metanoeo

 

Art and History

 

 

Before you can even begin to understand a verse of the Bible, you first must grasp the full story of the Bible. It is the whole story of humanity, the story we find ourselves in. This Story is God’s story, one that He is slowly, purposefully telling Himself. He invites us to participate not only in the telling, but also in the doing and the acting. We are the actors of the story and He is the star. Let’s look at the Story as it is summarized in chapters 1-5 of Romans.

 

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power, and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him…” (Romans 1:20-21 NIV). We have a God who is there and who is reachable, but we, the race of humanity, have chosen to ignore Him. We do not worship Him, we do not seek Him. The problem is not that He is hard to find. God reveals Himself to those who search for Him, no matter how far away they may be. The wise men were astrologers from Asia, yet when they searched for God, He led them to Himself; He led them right to His doorstep. But humanity as a whole did not take this route. With the knowledge of God before us, we chose ignorance. So He gave us over to it. To whatever path we desired, no matter how destructive, He allowed us to enslave ourselves and to shame His image. We offended the original relationship with our Creator.

 

Scripture portrays this relationship through the lens of a covenant. “The Lord had said to Abram, ‘Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’ So Abram left…” (Genesis 12:1-4). Later Abram doubted whether God would stay true to His promise. So “He took him outside and said, ‘Look up at the heavens and count the stars - if indeed you can count them.’ Then he said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’ Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:5-6)

 

A covenant was not merely a contract; it was a relationship, a friendship between two parties. Genesis 15:9-20 records the cultural ritual of covenant. In this ritual, the two parties kill and halve animals and walk between the carcasses to confirm the covenant. This action declared, “If I fail to keep my terms of our covenant, then do to me what has been done to these animals, and if you fail to keep your terms of our covenant, then I will do to you what has been done to these animals.” More than a business venture, a covenant required intense faith and commitment to another person. Righteousness, therefore, refers to someone who keeps their terms of a covenant. Someone who is faithful and true to the relationship is righteous.

 

The Genesis account contains a very peculiar order. While God accepts what is required of Him (15:13-16, 18-19), God does not mention any requirements for Abram. In fact, the terms Abram is required to keep are not revealed for at least thirteen years (Genesis 17). The amazing thing is that God declares Abram righteous (an act called justification) before any terms are discussed. Abram’s righteousness is based on his faith in God’s righteousness. Simply because Abram trusts God to keep His terms of the relationship, God declares Abram to have already kept his terms, even though he won’t know what they are for thirteen years!

 

Confused? Give me a moment.

 

Fast forward a few centuries to Exodus. The nation of Israel (Abram’s descendents) has just been freed from Egypt and are headed into the land God promised Abram. God says to them, “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…” (Exodus 19:4-6). Note the order. The rescue from Egypt came first, and then the commands. The Law, which is given in the next chapter, was given in order to teach those who had been freed how to live free. Or, to use the language of the covenant, the Law was intended to teach those who were already righteous (by God’s declaration) how to be righteous.

 

We have an original relationship with God. Even if we do not belong to the literal bloodline of Abram, Genesis 1-2 reveals that humanity has a special relationship with God the Creator. But, as Romans 1-2 state, we have offended the relationship and therefore we have become “unrighteous.” God never broke His side of the relationship - He kept His terms - so He has the right to bring wrath and judgment against us. All of us. “There is no one righteous, not even one…” (Romans 3:10). We failed the terms, broke the trust, betrayed the relationship. All looks bleak.

 

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith…” (Romans 3:21 ESV). Propitiation refers to Jesus taking the wrath God had towards us and placing it on himself. What we deserved, he bore. And the One who had been offended, the only One who could credit us righteous in His sight, does so as we put faith in Christ. He doesn’t give us loads of terms, only one: trust. Not a contract, not even a formula. A friendship. “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.”

 

This is not merely a mental belief, although that is involved. Remember how the verse emerged? Abram was in doubt and fear. When he put his trust in God, God recognized him as a faithful friend, even before Abram knew what the friendship required. And the Israelites? God brought them through the Red Sea before the Ten Commandments were ever uttered. They trusted Him to protect them from the waters crashing down. It’s one thing to believe that God is sovereign and good as a result of mental inspection. It is quite another thing to believe that God is sovereign and good as a result of trusting your very life to His sovereignty and goodness as you walk between two walls of water.

 

The situation was so dark for us. We exchanged the truth of God for a lie. We were given over to a depraved mind. We were filled with every kind of wickedness. We were not righteous, we did not understand, we did not seek God. Ruin and misery marked our ways.

 

But God, in His grace, came to our rescue. He found us in our offensive unrighteousness, brought us to Himself, and gave us peace and freedom. Instead of wrath in our relationship, we have been restored to a state of “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand” (Romans 5:1-2 NIV). This is what it means to be reconciled, to be redeemed. For the first time, we understand God’s love. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

 

I used to think that God saved me because of me. I used to think that the Story went 1. Creation, 2. Fall, 3. Redemption. But then I found that I was missing the last chapter: Restoration. Jesus, when he began to preach this grand Story, called the Restoration the “kingdom of God” or the “kingdom in heaven.” The good news he introduced was that God was becoming king. Slavery is ending, offenses are forgiven, prisoners are freed (Luke 4:14-30). All of humanity is invited to join in this global movement of declaring Jesus king. The kingdom of God is coming. It’s breaking in today as our lives and our world are transformed by the rescue He has accomplished.

 

This is the great Masterpiece. This is the great History. This is His Story. The Story is not about my redemption, although that’s a part of it. The Story is “God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6-7). I was rescued because it gives God glory. I was rescued because it causes the name of Jesus to shine with grace and majesty.

 

Abram was given a son in order to shout the greatness of God.

 

Israel was rescued in order to shout the greatness of God.

 

Jesus was crucified and resurrected in order to shout the greatness of God.

 

So I, too, “have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).

 

We must understand that the all of everything is about Jesus. “The full meaning of everything, from shoestrings to space shuttles, is the way they relate to God” (John Piper, A Godward Life, 62). The one person who is at the forefront of God’s mind is God. He is the Creator, Sustainer, and Savior. Pick up Louie Giglio’s book “I am not but I know I AM” and you’ll understand more. God is God. He is in control, He is calling the shots, He is the star, He is the champion, He is greatest and I am not. I am not. I am not and I don’t have to try to be.

 

The Bible, in the same sense, is all about Jesus. Jesus, after his resurrection, shows some of his disciples that all the Scriptures are about him (Luke 24:25-27). You have to get that. The Bible is not intended to teach me how to be a better citizen, how to be more happy and fulfilled, how to find purpose, how to cope with suffering. No. The Bible is intended to make the name and fame of Jesus huge. The Bible is meant to magnify Him. Ultimately, the Bible is not for me; it’s for Him.

 

So why do we have the Bible? Why do we study it? Return to the Story. We were made to glorify Jesus. We were made to bear the image of God for all the earth to see His greatness. The Bible shows us the greatness of God so that we might bear that image. We study the Bible so that we might glimpse His majesty, His wonder, His holiness, His righteousness, His grace, His love. God’s Spirit reveals these things through the Bible so that we might reveal them to the world. Why? So that others “may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). It all goes back to Him and giving Him glory.

 

Before I go into the nuts and bolts of the art of spiritual study, you must first step back and view the huge Masterpiece our heavenly Artist is painting. A portrait of creation, of brokenness, of death, of life, of rescue, of restoration. A portrait of Jesus. We are His paints. Our lives are meant to harmonize with His design. Oh, may we embrace the Bible as the portrait of Jesus that we are meant to imitate!

 

God is still painting, even now.

 

Are you ready to learn your place on His canvas?

 

Welcome to the Journey

 

 

I’m here to invite you into a movement. A lot of time has passed since I wrote my last blog; to blame is my wild work schedule, but also I’ve had a quiet conviction that I should be doing something rather than writing about doing something. I write now because I believe it will do something, at least this is what I pray. I desire to see a blazing passion for Christ ignited in your soul. Here I invite you, not to a series of steps or formulas, but to a person and to a journey. A journey to join Him in what He is doing.

 

Over the past few months, Jesus has brought across my path many incredible men and women who desire to escape the mediocre and live in a Story greater than their own. Ironically, almost every one of them find this to be a big obstacle: the Bible. Whatever the details may be, the core issue seems to be confusion and difficulty in finding Christ shining through the Scriptures in his brilliance. Rather, the Bible is viewed as a behavioral checklist, an encyclopedia of facts, or simply a book for the better-educated. Along their journey to reckless passion, motivation seems to subside as the Bible grows more and more challenging.

 

If you sit on the sidelines exhausted from the challenge, it’s okay - we’ve all been there. I don’t claim to have already escaped it. All I can tell you is that my life was radically changed in high school when I seriously studied this ancient book, and since that experience the Bible has never ceased to overwhelm me with its portrait of Jesus Christ. Yes, it has been challenging. Yes, I have often given up. But I have not been unaware of how to properly study, interpret, and apply this book. This Scripture is precious to me, and I hope to walk beside you and show you the path I have taken. Perhaps you too will come to enjoy the art of spiritual study.

 

May God be huge in your heart,

Caleb

 

Hold on to your saddles; this is going to be a trek.

 

Since returning from school, I’ve settled back into suburban life and found that I don’t fit like I used to. I realize that sounds silly, seeing how North Greenville is hidden in the foothills of upstate South Carolina. But even though I live on campus, my heart stretches into downtown Greenville, just as the hearts of friends on my impact team. The bus station, the soup kitchen, the salty alleyways - all reaching inside and dragging my soul into the grime. I feel myself still leaning into the darkness. I feel myself wanting to escape Suburbia. I feel a warm yearning for something other.

 

I’ve been studying the letter to the church of Rome the past week or so. It’s a terrible letter to tell you the truth. I mean, I wouldn’t say the kind of things Paul says if I were writing it. The church in Rome was comprised mostly of lower class immigrants and slaves, some with Jewish and others with pagan religious heritages. Paul, a Jewish aristocrat who abandoned everything to follow the way of Jesus, writes to the church community to explain the good news he is spreading to prepare them for his upcoming visit. He pens a grand introduction, discussing his love and concern for the church and presenting the main subject of the letter. In the eighteenth verse he starts his discourse, and I expect to hear something along the lines of “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life…” but that is not what I find.

 

“the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men…”

 

“their foolish hearts were darkened…”

 

“they exchanged the truth of God for a lie…”

 

“and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion…”

 

“they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity…”

 

.

 

.

 

Is this really the beginning of good news? If Paul is looking for followers, this is a terrible way to start his pitch. And if I were to go into more detail, some of the things he says might make you downright angry. It upsets me. He attacks everything we hold onto as good and normal and acceptable. But in reality I don’t think Paul really cares what we think. He seems to be concerned with what is true and real in the world, and he’s not afraid of shoving it in our faces.

 

Paul takes me to a friend in Greenville. Pat grew up as a recluse, rarely stepping outside of her house except for the most necessary tasks. She and her mother were very close, spending most of each day together - cooking, cleaning, telling stories. Pat’s mother no doubt was aware of Pat’s special needs and I imagine she spilled all of her time and energy into Pat. But Pat’s mother became deathly ill. With no other family to turn to, Pat sought religion for comfort. She tried all sorts of prayers and rituals, even traveling to Jerusalem to visit holy places. God promised Pat four million dollars, she tells me.

 

Her mother died.

 

I don’t know what happened next. I can only imagine Pat hiding in shadowed curtains as her house fell into to disrepair. The house was condemned and Pat kicked out on the streets. Today she still wanders the streets of Greenville, waiting for the four million dollars and resisting any assistance, thinking someone is out to take her house and her money.

 

Is this the beginning of good news?

 

Paul takes me to a girl who refused to eat or drink anything. Her parents could do nothing to persuade her to eat; they were forced to put her in a special hospital for eating disorders. In a role-play situation, the girl told her doll, “No more food for you. It’s time for you to die.”

 

She is four years old.

 

Is this the beginning of good news?

 

Paul takes me to the edge of ground zero and I read the words of a police officer etched into the barricade wall: “Hate is what took these buildings down, with love is how we’ll remember those no longer around.”

 

Is this the beginning of good news?

 

The beginning of good news is quite ugly. Paul paints a picture for the Romans of the utter decay of the human spirit. He paints with broad strokes of brokenness and deceit, colors of murder and strife, human nature red in tooth and claw. A hateful portrait emerges. A portrait absent of the First Cause. A portrait opposed to its own Artist. And Paul reveals how God has given them over to their own devices. We can do what we want, no matter how ugly, arrogant, or disgusting. No matter how violent. This is you. This is me.

 

But I fear those of us who live in Suburbia never see this darkness. We have created worlds of comfort where inconvenience is removed, service is demanded, and pampering is expected. Suburbia is a lifeboat with too few seats. We are all trying to prove ourselves, to prove why we deserve that last spot on the lifeboat and why the other guy should be thrown out. We are begging a jury of our peers to affirm us in our currency, whatever it may be. We put stock in our neighborhoods, our paychecks, our looks, our clothes, our occupations, our schools, our wallet, our lovers. Just listen to the way we talk about relationships: “I like to spend time with that person,” “I’ve invested a lot of time with that person,” “I am indebted to your for your help,” “I’m going to pay my respect to this loved one…” We discuss our relationships using financial terms. In Suburbia, life is a negotiation for validation. We desire affirmation from the community. We want to prove that we deserve a spot on the lifeboat.

 

There is no reward for associating with the ugly and disgusting. There is no reward for associating with the poor. We may make altruistic gestures, but we are not really interested in establishing meaningful relationships. It could cost us social points to be associated with the marginalized. Donald Miller describes one of these “inconvenient” situations:

 

“While standing in line at the checkout counter, the lady in front of me pulled out food stamps to pay for her groceries. I had never seen food stamps before. They were more colorful than I imagined and looked more like money than stamps. It was obvious as she unfolded the currency that she, I, and the checkout girl were quite uncomfortable with the interaction. I wished there was something I could do. I wished I could pay for her groceries myself, but to do so would have been to cause a greater scene. The checkout girl quickly performed her job, signing and verifying a few documents, then filed the lady through the line. The woman never lifted her head as she organized her bags of groceries and set them into her cart… On the drive over the mountain that afternoon, I realized that it was not the woman who should be pitied, it was me. Somehow I had come to believe that because a person is in need, they are candidates for sympathy, not just charity. It was not that I wanted to buy her groceries, the government was already doing that. I wanted to buy her dignity. And yet, by judging her, I was the one taking her dignity away.”

 

The ugly face of good news makes me upset and angry because I realize that I am a member of this decaying race. There is no lifeboat. We are all sinking, dying. We abandoned hope of rescue long ago and instead seek the validation of our peers to affirm our pudgy lifestyles. As John Piper said at Passion07, we coast around in SUVs dropping nickels in the dreams of kids with cancer or African orphans while leaving a fat inheritance to affirm our children in their worldliness. We are not real or true - we just want validation; I think of U2 who sang, “I’ve seen enough of romantic love/ I’d give it up, I’d give it up/ For a miracle, a miracle drug.”

 

Do we see why Paul begins with “their foolish hearts were darkened?” I am not trying to indict the suburbs as more sick and ungodly, and I am definitely not trying to present the city as a window for enlightenment. Rather, I want to destroy the imaginary wall between the two. There is not a different type of people “in there” or “out here.” Nothing about being a well-adjusted, middle-class suburbanite makes us better than anyone else. I’m sure we would all nod at that statement. What we might have more difficulty swallowing is the statement that we suburbanites are just as flawed as the homeless bum standing on the side of Wendover Ave.

 

There is a mind shift which occurs when you enter a downtown district and come face to face with the “unpleasantness” of society. For myself, I view Sunday morning worship differently when I have to step over a drunk passed out on the sidewalk. I cannot condemn the man as someone more deserving of derision than me. In fact, all I can do is identify with the man, realizing that I am just like him, sinking quickly in a broken vessel. Paul writes, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

 

However, I am beginning to learn that suburban religion does not care to do business with the ugly face of the good news. Christians would rather build little castles with overflow rooms filled with high-def televisions crafted to capitulate to the preferences of the masses than get their hands dirty in the world of sin. At least that is what I am perceiving. I hope I am wrong. But my experience this past year sharing the good news on the streets of Greenville has transformed my understanding of the mission of Jesus, and I can’t help but suspect that the suburban church is missing it.

 

Paul writes later in Romans that where sin increased, grace increased even more. He is not saying that evil should increase so that good looks even better. But what he is saying is that when darkness increases, light appears even brighter. I am no pastor or theologian, but I have been to some dark places and I have seen the ugly face of the good news. But I have also seen the beauty of the good news. I have witnessed its power to bring life to dead hearts and freedom to captive souls. Yet I fear that the suburban church is missing it. I don’t believe it has a clear grasp of the gospel - the good news I have been speaking of.

 

Jesus rescues, but where are the tears of the saints for the captives? Where are the cries for mercy?

 

Jesus redeems, but where is the passion for His fame? Why is He only a sideshow?

 

Does anyone really care?

 

Does anyone want change?

 

 

 

there are many prodigal sons

on our city streets they run

searching for shelter

there are homes broken down

people’s hopes have fallen to the ground

from failures

 

this is an emergency

 

there are tears from the saints

for the lost and unsaved

we’re crying for them come back home

we’re crying for them come back home

and all Your children will stretch out their hands

and pick up the crippled man

Father, we will lead them home

Father, we will lead them home

 

there are schools full of hatred

even churches have forsaken

love and mercy

may we see this generation

in it’s state of desperation

for Your glory

 

this is an emergency

 

sinner, reach out your hands

children, in Christ you stand

sinner, reach out your hands

children, in Christ you stand

 

and all Your children will stretch out their hands

and pick up the crippled man

Father, we will lead them home

Father, we will lead them home

 

(leeland, “tears of the saints”)

introduction

The persistent decline of the church(1) in the postmodern West stirs debate. As the changing culture shoves the church to the margins of society, new methods and theologies emerge to bridge the gap between church and country. Many emerging movements tend to neglect either biblical soundness or cultural relevancy, and thus remain ineffective at evangelizing the new populace. The situation requires a missionary. The following essay attempts to describe how Hudson Taylor, one of the founders of the modern missionary movement, served as a precursor for the budding missional church movement. Hudson Taylor unknowingly planted the seed of the modern missional church in China, and though separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years, Taylor’s actions may supply the greatest hope for the despairing Western church.

Hudson Taylor and His Missionary Tactics

Mission characterized Hudson Taylor’s life. Taylor’s provocative missionary tactics originated from his mission-oriented upbringing. Understanding Taylor’s childhood and entrance into the mission field offers the reader a fuller understanding of his unique practices.

Life of Hudson Taylor

Born in 1832,(2) Taylor matured during the tumultuous environment of the rise of evangelicalism and romanticism in England.(3) Taylor accepted Christ at age seventeen(4) as a fourth-generation Methodist,(5) but he, along with his father, left the Methodist church later that year in opposition to the church’s emphasis on professional clergy.(6) Immediately upon his conversion, Taylor experienced a definitive call to missions work in China which, unbeknownst to Taylor, answered his father’s prayers.(7)

In London, Taylor dedicated his time to preparing for Chinese life. He emptied his house of modern comforts,(8) relied on God to provide for living expenses,(9) and volunteered work among the poor and sick.(10) Taylor’s actions stemmed from a belief that if he couldn’t survive a bitter lifestyle in London, he would never be able to survive the lifestyle of China.(11) The preparations proved wise, because the Chinese Evangelization Society hurriedly whisked Taylor to China before he turned twenty-two years old.(12)

Innovative Practices

Taylor’s first experiences in Shanghai highly influenced his future mission enterprises. As a resident of the European-controlled International Settlement,(13) Taylor quickly developed distaste towards the Settlement’s missionaries for they “openly disdained and criticized their Chinese flock.”(14) Taylor viewed the missionaries as lazy, self-indulgent aristocrats, and he noticed that the Chinese paid little attention to them.(15)

Taylor, unsatisfied with living among other missionaries, decided to travel to China’s interior.(16) Millions of interior Chinese remained untouched by the gospel while all of China’s Protestant missionaries huddled in a few coastal cities.(17) Taylor refused to settle on China’s fringes. Despite legal restrictions(18) and public opposition,(19) Taylor made ten evangelistic trips to inland China within his first two years.(20)

Difficulties in the interior forced Taylor to make adaptations. Recognizing that the people were more interested in Taylor’s foreign clothing than his message, Taylor adopted the native dress(21) and immediately found more freedom to travel among the people.(22) Other missionaries criticized Taylor for his tactics,(23) and Taylor responded: “… to settle among the people, obtaining free and familiar communication with them, conciliating their prejudices, winning their esteem and confidence, and so living as to be an example to them of what Chinese Christians should be, requires the adoption not merely of their costume but of their habits also to a very considerable extent… I have never heard of any one, after a bona fide attempt to become Chinese to the Chinese that he might gain the Chinese, who either regretted the course taken or wished to abandon it.”(24)

Taylor mastered the context of interior China. Recognizing the need for an indigenous Chinese Christianity, Taylor entered far into Chinese culture in order to “gain the Chinese.” Years later, Taylor mandated his radical tactics for all missionaries serving on his mission board, the China Inland Mission (CIM), and through the board, the Chinese Church grew to over 125,000 Christians at the time of Taylor’s death.(25)

The Context for the Western Church in the New Millennium

In order to understand Taylor’s connection with the missional church movement, one must grasp the context from which the movement has emerged. Just as Taylor broke away from “Westernized” missionary tactics, the missional movement broke away from traditional tactics huddled on the fringes of Western culture. The culture of the new millennium prompted the missional movement’s actions; therefore, the following section attempts to explain the context of those actions.

Emerging Western Culture

The emerging twenty-first century culture adores multiculturalism and religious pluralism. Theologian and missionary Lesslie Newbigin claims that the West has never been in such a state of religious pluralism as today.(26) Communication and travel technologies allow for the merging of world religions and cultures,(27) creating one global society.(28) “Christian” and “non-Christian” nations no longer exist(29) because, according to missiologist Ed Stetzer, “Christendom is dead…”(30)

Emerging culture shoved the church to the fringes of society. The West’s former dependence on the church for a metanarrative placed the church in a privileged position,(31) but as the postmodern West abandoned the metanarrative,(32) the church lost its cultural influence.(33) A Christian perspective transformed from an asset to a liability.(34)

Failure to Engage the Emerging Western Culture

The traditional Western church failed to master the new context. Under the influence of Constantianism, a process which privatized faith and merged the church with the state,(35) culturally indigenous mission work halted.(36) An “ecclesiocentric” understanding of mission(37) prompted the church to isolate itself from emerging culture(38) and focus on maintaining its societal position,(39) which the traditional church continues to do today. Consequently, “[t]he Christian faith is either explicitly repudiated or passively ignored by the majority of the people…”(40) The emerging culture ignores the tactics of the traditional church, and the traditional church ignores the demands of the emerging culture; both view one another as irrelevant.

A New Paradigm of Western Ecclesiology

The emerging context of the Western church necessitated a new paradigm of ecclesiology. Newbigin observes, “The [church] structure which we have inherited appears to be neither relevant to the life of a secularized society, nor true to the biblical picture of the Church as a missionary community.”(41) The modern missionary movement, founded by Hudson Taylor and others,(42) established the foundation for change. The following investigates Taylor’s contributions to four key traits of the missional church within the new paradigm.

Taylor revived the understanding of missio Dei.(43) He writes, “In language, in appearance, in everything not sinful He [Jesus] made Himself one with those He sought to benefit.”(44) Taylor justifies his missionary tactics by pointing to Christ’s scandalous missionary tactics.(45) Missional theology further developed missio Dei by claiming that the Church is a missionary and must act as one.(46)

The missionary nature of the Church demands an outward-focused church organization. Taylor’s mission board exemplified an outward focus.(47) The CIM successfully infiltrated the untouched interior regions, and at least one missionary reached Tibet.(48) Likewise, missional churches move out from their Christian subculture and reach into the culture they are serving.(49)

Missional churches contextualize the gospel in order to reach new cultures. Taylor adopted Chinese customs out of respect for Chinese culture(50) and out of desire to see the gospel planted in Chinese culture.(51) A self-supporting, fully Chinese church filled the vision of the CIM.(52) In the same way, a missional church attempts to embed itself within culture. Stetzer states, “…a truly indigenous church seeks to become incarnate within the culture in which it finds itself.”(53) Taylor introduced the necessity of contextualization for the spread of the gospel.

The fluidity of mission prevails over the establishment of institutions in the missional church. Taylor received much criticism for his negligence to establish a national body of churches.(54) Taylor’s critics failed to see that Taylor was never interested in building his own organization.(55) Upon studying the Bible, Taylor states, “I saw that the apostolic plan was not to raise ways and means, but to go and do the work…”(56) Missional church leaders embrace Taylor’s assertion and emphasize the movement of the church rather than the institution of the church.(57) Newbigin describes the missional church “as a thing sent out into the world, an expedition rather than an institution, the visible form of the action of God the Holy Spirit in sending his people out to draw all men to Christ.”(58)

CONCLUSION

The pressing demands of the emerging Western culture continue to strain the conventional church. Unless a missionary arrives, the Western church will die. According to the missional church movement, Jesus Christ sends the Church as the missionary. This paper shows how the life and missionary tactics of Hudson Taylor instruct the burgeoning missional church movement. Though the cultural landscape appears bleak, the gospel has advanced in hostile cultures for thousands of years. Hudson Taylor introduced a new approach to missions that continues today through the missional church movement. Neither Taylor nor the missional church can take credit for the strategy, because the essential nature of the new paradigm of mission finds root in Christ’s missional commands. If the Western church remains faithful to Christ and his mission, the church will rediscover its role as an unstoppable force of global transformation.

______________________________________

1. The following essay employs “church” to mean the local, visible institution of professing Christians and “Church” to mean the universal, invisible body of elected Christians. This standard will be applied throughout the essay. Direct quotations will be adjusted to meet the aforementioned definitions, and adjustments will be indicated to the reader.

2. Ruth A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya (Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1983), 173.

3. Alvyn Austin, “Only Connect,” in North American Foreign Missions, ed. Wilbert R. Shenk (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 287.

4. Tucker, 173.

5. Austin, 287.

6. Ibid., 288.

7. Marshall Broomhall, The Man Who Believed God (London: China Inland Mission Overseas Missionary Fellowship, 1965), 20.

8. J. Hudson Taylor, A Retrospect (Chicago: Moody Press, 1875), 17.

9. Ibid., 33.

10. Broomhall, 30.

11. J. Herbert Kane, “J. Hudson Taylor,” in Missions Legacies, eds. Gerald H. Anderson et al. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995), 197.

12. Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 45.

13. Tucker, 175.

14. Bruce Heydt, “Three Voices Wake a Sleeping Church,” Christian History & Biography 82 (Spring 2004): 43.

15. Tucker, 175.

16. Ibid.

17. Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission (Philadelphia: The Religious Tract Society, 1925), 7.

18. J. Hudson Taylor, 63.

19. Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret, 59.

20. Ibid.

21. Tucker, 176.

22. J. Hudson Taylor, 74.

23. Broomhall, 68.

24. Quoted in Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission, 89. See APPENDIX A concerning Taylor’s reasoning for adopting Chinese dress.

25. Heydt, 44.

26. James Edward Lesslie Newbigin, Trinitarian Faith and Today’s Mission (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1964), 13.

27. Ibid., 14.

28. James Edward Lesslie Newbigin, Honest Religion for Secular Man (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 11.

29. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 3.

30. Ed Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 15.

31. Newbigin, Honest Religion for Secular Man, 106-7.

32. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2002), 228.

33. Darrell L. Guder, Missional Church (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 1. The marginalized position of the Western church resembles the position of the first-century church within the Roman Empire (see Kärkkäinen, 222).

34. Bosch, 364.

35. Kärkkäinen, 226-7.

36. Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 24.

37. Guder, 4.

38. Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 26.

39. Newbigin, Honest Religion for Secular Man, 102-3.

40. James Edward Lesslie Newbigin, A Faith for This One World? (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 15.

41. Newbigin, Honest Religion for Secular Man, 107.

42. Terry L. Miethe, introduction to Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret, by Howard Taylor (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), vi.

43. Missio Dei is “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world, God’s involvement in and with the world, the nature and activity of God, which embraces both the church and the world, and in which the church is privileged to participate” (Bosch, 10).

44. Quoted in Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission, 90.

45. Ibid., 91.

46. Kärkkäinen, 151.

47. Ed Stetzer, interview by author, 21 March 2007, electronic mail.

48. Roger Steer, “Pushing Inward,” Christian History 15, no. 4 (1996): 10.

49. Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 9, 14.

50. Steer, 10.

51. Quoted in Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission, 90.

52. Howard Taylor, Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret, 97.

53. Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age, 24.

54. Kane, 201.

55. Ibid., 199.

56. J. Hudson Taylor, 143.

57. Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 16.

58. James Edward Lesslie Newbigin, A Faith for This One World? (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 111.

so i have survived the most stressful and challenging week of my education career (so far!). i can’t say that i soared through it victoriously - it was an intense struggle. it is relieving to know that it’s all behind me now. Jesus was very gracious to me this week, picking me up when i fell and urging me to tackle each day with passion and resolve. it’s no coincidence that this week i started reading the book of joshua; the words “be strong and courageous, do not be terrified or discouraged” have been echoing in my bones every day. it thrilled me to see His miraculous hand working, but more thrilling than anything else was sensing His Spirit enabling me to walk on waves, run on clouds, and contribute to the great, everlasting story to which i have been called. friendships have deepened, new ones started, and others distanced through the demands of the greater story. above all, a deep, abiding satisfaction flows through me as i feel my life merging with Christ’s. i would have things no other way. though life has been incredibly tough and even discouraging at times, i have had opportunity after opportunity to make my life count for the One who gave His all for me. my soul spills over with ecstatic fulfillment. i’m leaning into His story. bring it on.

 you bought my life

with the blood that you shed on the cross

when you died

for the sins of men

and you let out a cry

crucified, now alive in me.

these hands are Yours

teach them to serve as you please

and i’ll reach out

desperate to see

all the greatness of God

may my soul rest assured in You.

i’ll never be the same. no, i’ll never be the same.

’cause i know that You’re alive.

You came to fix my broken life.

and i’ll sing to glorify

Your holy name, Jesus Christ.

Hey guys and gals, I’ve posted my first paper for PTRW and I need your help! Go to http://thecaleb.voxtropolis.com/ , click the link to the page on the right,  read the paper, and tell me what you think. I have to cut A LOT from the paper, so tell me what is unnecessary to the development of my thesis. Thanks!

p. s. PTRW stands for Principles of Theological Research and Writing (for those of you with different majors).

this is my second attempt at writing a reflection on passion ‘07. the fact that i wasn’t satisfied with my first attempt reveals the post-passion dilemma that i, along with others, am experiencing. you see, i am just realizing why it is so difficult to give an adequate answer to someone who asks, “how was passion?” if passion were only an event, i’m sure i’d easily be able to describe it. but passion wasn’t only an event. i don’t know what i’d call it. in fact, the experience of passion had nothing to do with the crowds or the spectacle; the “real” passion experience occured somewhere beneath it all, where we scarcely look. what was most “real” about passion was also what was most invisible.

“i have a new year, a new opportunity, a new slate. what will i do with these 365 days? one year from now i will be a junior looking for a graduate school. will i be ready? i trust that every moment God sends my way in 2007 i will be ready for. i want to squeeze out the potential of every opportunity for the glory of God and the good of my community. let it be that kind of year. let it start today.” it’s been fifteen days since i penned those words. fifteen days since that blue-skyed morning of anticipation. new years day i was filled with so much vision. i still am. though i have fallen, i will rise. passion has shaken my character, and i am no longer content with my heart posture. God pried my eyes open to see myself, and there was much i saw that i didn’t like. i am inward-focused, mis-prioritized, arrogant, cynical, cold, fragile, and insecure. though i sit in darkness, my God will be my light. passion has filled me with hope. remembering the scars of my past, unknown to most of you, reminds me of God’s incredible grace and mercy. sitting in darkness is nothing new to me. but today is a new day. today is not yesterday. though i have fallen, i will rise.

my goal is to become what i already am in Christ Jesus. Jesus has transformed my life and declared me a righteous, holy, resolute man. i don’t often act like it. i am only trying to live up to what i have already attained, but it isn’t easy. my ego is so strong. a light has shined on my soul, and i am laid bare, as ugly as i am. yet He calls me beautiful child? i don’t deserve this. yes, it is a free gift, His grace, His kindness, but my mind can’t even grasp how He could love this man. He must be a fool for wanting me.

God would want me?

me?

then He can take me, all my strength and all my frailty. let all be blazed away in the glorious light of His presence. decrease my weak, pathetic self and increase Your wholeness. may my weaknesses serve as avenues of light, to shine with Your brilliant strength.

i bear His mark now. i will not miss the point of it all. His pure desire is tattooed on my soul. fear or failure cannot damn me; i cannot be conquered by darkness. for i am more than a conquerer because of Him who loved me. Friends, i am broken, and i am so sorry for my overbearing, self-absorbed, arrogant attitude. my entire body is aching for a touch from Him. i thirst for change. Jesus has rescued me, He has transformed me, and I expect Him to continue this work. but the wind blows wherever it pleases. you hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. so it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

my sails are up, and the wind is blowing, but i do not know where i am going. reality is budding into full color; i feel the urgency of the moment and the uncertainty of my future. God asked me at passion to trust Him with my future, so i have. i have abandoned any hope of knowing where i am going. all i have is placed in His hands.

so now i ask you to be a part of this passion movement. prayer and action is required of me, but i feel so unqualified. Jesus has called me to plant a church in an urban area of some major city in the world. the city is unknown to me; that is a detail God asked me to trust Him with while i was at passion. yet i am unwavering in my decision to risk it all for the sake of those who want to know the real, living Jesus. i ask you join me in praying for my future wife; i am looking for a woman prepared to give her life to this mission, as i am prepared to do, but i feel that i am not the one to ask this of her. i pray that God would call her just as strongly as He has called me, and that she would respond with the clarity, urgency, and passion that I aspire to. i also ask you to join me in praying for the couple who will join my wife and i in the church plant, specifically the man who will become my barnabas (or my paul, depending on what is the better partnership). i have this unshakeable conviction that i will meet this man in the next few years, so i am praying for discernment and for focus in order to develop a healthy bond of friendship. third, i ask you to join me as i pray for God to give me a close brother for encouragement, accountability, and sharpening of character. i feel isolated; i don’t know why, but i need someone to pull me up when i fall and someone for me to pull up when he falls. i need a comrade in the faith. last, i ask you to pray with me as i seek avenues to use my God-given gifts. i am wasting them; i desire to use my gifts and talents for the honor of Jesus Christ and the good of my brothers and sisters, but i don’t know where or how. God, open a door. 

i don’t expect you to take up these requests with ardent devotion. these few paragraphs have only attempted to express the journey i have taken from passion ‘07. needs and desires have emerged, but i do not want you to feel responsible to pray for all of this. if the thought crosses your mind and you can say a quick prayer, i thank you for the care. if anything, i want this to inspire you to live a life only God could dream. He does, in fact, have a dream for your life. do you want to know it? do you truly desire for His dream to become realized today, tomorrow, for all of time stretched before you? then give up. push yourself downward, and He will lift you up. let the light in.

 ”let my life shine, come and make my heart shine. we’re gonna walk the world, and lift the Bread and Wine. let my life shine, come and make my heart shine. in a dark world, lift the Bread and Wine.”

      So this is where our journey ends. I hope that I was able to enlighten you about this movement known as the Emerging Church. I hope that your questions are not completely answered; if you are seriously interested in learning about the movement, go to an emerging church (or the website of one) and see where it stands on Scripture. Then go to another. And another. I think you will find that emerging churches are no different than conventional churches: there is a wide diversity of beliefs.

     You see, I really don’t care what you call your church. I care that you are faithful to Jesus and faithful to Scripture. Be a missionary, be a light, be a city on a hill. If we can learn from the past and engage the present we will be able to create a future which glorifies Christ among all the nations. Including our own.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“About Emergent Village.” Emergent Village. Emergent Village. 28 October 2006. <http://www.emergentvillage.com/about/>.

Bahá’í Topics: An Information Resource. Bahá’í International Community. 29 October 2006. <http://info.bahai.org/>.

Barna, George. “The Future of the Church in America.” Catalyst Monthly. October 2006. 27 October 2006 <http://www.catalystspace.com/content/monthly/default.aspx>.

Bethlehem Baptist Church. Bethlehem Baptist Church. 5 November 2006. <http://www.bbcmpls.org>

Christian, Nicholas. “CIA Gives Grim Warning on European Prospects.” NEWS.scotsman.com. 16 January 2005. 31 October 2006. <http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=591&id=56762005>.

Driscoll, Mark. “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church.” Criswell Theological Review 27 March 2006: 87-93.

—. “Cultural Values and the Preaching of Repentance.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 31 July 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview11.mov>.

—. “Emerging vs. Emergent.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 12 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview1.mov>.

—. “Seeker vs. Missional - Part One.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 19 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview2.mov>.

—. “Seeker vs. Missional - Part Two.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 28 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview8.mov>.

—. “The Need for Cultural Immersion.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 17 July 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview6.mov>.

—. “Worldliness and Culture.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 5 September 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview14.mov>.

Kimball, Dan. “Origins of the terms ‘Emerging’ and ‘Emergent’ church - Part 1.” Vintage Faith. 25 October 2006. 29 October 2006 <http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/index.html>.

—. “Origins of the terms ‘Emerging’ and ‘Emergent’ church - Part 2.” Vintage Faith. 25 October 2006. 29 October 2006 <http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/index.html>.

—. The Emerging Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

Keller, Tim. “Characteristics of a Missional Church.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 17 July 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_keller_interview6.mov>.

—. “Is the Bible Culturally Conditioned.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 26 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_keller_interview15.mov>.

—. “The Scripture as Foundation.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 22 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_keller_interview14.mov>.

Steyn, Mark. “It’s the Demography, Stupid.” The Opinion Journal. 4 January 2006. 31 October 2006. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760>.

Street, R. Alan. “An Interview with Brian McLaren.” Criswell Theological Review 27 March 2006: 5-14.

McKinley, Rick. “The Shift in Thinking Required to Engage Your Culture.” Catalyst Monthly. October 2006. 27 October 2006 <http://www.catalystspace.com/content/monthly/detail.aspx?i=1148&m=10&y=2006>.

McLaren, Brian. “Underneath the Cosmetics.” Leadership Journal Fall 2005: 136.

McManus, Alex. Into the Mystic. 29 October 2006. 31 October 2006. <http://alexmcmanus.org>.

McManus, Erwin. An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind. Loveland, CO: Group, 2001.

—. “The Cause-Driven Church.” Erwin Raphael McManus. 29 October 2006. <http://www.erwinmcmanus.com/>.

Miller, Donald. “Be Yourself and Go For It.” Catalyst Monthly. October 2006. 27 October 2006. <http://www.catalystspace.com/content/monthly/detail.aspx?i=1151&m=10&y=2006>.

Mills, David M. “The Emergent Church - Another Perspective.” David Mills’ Personal Page. 5 Novemeber 2006. <http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/millsd/mills_staley_response.pdf>

NIV Student Bible, The. International Bible Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Piper, John. “What are Some Effects of Postmodernism.” Desiring God 2006 National Conference Podcast. 26 June 2006. 25 October 2006. <http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_piper_interview3.mov>.

Saddleback Church. Saddleback Church. 5 November 2006. <http://www.saddleback.com>.

Smith, William, Dr. “Entry for ‘Church’”. “Smith’s Bible Dictionary”. <http://www.studylight.org/dic/sbd/view.cgi?number=T1008>. 1901.

Taylor, Dr. and Mrs. Howard. Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission: The Growth of a Work of God. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1918.

SUGGESTED READING

The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus: A great beginning point in understanding how the movement of Jesus Christ has been tamed by our current religion. Not his best work in terms of literary merit, but by far it is his most powerful - and controversial - book.

An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Be the Church God Had in Mind by Erwin McManus: A refreshing look at the first-century church in a post-modern world.

Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller: Opens the door for understanding what postmodern thinkers are asking about Jesus, although he provides few answers.

Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller: Amazing description of the biblical illiteracy of modern Christianity.

The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball: A very optimistic look at the emerging church and the context from which it has emerged.

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church by D. A. Carson: A description of the emerging church from a theologian’s point-of-view, though somewhat ambiguous about the different kinds of emerging churches.

Another Perspective on the Emergent Church by David Mills: This is a great response to lectures given by D. A. Carson concerning the emerging church. Dr. David Mills, professor of philosophy at Cedarville University, examines some of the common critiques of the emerging church very well: http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/millsd/mills_staley_response.pdf

Concerning the stats for the replacement fertility rate, see the United Nations report: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002_VOL_3.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Mom and Dad - Your support has been invaluable. I hope that I will be able to model to my kids the joy, love, and character that you modeled to me.

Barry Darnell - Thanks for teaching me to think biblically and live relevantly.

Erwin McManus - Though you will probably never read this, I deeply appreciate your work because it has given me much hope for the future of the church; it was an honor to meet you in Greensboro, and I hope to one day to meet Mosaic as well.

Tim Albrecht - Our conversations have framed a lot of what I believe with the awareness that not everyone sees things my way; you have taught me a lot, and I am very grateful for that - I look forward to more dialogue in the future.

The “Asiago Speaks Louder than Words” Group - What a great group! I learned so much from you all; thanks for putting up with my weirdness and journeying with me last summer.

Laura Wood - Our conversations regarding the emerging church and other topics encouraged me so much; I’m glad that you broke my stereotype of Bob Jones students!

Jeremy Logan - There have been so many encouraging discussions following this series and I’m so glad to have a friend like you to learn from!

Leigha Dennis - We’ve shared so many great discussions; your input is deeply valued, and I’m so grateful for the leadership you provided, and still provide, at Southwest.

Tyler Hinton - Our heated discussions in chemistry class contributed to what propelled me into this journey; thanks for listening to me, and thanks for teaching me.

Dr. Tony Beam - Thank you for encouraging your students to hold on to truth in the postmodern age.

Dr. Ron Marks - Though we disagree on some points, I appreciate your willingness to dialogue; thanks for encouraging me to write down my thoughts.

Rob Emmanuel - You first introduced me to the works of Erwin McManus which were the catalysts for much of my spiritual growth in the last few years; I am very appreciative of your influence in my life.

Mr. A. - Thanks for teaching me to love writing and for challenging me to engage a postmodern world.

     It’s good to be back. Tests, projects, Christmas, etc. have distracted me, but I haven’t forgotten you. You belong here. I ended the last post asking the question, “Where is Jesus leading?,” and I want to use that question to guide us into a discussion of the Church. What is the Church? What is church? How do we cultivate the mission of the Church? How is the emerging church cultivating the mission? I believe two critical questions that the church in the West must answer today are the question of personhood and the question of place. By defining who we are and where we are, we will be better prepared to pursue the mission for which we have been called.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE

    Why is this discussion important? In the last few posts I’ve tried to constantly emphasize our need for a biblical grid in approaching everything in life. I hope in this post that we can work together to establish a biblical grid for ecclesiology (the function and structure of a church) with which we can analyze not only the many approaches of the emerging church, but also the structures and functions of our own churches. As Dan Kimball notes, “What comes into our minds when we think of the word ‘church’ is the most important thing shaping how we function as a church” (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 92). Our definition of “church” is highly influential to the outworking of our own faith, therefore it is vital that we hold a biblical definition in order to be faithful disciples of Christ. No matter how painful it may be, let’s strip away all of the nonessentials and invest our energies in developing a biblical foundation from the ground up.

     The English word “church” is derived from the Latin “kirk” and the Greek “kuklos,” both of which describe the circular seating of early congregations (Smith). Translators primarily use “church” for the translation of the Greek word “ekklesia” (Butler), a word which carried two distinct connotations. Both connotations give us a picture of what the early church was thinking in using this word. First, ekklesia was used in the Greek world to describe an assembly of the Greek citizens of a city who were called out by a herald to deal with a common concern (Ibid). In this sense, the early church adopted Jesus’ command to be a city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 NIV) by viewing themselves as an assembly of God “sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NIV). Second, “ekklesia” was used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in the first century) for the translation of the Hebrew “qahal” (Butler). Qahal also described an assembly of people, and some examples of its use can be found in 1 Samuel 19:20, Numbers 22:4, and Deuteronomy 9:10 (Ibid). The first thing we should note is that ekklesia didn’t describe a place or an organization but a group of people who were specially called for a greater purpose. A building can’t send greetings (Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19 NIV), only a people can. An organization can’t be gathered together from all across a city (Acts 14:7 NIV), only a people can. The church is not a building or a meeting; it is the people of God (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 91).

     In Matthew 16 and 18, the only instances where Jesus refers to the church, Jesus makes it clear that the church is founded on His authority. It is His church. It is His people. In verses 18-21 of chapter 16, Jesus makes a clear connection between the church and the kingdom, and while it may be presumptuous to say that they are synonymous, it is apparent that the church and the kingdom are highly correlated (Orr). Faith in Christ is not only a requirement for entrance into the kingdom, but it is also the first sign of adoption into the church (Acts 2:32, 2:41-42, Matthew 16:16-18 NIV). Baptism and the Lord’s supper are the only two orders of assembly with which Jesus charges the church; He makes no other formal prescriptions for the organization of the church (Orr). It appears rather that organization emerged as the needs of the people emerged (see Acts 6:1-6 NIV) (Orr) and as spiritual gifts were exercised to fulfill the church’s mission (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 NIV) (Butler). One of the most unique characteristics of the early Church was that its organization was different in each local congregation (Butler).

     So “ekklesia” is not a place of meeting or a place of worship, but a people who have been called as the “sent spirit of God” (McKinley) to reach every community with the message of the kingdom. As that message advances, organization is necessary. Yet, for the most part, the Western world has abandoned this organic definition for a narrower one that limits “church” to a place where we go once or twice a week (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 92). This subtle alteration in terminology creates a significant split between the public sphere and the private sphere; we go to “church” for our private religious activity and then we come back to the public world where we live most of our lives. “In North America, this ‘place where’ orientation manifests itself in a particular form. Both members and those outside the church expect the church to be a vendor of religious services and goods” (qtd. In Kimball, “Emerging Church” 93). George Barna notes that “God didn’t call us to go to church, He called us to be the church” (Barna).

     It is impossible for us to “go to church” because we are the church. Events don’t happen “at church,” events happen through the church. We are the church. When we ascribe to the “place where” terminology, we abdicate ourselves of so much responsibility. Maybe that is the point. When church is restricted to a place or a time that is separate from the rest of our lives, there is a limit to what God can ask of us. But if we are the church, no matter if we are in school or at work, God can intervene whenever and wherever He wants.

     What then are we to be? Hear the Scriptures: We are living stones of a new Temple, a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, aliens and strangers in the world (1 Peter 2:4-11 NIV). We have been redeemed from an empty life (1 Corinthians 6:9-20, 1 Peter 1:13-21 NIV), and the only natural response is a lifestyle of worship (Romans 12:1) aimed at glorifying God (1 Peter 2:11-12 NIV). I cannot even begin to summarize the greatness to which the Scriptures call us. Beautiful are the words spoken to us, and beautiful is the One who is speaking! Friends, we have not been given a rule book and neither have we been made rulers. No, this is the majesty of His great plan, that we are the servants of the world (1 Peter 3:8-9, 4:1-11 NIV), showing our love through self-sacrifice (1 John 3:16-18 NIV). Christ freed us in order to serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13-14 NIV)! Oh, that we would give up our senseless political battles and be the people we are called to be.

     May we love without hesitation and pursue Truth with all passion (Philippians 1:9-11 NIV). May we be entirely welcoming (Romans 12:14-16 NIV) and entirely merciful (Jude 22-23 NIV). May we stop fighting like the world (2 Corinthians 10:2-5 NIV) and begin living like the residents a new heaven and a new earth (2 Peter 3:11-14 NIV), like residents of a shining city on a hill (Matthew 5:14 NIV).

May we be devoted to one another (Romans 12:10 NIV), united by service, love, and humility (Philippians 2:1-11 NIV).

     And may we realize that this is not something we are to do once a week, but it is something we are to be day in and day out. This subject is one that the emerging church is right on target. “A foundational and critical challenge for the emerging church will be teaching people that they are the church and that they don’t simply attend or go to one” (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 94). Those who find comfort in the institutional religion of Christianity will find themselves confronted by this incarnational view of ecclesiology. It is a warranted confrontation. For too long we have abdicated our responsibilities to the kingdom with our letters of membership to stiff, inward-focused institutions. Across the entire spectrum of the emerging church is a refreshing change toward incarnational ministry - ministry that is about people being the church. Though parts of the movement has serious pitfalls, most of the emerging church is raising itself to a new standard of ecclesiology that is far more biblical than anything the West has seen for many years. I hope that we would all welcome that change.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT - IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT

     This is a high calling. It demands our all. Jesus even said few would find it (Matthew 7:14 NIV). Yet today, this high calling seems to have been abandoned by conventional Christianity. It appears that a mediocre attempt to follow His path is not only deemed acceptable, it is expected.

    The culprit is the acceptance of the membership design of church. “One danger of the American church is that we often try to offer people community without cause. Without cause, you’re just another civic organization. You don’t have life transformation” (E. McManus, “Cause-Driven Church”). The membership design of church operates like any other civic organization: members enjoy certain benefits which non-members do not; members convince non-members to join their organization; non-members who recognize the benefits will naturally join; members are expected to behave in a certain way; more active members are considered more committed to the organization; more active members are rewarded by acquiring positions of leadership; leaders are utilized to make more members. The dangers inherent to a member-oriented design is that the organization creates an elitist ladder, is focused on self-preservation, and engages in an enormous “us-them” mentality. Competition is the natural result of this organizational design because non-members will begin to look for the organization which offers the best benefits.

     “‘We’re looking for a church that meets our needs.’ It seems like I’ve heard this one a thousand times. The phenomenon of church shoppers has profoundly shaped the contemporary church. The entire conversation is not about relevance but convenience. The focus is not in serving the world; the church itself became the focal point. Our motto degenerated from ‘We are the church, here to serve the lost and broken world’ to ‘What does this church have to offer me.’” (E. McManus, “Unstoppable” 29-30). Erwin McManus expresses the frustration pastors and believers feel over the rampant consumerism found in the Western church today. The solution so many pastors present often sounds like this: “Stop being observers and start being participants!” This doesn’t solve anything. Instead of having a church of consumers who like to sit and watch, you will have a church of consumers who will do anything to avoid being the guy who just likes to sit and watch. They aren’t disciples - they are worker bees! The moment we equate participation with maturity is the moment we give church-building precedence over disciple-making.

     I want you to know that I am not an unbiased, external observer of the emerging church. My answer to the consumerism of the Western church is the rejection of the membership design and the acceptance of the missionary design. From this point forward, I will advocate the Relevant Missional stance of an emerging believer, and this is why: nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded to start churches. Nowhere. However, we are constantly urged to make disciples. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19 NIV) was not a command just for the original Twelve; it is for us, too. We are all missionaries. 2 Corinthians says that we are God’s ambassadors, representatives to this world another other-worldly kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:18-20 NIV). We are all missionaries.

     Mark Driscoll, pastor and prominent leader of the Missional approach, says, “We’re not talking about a church running programs to attract non-Christians. We’re talking about Christians taking it upon themselves to love their neighbor” (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional Part 2″). Emerging Church Parts 1 and 2 explained, to a degree, the cultural state of the West, and I hope you realize why this culture needs missionaries. The problem is that many Christians don’t even know anyone who lives in this post-Christian Western culture. “They listen to Christian radio, they listen to Christian music, they watch Christian television, they read Christian books, their kids go to Christian school, they go to Christian church, they go to Christian events, they go to Christian concerts, their friends are Christian, they go to community group or home Bible study with their Christian friends, they vacation with their Christian friends and meanwhile their neighbors don’t know Christ” (Driscoll, “Cultural Immersion”). For us to love our neighbor, we need to get to know them. “Ultimately, they need Jesus. But without me knowing them, I don’t know how to articulate how Jesus is the one that they truly need” (Ibid).

     Missional believers go as far into culture as they can, without sinning, in order to understand the questions that the culture is asking. The Christian pick-up line hasn’t changed in the past 30 years: “If you were to die today, do you know that you would go to heaven?” As a missionary, we must investigate and see if this is the question that people are actually asking - or are they asking something else. Only then will we be able to present Jesus as the one who answers their deepest longings.

     This is what missiologists call contextualization. A missionary contextualizes the gospel within their culture. This is not to say that we water down the gospel; there are countless examples throughout history when we have often botched our translations of the gospel to culture (Miller, “Be Yourself”). We are right to be wary of blind calls to “relevance.” But this does not give us the right to abandon our missionary call. A missionary must hold Scripture in a closed hand and methodology in an open hand; this is what Paul meant when he said, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22 NIV). We don’t become Buddhist to reach Chinese; we become Chinese to reach Chinese. It’s not just a matter of dress and language; to repeat Hudson Taylor, “So living as to be an example to them of what Chinese Christians should be, requires the adoption not merely of their costume but of their habits also to a very considerable extent. Merely to put on their dress, and act regardless of their thoughts and feelings, is to make a burlesque of the whole matter…” (Taylor 89).

     I pray that we would not make a burlesque of the matter. For the sake of the Gospel, get to know your neighbor, love your neighbor, seek the good of your neighbor, and be a missionary to your neighbor. Don’t view yourself as a member or a participant. View yourself as a missionary. And live your life worthy of your calling.

THE TWO ORIGINS

     “I think we are wise to adjust our methods, just as any good fisherman would during changing weather conditions” (Street 9). Said by Brian McLaren earlier this year, this assertion summarizes much of what the emerging church has been up to in the last ten years. In this post, I plan on exploring what these changes are as well as the positive and negative implications. I know many of you are rejoicing that I am finally discussing the main point of this series; I hope you understand that the two previous posts were very important for framing the environment from which the emerging church has risen. In so many discussions that I have had involving emerging churches, I am constantly amazed at how little some people know concerning why the emerging church exists. I hope that you have taken time to understand the “why” in the last two posts and realize that the emerging church did not simply rise from obscurity but is a response to the many needs of postmodern culture. So in this post I will examine the emerging church through the two origins, the three schools, the four responses, and a dance (apologies to Eugene Peterson). I ask that you continually give me feedback either over the web or in person; I appreciate the notes, comments, and discussions that many of us have been sharing and I hope to see them continue.

     I am not really sure if it is accurate to say that there were two origins of the emerging church; it seems rather that there was one group which identified the problem and another that presented possible solutions. In either case, I think it is important for us to remember that the church has always been emerging. Local congregations do not look like they did 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1800 years ago. Organs emerged at one time in history, denominations emerged at one time, even handshakes emerged at one time (remember that believers used to greet each other with a holy kiss) - we have always been emerging (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). People use the word “emerging” in all sorts of ways, many of which may have nothing to do what we call “the emerging church.” In this conversation, when we say “emerging church” we are referring to a recent change in the evangelical mind concerning the relationship between the church and the world; while the church has a pattern of emergence, the recent changes are very unique to our history. So let’s take a look at what they are.

     We could say that everything began all the way back with the seeker-sensitive movement 20 or 30 years ago. The seeker-sensitive ministry style is characterized by a corporate approach to church organization; it focuses on delivering spiritual goods and services to its market (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional” ). Some seeker-sensitive churches made compromises with culture, such as hiring female pastors (Ibid). But by removing religious symbols and shortening worship services, these churches were very successful in creating environments where the nonreligious crowd felt comfortable (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 25). Unfortunately, deeper teaching and more intimate worship were pushed to other time slots to make room for the spectacle Sunday services (Ibid 25), but in the end, these churches witnessed thousands of people embrace the Gospel who would have otherwise never walked into a church.

     The first problems came in the early 1990s when young people in these churches began to feel increasingly disillusioned and isolated by modern methodologies (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 34). My previous post recorded many of the patterns that these churches saw among their youth; those in leadership began to worry about how they were going to reach the next generation. Sally Morgenthaler, a brilliant student of corporate and personal worship, noted, “The ’spectacle’ approach to worship that Dan [Kimball] used… for eight years actually peaked sometime in the late eighties and early nineties. Dan was experiencing the aftershocks of an enormous spiritual quake” (qtd. in Kimball, “Emerging Church” 34). Since we have already examined that spiritual shift, I won’t go over it again. What is important to note is that seeker-sensitive churches noticed the changes and began searching for the cause. We can conclude that the first origin of the emerging church occurred within the seeker-sensitive churches who perceived that their methods were no longer successful in reaching emerging generations. This was the problem-identifying origin.

     The second origin, or we could say the solution-suggesting origin, was in 1997 when the Leadership Network held a conference to discuss reaching Generation X (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). The tagline for the conference was “Advance Scouts for the Emerging Church;” this was the first time that the phrase “emerging church” was used with our current definition (Ibid). Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball were both a part of this conference and have since become experts in describing the conversation that ensued (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). As Mark explains, the conference realized that it was too generationally focused (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ); they quickly shifted their focus onto the monstrous cultural shift occurring within emerging generations (Kimball “Origins Part 1″ ). The question that was of chief concern during this conference was “What does a missionary look like in America?” (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). At its conclusion, leaders reoriented themselves around the mission of Jesus and his Kingdom in the emerging culture (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). “And out of that came… the emerging church, which is sort of a catch-all phrase for those younger churches and pastors that are trying to figure out how to do church in a postmodern world” (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). From 1997 to 2001, “emerging church” was used by these churches and pastors to describe the unique methodologies with which they were experimenting (Kimball, “Origins Part 1″ ). “Overall, at that time it meant missional churches passionate about seeing the gospel of Jesus communicated and lived out to emerging generations. That is at least what I was thinking as I used the term and still do think as I use the term ‘emerging church’” (Ibid).

     So these were the two origins of the emerging church: the seeker-sensitive churches who asked why emerging generations were leaving and the Leadership Network who suggested how to reach them. The seeker-sensitive churches began their investigations in the early 1990s and over the course of about five years (around 1992 to 1997) the discussion transformed from a few concerned pastors to a groundbreaking conference. This Leadership Network conference would prove to be the catalyst for a new church movement. Following the conference, three schools of thought formed, each of which approached the mission of reaching emerging generations with a unique perspective.

THE THREE SCHOOLS

     To begin, the “emerging church” is not merely thinking up hip new ideas for Sunday services; the “emerging church” is rethinking everything we do and questioning every tradition we have (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 37). There are typically three schools of thought to which emerging thinkers and leaders belong. Dr. Ed Stetzer, a noted missiologist, names these schools the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Almost every leader among the “emerging church” can be placed in one of or some combination of these schools.

     The first school, the Relevants, has two wings: Classical Relevants and Reformed Relevants. Overall, Relevants are theologically conservative; they are involved with updating worship and preaching styles and updating traditional leadership structures. Their goal is to become more relevant (hence the name) to emerging postmodern generations (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Some leading Classical Relevants are Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, and Rob Bell, while some leading Reformed Relevants are Erwin McManus, Tim Keller, and John Piper (Ibid 90). A common critique of Classical Relevants is that they are just doing “cool” church and they aren’t seeing any real conversion growth; it was for this criticism that Reformed Relevants emerged. Reformed Relevants are more mission-minded and are usually outward-looking (Ibid 90); they look to D. A. Carson for theological direction (which is ironic because he is adamantly opposed to the “emerging church” ) and Lesslie Newbigin for missional perspective.

     The next school, the Reconstructionists, stands by evangelical doctrine and theology but is dissatisfied with conventional church models (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90). Reconstructionists propose more incarnational, organic forms of church structure, such as house churches. Leaders among the Reconstructionists are Neil Cole, Michael Frost, and Alan Hirsch (Ibid 90). Reconstructionists are often critiqued for collecting disgruntled Christians and failing to see conversion growth (Ibid 90).

     The last school of the “emerging church” is the Revisionists. This school tends to question key evangelical doctrines, and as a result they are often labeled theologically liberal (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90). As Dr. David Mills, Professor of Philosophy at Cedarville University, explains, many of these people are “passionate to change things, but they do so because of their passion for the gospel; they desire to see it lived out in relevant ways in their current context” (Mills 23). So while many Revisionists come to dangerous theological conclusions, it is inappropriate for us to dismissively label them “liberal.” The common critique is that Revisionists are recycling theological debates of previous generations (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 90); if this is the case, then instead of arguing with Revisionists, we should struggle with them through their questions and look back to the answers suggested by leaders such as C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Brian McLaren, the big wig of the Revisionists, is highly controversial because of the questions that he asks, but he confesses to being a big fan of Lewis and Schaeffer, as well as J. I. Packer, N. T. Wright, Lesslie Newbigin, and David Bosch (Street 6). So Revisionists aren’t living way out there in left field; they are here with us, and the challenges they present should not be ignored.

     The three schools of the “emerging church” - the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists - each have important points we should consider. Their suggestions are usually controversial and radical, but sometimes they are right on target. I would suggest that you read their books, listen to their sermons, and approach their messages with the same biblical grid that you use for approaching culture. I myself have learned so much from the works of Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, John Piper, Neil Cole, and Brian McLaren and I would suggest any of their books to you! But I haven’t accepted everything that they have said; in fact, some of the things they propose have put me in intense conflict. Yet it is through struggle that one grows. Don’t be afraid of diving into the “emerging church;” they have many lessons to teach us, some of which we may not hear anywhere else.

THE FOUR RESPONSES

     Emerging leaders generally think according to one of these three lines of thought, but they live out their ideas usually according to four categories of response: the Upgrader Approach, the Emergent Approach, the House Church Approach, or the Missional Approach (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). This is why it is so difficult to make sweeping statements about the emerging church; we have Relevant Upgraders, Relevant Missionals, Reconstructionist Emergents, Revisionist Missionals, and Reconstructionists House Leaders (as well as any other combination you can create). The fact is there isn’t one “emerging church” model, there are thousands of “emerging church” models (Kimball, “Emerging Church” 14). Yet even among these thousands of models we can identify those four main responses. Let’s examine them one by one.

     I want to first examine the Emergent Response because of the frequent confusion associated with it. We should note that “Emergent” and “Emerging” are not the same thing (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). As Emergentvillage.com explains, the “emerging church” movement is a wider movement in which Emergent is only a part (”About Emergent Village” ). The Emergent Response originated directly from the Leadership Network conference; a leadership group emerged from the conference that believed America had become a foreign culture and needed its own missiological strategy (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 88). Key members of this group were Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, and Doug Pagitt (Dan Kimball was involved with other aspects of the Leadership Network at this time) (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). For about a year, the team discussed how postmodern America, the gospel, and the church should relate (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). The group disbanded several months later for members to focus more on their local congregations, to create their own organizations, or to withdraw from ministry because of disqualification by immorality (Ibid 89). However, on June 21, 2001 the theological group was re-launched by McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt under the name “Emergent” (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). The following day Mark Oestreicher met with the three and formed a partnership between Youth Specialties and Emergent (Ibid). Today, Emergent is supported by Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, InterVarsity Press, and Zondervan Publishing House, among others, and is directed by Tony Jones (”About Emergent Village” ).

     In conclusion, “emergent” does not equal “emerging.” What sets the Emergent Response apart? Well, most of the other responses are concerned with methodology while the Emergent Response is focused on theology (Kimball, “Origins Part 2″ ). The Emergent Response does not, however, minimize the need for changes in methodology; Brian McLaren says, “The emerging church is raising these deeper questions and proposing that the church exists to be a catalyst for the kingdom of God as a transforming force in the world. This doesn’t minimize worship, evangelism, or making disciples; it puts those elements within their grand purpose” (McLaren, “Underneath” 136). The deeper questions that McLaren refers to deal with Emergent perspectives on theology and its “working out” in real life. Mark Driscoll points out that many of these deeper questions undermine core evangelical doctrines - apparently shifting to liberal perspectives on substitutionary atonement, authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Christ, and so on (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). McLaren admits that the Emergent Response hasn’t gotten its act together, but he emphasizes the fact that Emergent churches are a mess because they still have a lot to learn (Street 6). He says, “I praise God, as Paul said, for whoever is preaching Christ” (Ibid 6). We may criticize McLaren for not reprimanding false doctrine, but we must also keep in mind that he is not endorsing it either.

     The next response is the House Church Response. This stream is generally theologically evangelical and is almost completely composed of Reconstructionists. The defining characteristic is the creation new church forms, usually house churches (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). Organic Church by Neil Cole is a great resource for understanding this emerging approach.

     Upgraders, the next category of response, usually hold to traditional evangelical theology and church structure, only they upgrade their music and ministry style (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). I don’t plan on saying much else concerning this response because I believe many of us are familiar with this type of church. I do want to point out that while Upgrader churches and seeker-sensitive churches appear similar on the outside, they are fundamentally different in their ministry approach. The best example I can give is by comparing Bethlehem Baptist Church (pastored by John Piper) and Saddleback Church (pastored by Rick Warren). BBC is an Upgrader while Saddleback is seeker-sensitive. How do I know? By examining BBC’s order of worship, we see that it follows a traditional evangelical organization yet it has been upgraded with modern choruses (Bethlehem Baptist Church). In contrast, Saddleback Church has eight different worship venues offering anything from traditional hymns to tropical island music (Saddleback Church). BBC has upgraded their music and ministry while Saddleback is appealing to seekers. So, as much as John Piper would disagree, Bethlehem Baptist Church is part of the “emerging church” while Saddleback Church is not.

     The last response is the Missional Response. Churches of this persuasion tend to hold to reform theology (or at least frequently discuss it) and are passionately focused on being missionaries to postmodern culture (Driscoll, “Emerging vs. Emergent” ). They are concerned with translating theology to culture (Driscoll, “Seeker vs. Missional Part 1″ ) and “going out” to the world instead of asking the world to “come in.” Mark Driscoll explains that missional believers are “seeking to be effective missionaries wherever they live” (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89).

AND A DANCE

     To summarize, the “emerging church” originated among the struggles of the seeker-sensitive churches in the early ’90s and the monumental Leadership Network conference of 1997. From 1997 and onward, pastors and leaders began to think about the “emerging church” according to one of three schools: the Relevants, the Reconstructionists, and the Revisionists. As pastors, leaders, and ordinary Christians worked out these new ideas into their lives, the Emergent, House Church, Upgrader, and Missional responses emerged. What we find today is a wide variety of churches and followers of Jesus striving to be missionaries wherever they live (Driscoll, “A Pastoral Perspective” 89). Simply naming this the “emerging church” falls short because this attitude has always existed in the church; we have always been emerging. Brian McLaren clarifies, “So in this sense, what people call the ‘emerging church’… is really ‘the church that is engaging with the emerging culture’” (Street 5).

     Because of the many controversial and heretical voices heard in small corners of the “emerging church”, many emerging leaders have attempted to distance themselves from the movement. In fact, many opponents have made such wide and general accusations against the movement that no true follower of Jesus would want to be part of it! As a result, leaders such as Erwin McManus and John Piper have denied being a part of the “emerging church” (although they are), writers like Donald Miller have called themselves Emergent (which he is not), and organizations like Emergent Village have claimed to be Missional (which is a long shot).

     The fact is, trying to pin down the “emerging church” is like trying to diagram a dance. You can explain dance as a series of steps, map it out on a chart, correlate it with beats of music, and simplify it to a mathematical formula, but in the end, have you really described what “dance” is? Dance is more than planned choreography; it is an art, an expression of passionate life. In the same respect, the “emerging church” is more complex than what many critics have claimed it to be; as the Holy Spirit leads and believers follow Him, there is going to be messiness and mistakes and missteps. Yet at the core, I believe the “emerging church” is a beautiful expression of a passionate relationship with Christ. We have danced to one beat for the past few decades. But the music has changed, and it’s time to follow His lead. Some of us will join Him in swing, some in samba, and others in hip-hop. What matters most is that He takes the lead.

     Where is He leading?

     See you next time . . .