tight, but it would have helped me understand more from where they come. There was a frequent critique in the Roadshow (often unstated, but implied) concerning reductionism - a concern I share. However, I found the content of the Roadshow itself to reduce the Gospel in some ways. The Roadshow revivalists "preached" the Kingdom of God, and Jesus, Kingdom of God Revealed was their hymn. The lyrics were clear. But I wanted to hear how the death of Jesus fits into the revealed Kingdom of God. To be fair, not every song presents our whole theology, but it is hard to talk about the Kingdom without talking about the gospel and the cross-- I wanted to hear more about how the cross relates to the Kingdom. Paul says that our justification and reconciliation happened through the cross of Christ. The ordinance of the Lord's Supper zeroes in on his death. The gospel itself is even called "the word of the cross." To be fair, as a frequent conference speaker, I know that people often say, "but you did not cover ______." And, I know you can't deal with everything in every presentation. However, I do wish that the show (and much of the emerging church conversation) would make a clearer and more frequent connection between the cross and the Kingdom of God. At the end of the day, it is no secret that I would be in disagreement with many associated with Emergent Village. You will soon be able to read my paper, which grew out of my research for a presentation at NOBTS earlier this year. However, the show was not a recitation of beliefs-- it was a show about the implications of those beliefs, in life, ministry, and mission. One thing I have noticed. Those calling for a new day, whether Emergents, Reformed or hailing from another point on the Christian spectrum, all appear interested in a more complete, less reductionistic, over-simplified Gospel. A Gospel that takes into account the mission of God, the implications of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the present realities of the Kingdom of God and the hope brought by the fulfillment of that Kingdom with the return of Jesus. And to this we must all say, "Amen!" But it is not enough to amen the call to both believe and proclaim a more fully biblical gospel, we must work to make that gospel (cross, Kingdom, and all) clear as well. You can watch a video of the whole Roadshow below. If you have attended, I would love to hear your thoughts as well. 14 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
I did not get to attend the Roadshow, but I did read Jones' book quite thoroughly when it came out and I can say that I was not at all impressed. I am a big fan of the emerging ecclesiology that I see in churches like Mars Hill (Seattle), Summit Church (Raleigh), and Sojourn (Louisville), but I really have no patience for the emergent theology as presented by Jones and his buddies.
The first thing that strikes me here is how every moment of this movement (the EV) seems to be both mockery of the established church and an extreme overreaction to the abuses in it. I know that my generation is a generation of cynics and skeptics, but when presenting the church and Christianity so cynically I feel like it comes off as very arrogant (Rob Bell seems to me the best example of this).
The other thing which bothers me is just how completely ignorant some of it is. To see the statements and actions that Jones praised in his book made me sick. The ridiculousness of a few of the congregations profiled and the laughably bad biblical interpretations advanced at parts were not at all funny when viewed with the understanding that so many people in my generation are being consumed by this garbage.
I am really bothered by a great deal of this "New Christianity" that the EV is promoting and pray that God will limit the number of souls he allows to be lost in this waste.
Ed, its great to hear you caught the show. I found it liberating to hear Mark, Tony, and Doug present a Gospel that leads to an active love.
My question to you is, "Isn't the point of theology to lead us to following Jesus into the practice of love, which reveals His kingdom and essentially glorifies God in the process?"
Isn't your concerns and subsequent questions about belief lead to a separation rather than connection of the body?
My wife and I caught "the show" when it rolled into KC several weeks ago. We both found the time to be provacative, challenging, and an overall hoot! The guys had obviously put a lot of creative energy into the show and we both appreciated their efforts.
I find myself agreeing mostly with your point above that it was not a theological presentation. Instead it was a creative call to struggle with how the church typicaly lives out the message of Christ (or as you have also stated, more a rebuke of how we do not live out the message). I was okay with that.
On another note, I related in a very personal way with Doug's placemat description. I had a very similar experience. I hadn't heard/read his story and very much appreciated hearing the struggle it caused as a young man.
Jonathan wrote:
My question to you is, "Isn't the point of theology to lead us to following Jesus into the practice of love, which reveals His kingdom and essentially glorifies God in the process?"
I would say that good theology leads to good practice and that is expressed by living loving lives (hey, I wrote a book on that... Compelled by Love... grin).
Jonathan wrote:
>>Isn't your concerns and subsequent questions about belief lead to a separation rather than connection of the body?
If I understand what you are asking, no. I don't think it does.
Ed,
Rather than offer summary dismissal as most do, you offer points at which conversation may occur. Offering both notable positives and certain concerns is a practice not often engaged. You remind me of the kind of conversation Scot McKnight once suggested on his blog - the kind of conversation wherein we all learn from each other rather than categorically deny any benefit. It seems to do (categorically deny any benefit) would follow the track that what "I" hold is the only right way in which case I am on the verge of ideaological idolatry.
I echo Jonathan above when he suggests should not our theology take us to demonstrating the love of Jesus for the glory of God.
Thanks for this piece and may there be good healthy conversation as a result.
Ed,
I notice in the article that you seem to use the terms "Emergent" and "Emerging" interchangeably. I had picked up the habit somewhere of using "Emergent" to describe those who were advocating a change not only in the church but away from some of the priceless doctrines of the Christian faith and "Emerging" as those who are simply seeking to stay "Biblically faithful and culturally relevant".
Your thoughts?
Chuck,
There is an increasing number of people who say, "I am emerging, but not Emergent."
In my case, I try to say "Emergent" when people are connected with Emergent Village. However, I am not always consistent and many call themselves Emergent and are not part of EV.
Ed
P.S. About to board a plane... be nice in the comments.
Ed:
Thanks for coming to the show -- it was great to finally meet you. And thanks for the kind words. As I found throughout the summer, all the conservative critiques of the Roadshow were about what we didn't say, never what we did say. And, as you noted, you can't say everything you'd like to in a 10 or 20 minute monologue.
Finally, just a quick note to remind you that I did refer to the Cross in my monologue. I called it the "pivotal event on which all of cosmic history turns."
Peace, brother.
Tony
I was able to get to the stop in Omaha with a friend and we both really enjoyed it. I also got to speak to Doug and Mark afterward and really enjoyed both conversations. Mark and I have similar stories in that we both grew up in fundamentalism and were strongly influenced by Francis Schaeffer as we were growing out of fundamentalism.
And I think the thing I most appreciated about it was the level of creativity involved from beginning to end. The ideas being discussed are great and need to be heard, but I think my favorite part was the presentation. Mark Scandrette was channeling Daniel Plainview throughout...
Well, like Paul, I am glad that the gospel gets out. That said, I have only seen the video. That may not be the best perspective for criticism... constructive or otherwise.
On the positive note, the guys seem to really care about the audience getting the message. That is definitely something the greater Church can learn. They also aren't satisfied with the 'same old - same old'. They are also apparently passionate about life transformation. Good things.
On the other hand, the irreverence that creeps in is a put off. The revival skit didn't do anything for me except appear to be a caricature. Maybe that was the intent.
Another thing... I do not like speakers who seem to talk to me like I am a kid. Maybe it is their accent. Maybe other people respond well to that.
Do these gentlemen really not understand why the Church gets together on our own on Sundays and do things that only Christians do? Or is it only something they didn't get when they were kids and new to God's kingdom? Jesus was homeless, but there is no reason to think he didn't take care of himself or was dingy. My guess is He didn't stink to high heaven when He hung out with the rich religious cats or His upper crust friends... People, all of Jesus' friends were not lepers and prostitutes. It's about balance.
"Christians may need to 'convert to being a follower of Christ'?" LOL. Are you kidding me? Being a follower of Jesus has no more value in God's eyes, or mine, than being a Christian. You see, people will know we are His people when we love each other... not when we change our title. Another thing on that... the title 'Christian' is not something you "add onto" being a Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Did no one else pick up on that?
It is a little hypocritical to bash 'reductionism' when you use it to describe the ways and means of the churches you didn't like as a kid.
I am also noticing that many emergents are coming into Christianity (or not) from more liberal denominations who put very little emphasis on the gospel. So they are hating on something they really don't 'get.'
Anyway, I haven't seen the presentation live, but I am sure it will challenge some people to re-evaluate their relationship and mission in Christ. And that is definitely a good thing. I am sure my objections will not deter these men from following the call God has placed on their life. With all of the talk about being counter cultural, it would be interesting to know how many homeless shelters they have booked on this trip to share this message. I have a church full of low-income who always enjoy a good testimony of transformation.
Tony, thanks for stopping by.
I think I remember noticing that mention.
I just wanted to hear, as I would put it, more "cross-centered gospel." I think you would probably agree that it was very much Kingdom centered. I just wanted more cross and more connection between the two.
I have read some of the other Road Show critiques. Some I just did not understand-- you and I have talked theology and we have talked about where we differ. But, that just did not come up in the show much.
So, I say, review Tony, review Doug, review Mark, but don't use the show to make the point about everything else.
Ed
Ed, good to see your post - it reminds me of how fun the tour was.
I might add that my book - which was being pushed hard at the tour, it was a book tour after all - is an articulation of the christian faith.
I sure hope you read it, maybe then you would refine your critique about us not making statements.
David said: "Another thing on that... the title 'Christian' is not something you "add onto" being a Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Did no one else pick up on that?"
I (hopefully repectfully) disagree completely, though you probably know my argument as to why already (it's one of the things early-McLaren writings said). The term "Muslim" in our culture today denotes both the religion of Islam and the thousand-plus years of cultural development surrounding that. Now, the funny thing about culture is that it grows around something (like religion, but eventually it can grow apart from what it was originally supported by. I think what they mean is that a "Muslim Christian" would look like someone who took the disciplines of Islam (washing, prayers, tithing) and applied them to a real Savior, not out of requirement, but out of worship. Unless you hold to the Regulative Principle, I see no reason why a Buddhist couldn't use meditation or martial arts as a way to focus on the things of God instead of the things of the world.
I am off to speak at the Religion Newswriters Association in D.C. so I will be out of touch. And, I am sure the Emerging Church will come up!
Ed