I have been looking at the emerging church and its postmodern agenda for the last few days and I am concerned on an issue of motivation.
Is the impetus behind the emerging church movement concerned with bringing postmodern thinking and principles into mainstream church ‘faith’ and practice OR is it an honest desire to become more authentic and faithful to the original gospel and church model because ‘modern’ churches (churches formed out of modernist thinking) are full of modern faults that keep people from worshipping God authentically and expressing their faith in a fulfilling way?
Is this a movement simply looking how the church can better answer the questions of the postmodern culture OR is it looking to bring postmodern thought and culture into the church, its faith and practice??
Is the emerging church looking to affect postmodern culture and thinking with the light and truth of the gospel OR is it wishing to see the church affected by, and more compatible with, postmodern thought and culture?
Who’s affecting who here? Who’s seeking to influence who??
Many thanks
TJ
A false dichotomy?
TJ, I hope we’ll hear some other views on this but I’d like to make an initial quick response. To my mind, this is a false dichotomy. Obviously there are going to be mixed motives for pursuing the emerging church agenda: fascination with postmodernism, disillusionment with modernist evangelicalism, the search for more authentic expressions of faith, mission to postmodern culture, and so on. I do not think, though, that such a sharp distinction can be made between affecting ‘postmodern culture and thinking with the light and truth of the gospel’ and ‘wishing to see the church affected by, and more compatible with, postmodern thought and culture’.
We do not have the option of correcting the faults of modernism by reverting to a pre-modern mind-set. It seems to me, therefore, that we can go forward only by allowing ourselves to think honestly as ‘postmoderns’ and on that basis (but not uncritically) to re-examine the story that lies at the heart of faith. Obviously there are dangers in taking this course, and this is a very simplistic appraisal of the situation; but I would argue that current shifts in the intellectual climate in the West are opening up possibilities for developing a more coherent and compelling understanding of what it means to be the people of God in the world. In other words, I think it is in principle a good thing that postmodernism is having an impact on our theology but I do not regard this simply as a matter of accommodating faith to the prevailing secular worldview. We should probably see this more as an interaction, a conversation between the two.
Perhaps it's God
Perhaps this movement is a move of God with motivation of a spiritual nature. Perhaps the very structure of the traditional church is wrong, an economic business structure created by man that works against the possibility of a pure and true body of believers acting as Christ in the world. It’s as if people are being forced out of the institutional church by forces beyond their control. So maybe God really is in control. The new, reformed church doesn’t have to look like the old one. It doesn’t have to look like a denomination at all. It could be defined by its heart and purpose and little else, since little else is needed if the spirit of God is at work.
Perhaps God is demanding that the Bride be pure and beautiful. For the new thing to be pure, it has to be motivated by the spirit of God, and untainted by man. In order for it to be true, it has to declare the truth of the gospels publicly, it has to know and be the truth, which is so very non postmodern but great for healthy discussion. But in order for the emergent church to be open and honest, and beautiful, it has to be loving and has to lovingly embrace all who come to it. That’s a big kind of love. That’s Jesus-size love. The new thing has to be Christ-like. Otherwise it would have no purpose, value or power. It would only be another of man’s ideas. The validity of the movement has everything to do with the character of those God has appointed to speak for it, mold it and herald it.
Les Butchart
A false dichotomy??
I don’t think we can so easily dismiss TJ’s comments saying he raises a false dichotomy simply because we call it false. Why can’t we face postmodernism’s faults with pre-modern thinking? Though we may view a dialogue with post-moderns as not simply an attempt to accomodate faith to the modern world spirit, saying, I suppose, that it is intended to be so much more (ie. a conversation). It seems an unholy hybridization is what is being risked.” What concord has Christ with Belial?” And, it seems, little critical thought is given to the fruit of the dialogue. Adapting the gospel to post modernism by cloaking it in an idiom inherently hostile to it is offering no gospel at all.
Many passages in God’s Word speak clearly that the “world” is ruled by a prince other than Jesus whose agenda is inimical to Jesus and His church. “If they hate you, know they hated me first.” “Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” Love not the world, neither the things in the world.”
I realize that I am painting with a broad textual/contextual brush here, but, this whole term “world” deals with a broad concept which embraces, at least, a particular “mid-set” or “world view”, particularly when it’s applied to the whole of western-modern-man.
Where is the reaching out by this world view in an attempt to have an honest dialogue with Christians? Where is this modern world view leading its adherents on Sunday morning when we are on holy ground, in the Presence of the LORD of Lords, worshiping Him with ancient rites and the words of Jesus and the apostles. “Take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you.”? Where is the secular world view’s outcry for fairness in the cinema for the treatment of Christians noting that the “christian” warden in The Shawshank Redemption is not representative of all Christians, or true disciples of Jesus? It must be said, and faced, that this world view is hostile to orthodox Christianity. Does the church now invent a “modern” christianity which placates this world view and, in the name of dialogue, bows the knee to it? I pray not.
This collision between the secular world view and the church is good, I agree, insomuch as it forces the church to examine itself. This examination should not be for the benefit of the secular spirit (though benefit to society will no doubt result). It should be an honest assesment of the readiness of Christ’s Bride for the return of the Bridegroom. In the Bride’s readiness will the the modern secularist find the attractiveness and the “sweet savor” of salvation which will draw all to the crucified and resurrected Jesus. In short, we individual christians(who collectively comprise the church) need to be serious about examining ourselves and ruthless in our assesment of our sins of commission and ommission and how we have treated the blood of Jesus shed for us.
I suspect much of this concern with modern thought is a result of our own inabilities to distinguish between “authentic” and,(what?)”fake” faith, “plastic” faith. We look at the list of the faithful in Hebrews 11, at the faith of the apostles, the faith of the martyrs, the faith of persecuted Christians in China and other places and the faith of Jesus and we call those expressions of faith, (dare I use the term?), “old fashioned” and seek more “authentic” expressions of faith to woo and court a hostile world view when in truth these expressions of faith are not “old fashioned”, they are simply very, very old, and are venerable examples of what authentic faith looks and acts like.
I present this quick thought for discussion and consideration.
Alario
A worldly faithful
I think Alario has done us a good deed by pointing back to the faithful of Hebrews 11, but I’m not sure the passage supports his point. Amongst the faithful is Noah, a drunkard; Jacob, a liar; Moses, a murderer; Rahab, a prostitute; David, an adulterer. None of these folk were masters of dealing with the world. They just showed moments of quality that make them worthy of this place amongst ‘the faithful’.
I think we could easily misunderstand the biblical notions of ‘the world’ and force it to become an antithesis to the church, rather than to the Kingdom of God. In the first instance the world is anything that is not ‘us’. In the second it is an evil force vying for power with a radically good force. There is then much potential for neutral ground, or grey-area thought, if you like. Surely Post-modern is more complex than simple categories of good or evil, tainted or pure can accommodate. It is grey-area ground. Post-modern is the very breath we breathe, the language we speak. As is Modern for that matter (as we stand at this cross-section in history).
Jesus, as I understand his ministry, lived in a world of neither modern, post-modern or pre-modern Western values. But he did live in a first century Roman occupied Jewish culture. And he took the values of his culture and re-framed them. But he did it within the limits of what the people around him could understand. Surely this is our task whether inhabiting modern, pre-modern, or now, as we are increasingly, post-modern values. The ‘world’, as a symbol of evil will be with us in whatever culture. I believe our task, like ‘the faithful’ is to demonstrate moments of quality that bring hope and transformation to those around us. But like Jesus they must be within the limits of what people can understand, indeed we can understand. So the emerging project of engaging with Post-modern thought is simply a method of aiding us to be powerfully and sensibly ‘positively worldly’, to use Dave Tomlinson’s phrase.
Low friends in high places.
Matt picks up very nicely a theme that is, given the emphasis the biblical texts seem to place on it, very big with God.
I read that the “emerging” church needs to be willing to embrace all aspects of its history and learn. The best places to start an honest evaluation are in the biblical texts. In Hebrews 11 we have a new covenant look back on Hebrew history written by a Hebrew (it seems, or at least a very knowledgable and astute observer of old covenant faith and practices) to Hebrew Christians. In the epistle to the Hebrews the author looks back to ancient history and ancient texts. These ancient texts and the author using them to state his case are seemingly honest with Hebrew history. Why else hold up drunkards, prostitutes and such like as heroes of faith, if it’s not to honestly present the Kingdom of God’s history? It is the fact that these “heroes” are flawed and not “masters of the world” that ought to show light and hope to individuals of any real or imagined world view.
In this same vein, what comfort could gentiles take from the geneologies of Jesus which, without self-consciousness or irony (well, maybe a little irony)present a gentile in the royal lineage? For that matter what comfort can all of us take looking at the list of characters, cons, swindlers and sinners which pop up in the lineages?
This comforting, but understated, reaching out to those outside the houshold of faith (old covenant Israel) is evident in Jesus’s ministry. My favorite among these is John’s Syrian woman meeting Jesus at Joseph’s Well, but it is not the most telling. Luke-a pretty good historian-relates Jesus calling attention to Himself in His home town temple when He claims prophetic scripture has been fulfilled in the hearing of the faithful after reading a portion of Isaiah. Many seem to expect (and I have heard commentators say) that this enraged the congregation. The text suggests otherwise. “All bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth.” Certainly not rage evidenced there. Only when Jesus points to God’s historical acts in reaching out to gentiles in history does the congregation become moved to murder. Without commenting on their reaction-it is clear that God has a tender heart for all manner of “worldly” folk. And this is a major element in my argument for a careful examination of, among other texts, Hebrews 11.
We need to be careful in our discussions that we don’t forget that the early Church found itself very much in the middle of a world-view that at very least thought its message lacking in content and sophistication. “For the preacing of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
Gray areas.
I did not intentionally overlook Matt’s comments regarding neutral or gray areas. I needed time to think through his distinction between an animosity between the Church and the “World” and a struggle, if I may put this term to use, to describe Matt’s idea of the relationship between the kingdom of God and the “World”.
His distinction is attractive on most levels and is an apt one. It “fits” very comfortably (like my favorite brown McGregor sweater that my wife keeps trying to toss out) and it is clearly supported by the biblical texts testifying to God’s redemptive love. His distinction likewise allows what he refers to as gray areas or neutral areas of discourse and fellowship. St. Paul seemingly tells the Corinthian believers though he warned them to not associate with sinners, it is fellow Christians, persisting in sins he is writing about. Otherwise one would have to somehow not participate in life lived in the world. On its face St. Paul’s idea argues against a self-imposed isolation which does the believer little good in the sanctifying process and the “World” no good at all as it is deprived of an ambassador of Jesus’s kingdom.
I am less comfortable with a conservation with a secularist (I think we must constantly keep uppermost in our minds that we are ambassadors to real living and breathing persons and not to a world-view which informs them)which has a vocabulary and a rhetoric so broad or amorphous that it can’t handle either/or concepts, sacred/profane, good/evil, etc. If it were a boxing match in which neither athlete could lay a glove on the other, the whole thing would be pointless. If one is talking with a child molester in a prison ministry or a corporate buccaneer over a glass who has pillaged his shareholders and the issue comes up, how does one make the case for repentance, faith and the fact that Jesus picked up the check with respect to their sins? How could one suggest to the child molester that sexual desires were a gift of God and therefore pure but when satisfied in the manner he had chosen exemplified a tortured, evil, profane parody of God’s gift? It may be that post-modernism as a world spirit or as the spirit of the age does not wish to come to grips with the hard concepts. It is little wonder this might be the case because the Church frequently has little appetite for dealing with these concepts as a body of belivers or as individual believers.
So my question is how do we bring terms like good and evil, sacred and profane and such similar concepts to the post modern, modern secularist with any content, meaning and impact?
Rethinking 'World' for a Postmodern world
Thank you Alario for both your comments. I think you are highlighting some critical issues.
If I can clarify my perspective on the biblical use of ‘world’. I think what I was trying to articulate was the confusion created by the fact that our biblical-theological language uses ‘world’ to mean one thing and our everyday language uses it to mean something different. So in everyday speech, ‘world’ means our planet, with a sense of all that has life on it. Thus ‘I am part of this world’ is a great and true statement for anybody to make. However, in biblical-theological language, I would contend that ‘world’ is more symbolic, representing an evil force in opposition to the Kingdom of God. Thus ‘I am part of this world’ is a terrible and dangerous thing to claim.
What has happened in the church, as I see it, is that these two, very different, definitions of ‘world’, have become merged. So to talk of the ‘world’ is to speak of everything outside of the church and to construe it as negative. (Of course the fact that the church is part of the ‘world’, in the everyday speech sense, causes problems because having merged the terms there is actually no neutral space - unless the church identifies itself as an unworldly, and thus inevitably irrelevant, community.)
If we could untangle the two terms and find another word for the biblical-theological sense of ‘world’ then I think we would undo the confusion. We could all happily appreciate our place in the world, say we love being part of the world and genuinely engage in it with the power of the Kingdom of God. In doing so we are wary of and fight against the evil that causes so much devastation to our beloved world.
That is the theological background to my next suggestion.
I think that we have to differentiate between Postmodernism and Postmodernity, the former being a philosophy and the latter a sociological phenomenon.
In my experience, ‘isms’ are boxes to help us sort one perspective on reality from another. But, as Alario has put it ‘we are ambassadors to real living and breathing persons and not to a world-view which informs them.’ Thus, while the persons we engage with may be influenced by Postmodernism, they are almost certainly influenced by Postmodernity, because that is the term given to our emerging culture. Clearly, Postmodernity has been shaped by the thinking of Postmodernism, but maybe not as much as we think. The philosophy that we call Postmodernism (and I realise that this is an eclectic term) is, in my understanding, a taking to the nth degree of ideas formed in reaction to Modern thought. For example Relativism is an extreme reversal of the Modern take on the Cartesian Objective-Subjective divide. Modernism exalted the Objective and rubbished the Subjective. Postmodernism has rubbished the Objective and exalted the Subjective. There has been very little material on the possible inappropriateness of the Cartesian split in the first place. But in the culture of Postmodernity I would contest that we see very little of the Cartesian divide. For sure, your average Joe Bloggs doesn’t submit to an Absolute Truth, because he doesn’t know one and is sceptical of anyone who claims they do. But he’s equally prepared to engage in a conversation about ethics. This is borne out in the many ethical columns in Magazines and the constant ethical debate on News programs and, more artistically, in books, films and on TV. From where I’m sitting the average Postmodern cares about ethics as much as the average Modern. The progression of the Postmodern is that they see ethics as much more complicated than the Modern. And thus, grey areas abound.
I believe that if we are to engage positively with Postmodern culture we must appreciate and listen to the various perspectives on ethics and be prepared to admit to more grey areas. I don’t think this is a denial of our faith, it is an intelligising of it. But good and evil, sacred and profane still count. But on a macro scale. They are movements that we choose to be a part of. In my opinion, Good and Evil would be excellent replacements for ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘World’ (in the biblical-theological sense) which are both now a little confusing. I can think of lots of people who would like to be part of a movement for Good in opposition to the movement of Evil. But they are then symbols that inspire life-choices rather than labels (as Brian McLaren has said, labelling something excuses you from understanding it). We can seek a greater understanding of ethics and of truth as part of a movement for Good (the Kingdom of God). And because good comes from God it is a Sacred movement against the Profane.
Liberty in the gray areas.
If I am reading Matt’s comments (Rethinking “World”…) rightly, he brings to light a crucial element, if not the keystone in dealing with post moderns. In fact it is the key to any civil discourse and it is rooted in the understanding that individuals (“fallen” or “redeemed” for that matter) are created by God and created in His image and, as such, have intrinsic value and dignity.
Matt suggests by his comments (my extrapolation and paraphrasing-Sorry, Matt.) that constructive and positive engagement with post moderns demands Christians be willing to wander into the gray areas to meet individuals and listen to them with respect and consideration.
In the currently confused blending of the theological uses of the term “world” its less symbolically weighted counterpart there is, based on fear, an unwillingness on the part of many Christians to roll up their sleeves, get their brogans muddy, work up a sweat and engage-not the enemy-but real, living and breathing persons.
This fear which seems to hold many of us back from going into the “gray areas” is not altogether unfounded. It is a fear that I struggle with. Though others may not share it, I hope they can at least extend to these fears some sympathy. We are clearly told in Scriptures: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”.
A little further along in his letter to the Corinthians the apostle calls for them to come out from among “them”-unbelievers-and be separate and so forth. There are other similar calls for this separation of the people of God from the “world”. It is almost inevitable (absent some scriptural balance) that out of an overabundance of caution, many in the Church, if not the Church itself, would tend to avoid not just sin but unbelievers themselves.
This Church mindset needs to be balanced by clear Scriptual guidance calling to mind that: “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. Likewise, the Church must understand that Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard and, more telling, a person who visited sinners on their ground and let them touch Him. There is much clear teaching on the necessity of reaching out to those around us who are not of the household of faith. The apostles found people to reach out to in the streets, in the temples of the pagans and even in jail. The gentle hints of this outreach are sprinkled throughout our Scriptures if we will have eyes to see them. Writing from jail to Christians in Phillippi St. Paul says, “All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Cesar’s household.”
Matt points to some of this scriptural imperative, I think, in calling for an “intelligencing” of our faith. Rightly he points out the real dangers of the Church becoming irrelevant (if it is not so already)in the middle of a disintergrating(or at least fragmenting) culture. A little leaven might leaven the whole lump of dough-but not unless it is taken out of its air tight, hermetically sealed container. The fields are white unto harvest-thus, it is imperative not only for the “Church” to allow its light to shine and not hide that light under a basket, but it is equally important for members of Christ’s body to get engaged with post moderns one on one. The Church may have many technological marvels to bring to bear but in the end the battle will be won in the trenches by the infantry (if I might us a warfare metaphor). In Matt’s take on the gray areas I sense a wide open field where one can engage the secularist without exceeding the boundries of faith and conscience. “For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as servants of God.”.
I believe, and it is a point I have made previously, (if I may do so in the first person)that before I can effectively engage post moderns I need to spend some serious time with self examination in the Presence of God and take stock of myself to be sure the problem with engagement is not a creedal denomination but me.
[On a much lighter note, and with respect to the ethical issues discussed on TV, in film and in novels and linking to the aside that little has been said relative to the possible inappropriateness of the Cartesian split-the late novelist, Walker Percy did touch on it humorously and ironically in some of his novels and linguistic works. If I recall he said it was why we found our selves sundered from ourselves and experimented with so many ways(drugs-sex-suicide, etc.) to reintegrate our selves with ourselves. God bless all!]
Come out and be seperate...
I enjoyed reading both Matt and Alario grappling with the concepts of world, church, kingdom and seperaation. I agree it’s a kernel issue in the postmodern society. Here are a few related thoughts in response.
Linguistically The terms “society,” “culture,” are useful alternatives to “world” when wanting to avoid the religious connertations of the term.
Theologcially The term Kingdom of God is probably better used dynamically opposite to “dominion of darkness,” (Col. 1.13) (rather than ‘world’) since both providing a reference to the prevailing or reigning ruler over an individual or group or realm. While it is theologically correct that people “in the world” have a relationship to a “ruler of darkness” from which those who have been transferred into the kingdom of God have been delivered from, it is something we can only know by faith and, as a defining revelation, not the obvious basis for building relationships with the neighbours we are called to love, nor for being the “light of the world”!
In fact, a quick check on the use of the word “world” within the gospels will reveal that almost always it is a reference to the earth, (particularly to) the people of the earth, the material realm or natural world, the present age. There is a spirit of this world and a Spirit from God (1 Co.2). When contrasted for example, “You are in the world but not of it,” it is a reference to the spiritual rebirth of those who enter the kingdom of heaven (Jn 3), who are born “from above” (Jn 8.23). It’s use as a religious term “don’t be worldly” has it’s roots in the kind of idea expressed in Ro. 12.1-3, “don’t be conformed to the standards of this world (or present age)” and Ja. 1.27 “keep yourselves from being contaminated from the world.” There is an important principle here and in the idea of being seperated, that needs redeeming from purely religious use and is vital to our understanding of the right boundary lines as we engage with a postmodern world.
Empirically I’m engaged with a group of Christian business people and church workers / leaders in the Midlands who are endeavouring to engage with business leaders via the common ground of the Deming ‘management philosophy’. (if you don’t know who Deming was / what Deming is checkout the Internet and be educated - but absorbing and acting upon it will take a lifetime). Once of their starting point was a ‘word’ from God instructing them, “Don’t build church, that’s my job, you seek the kingdom of God” For them, seeking the kingdom of God, means “recognising where God, the King, is working among men” and they are increasing aware, he’s not limited to working where religious folk insist, i.e. in church only. It’s a radical, emerging program that doesn’t so much cross traditional boundaries between “church and world, sacred and secular” as simply refuse to admit they are there! I’ll endeavour to do it justice some time, if there’s an interest, but there’s an introduction.
Incidentally It should be obvious to all, that kingdom of God is never synonymous with church or religious activity. One of the theological lines of enquiry we have been gently investigating is, in “seeking the kingdom of God” might we encounter people who are responding to the little “light” they have (though as yet, not knowing the Messiah of God by his name) in a more faithful manner than those who “have much” light [see Ro 2 and “Eternity in their Hearts” by Don Richardson]. Such a judgement is God’s alone (though note 1 Co 6.2) however, that is the nature of what the Spirit of God seems to be leading us to understand.
shalom! John
Re: The motivation of the emerging church...
Hi TJ, to go back to your original comments, although I understand the intent of your question, I have to agree with Andrew. It is really both/and. We need to communicate with postmoderns, but we also need to understand that we are swimming in a postmodern ocean, so to speak. We will need to rethink the gospel and the kingdom (and the church) in the light of a different cultural milieu around us as we move forward in time. I agree with Matt (and am intrigued by John’s later comments on the same subject) that the key issue is not so much the church as the kingdom of God. I like the reference to the “movement for Good” opposing evil. I have been looking for a more effective way to communicate the concepts of the kingdom of God in terminology that young postmoderns can quickly understand. There is an explanation of the five streams of the emerging church written by Scott McKnight in Christianity Today that might be helpful for you. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html.
I was a church planter, pastor and missionary for 20 years. I kept hearing people urge Christians to get outside the four walls…. Get out of box. So, about 4 years ago I began a journey out of the church (at least as a professional ministry) and into the secular world, pausing along the way to get my kids and wife healed from the scars of church-based ministry. Now I am a PhD student in the history department of a University in South Florida, spending my free time hanging out with young, secular post-modern grad students (mostly 30 years younger than me). I am WAY out of the box now… and well into those gray areas that Matt and Alario were talking about. It has been quite an education. I am reminded of 1Cor. 9…. Becoming a ‘post-modern’ to the reach the post-moderns.
Alario, I have occasionally felt fear in this process. Part of it is the disorientation (or anomie – Durkheim) that comes when one’s worldview is upended and totally changed. Part of it is the fear that I will somehow ‘lose my way’ and not be able to find my way back from the gray, post-modern secular forest where I spend most of my time into my comforting little evangelical box. (we have dogs who love to get out of our yard, but as soon as they hear firecrackers, they are back looking for their box). I even began to email some Christian friends asking for prayer cover as I explore the secular, postmodern jungle. I find it is essential to cling to Jesus as my ‘guide.’
John, your comments were very helpful to me. When you say “midlands” are you referring to England? I have some friends over there who are thinking along very similar lines to what you described about the KoG. I am familiar with Deming and his role in Japon in developing the “continuous quality improvement” management style. I am curious how that relates to your business friends and their philosophy on the kingdom of God? (the movement for Good). I meet with a friend here in Miami, another former church planter and now psychologist for prayer and mutual encouragement. We have felt that the major paradigm change coming might be called the “emerging kingdom” with a transition from a primary focus on the church to a primary focus on God’s loving rule in the earth…which is more comprehensive and includes academia, the arts and business in ways that the church does not.
Thanks to all… I am going to hang on to the phrase “movement for good” although I think that the kingdom of God might have some dimensions not captured by an ideal of good. more to come.
Joseph Holbrook
Re: The motivation of the emerging church...
Hello Joseph
I am so encouraged to know that my (2004) comments on that thread were helpful. Andrew pointed me towards your comments on the “motivation of the emerging church” thread; I don’t find much time at the moment to participate in OST.
Yes, I do mean “Midlands” in terms of the (former) industrial heartlands of England. I grew up and went to University there, although I recently moved to South Wales. I stay in touch with the small prayer group (which meets under the auspices of the FGB), by returning to Nottingham to stay with friends, as well as keeping up with business involvements I have there.
The whole issue to do with Deming is interesting. When first introduced to it, I saw little relationship to the kingdom of God, being very much at the “evangelicalism” end of the ecumenical spectrum. Since then I have gained more understanding (and moved decidedly along the said spectrum) and also assisted the group I referred to in thinking through some of the theology of the kingdom and how that might relate to the spirit-like-liberatiion and vitality that they hold is released through many of the principles of Profound Knowledge which Deming espoused.
They have and do publish some working documents occassionally, which I suspect they would be willing to share with you - or the friends ‘over here’ that you mentiond - if you thought it worthwhile.
There is little doubt in the minds of many, including myself, that “the times they are a-changing.” My wife and I have embarked on - or been thrust into, more honestly - a new understanding of church, or rather Christian community, through our moving home to a small town, where we have honestly not been able to find a fellowship that we have felt able to commit to.
We’ve both come from mission backgrounds and find that much of what passes for church activity and invitation-to-involvment, simply leaves us cold, whilst my own effortst at encouraging folks to ‘lift up their heads’ and think through some alternatives have met with knee-jerk reaction or intransigence. Meanwhile, I am continuing to study and to publish my own understanding of mission through my “mobile academy” which is aimed at majority world mission-leaders.
Happy to chat more, or be in touch by email, if you wish. You can contact me via my website or the private mail of OST.
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)
Deming and the System of Profound Knowledge
A couple of people have asked me about Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge. There’s a wealth of information on the net, but anyone interested won’t go far wrong in beginning with the Wikipedia entry.
I first encountered Deming through some associates who meet in Derby. I’ve not studied the SPK in depth, but have come to respect it. A number of Christians have commented over the years that the principles of profound knowledge, applied in workplace settings, indeed within any institution are akin to Christianity-in-the-workplace… yet without naming Christ. I always felt that was a misnomer - take Christ out and it’s anything but Christianity.
However, they were trying to point towards something important. That there are principles which God has placed within human nature which are accordant with Christ and can be recognised, promoted and responded to without the overtly religious aspects of faith (i.e. congregational worship etc). The idea that my associates in Derby have been pursuing revolve around the idea that the kingdom of God — i.e. where God is at work — is (much) greater than simply “within the church”.
“Building church is my job; you seek the kingdom” is the essence of what they have felt God asking them to recognise. Seeking the kingdom in their context has meant understanding how God is seeking to work with / through business heads within the city and that their role is to come alongside these business heads and help them to know God is wanting to work with them in building business that promote human flourishing and dignity in the workplace — rather than wanting to get business heads into the church buildings, which is the normal agenda that is pursued by Christian leaders who latch onto the high impact that business leaders have within a city.
If anyone would be interested in participating in a forum that specifically investigates Demings SPK, please get in touch with me and I will let you know if and when it takes place in connection with my associates in the Midlands.
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)
Re: The motivation of the emerging church...
Hi John,
Thanks for your post on Deming. I went to some of the links you suggested to read about the System of Profound Knowledge. I found the following quote to be very appropriate to my current life situation:
“The prevailing style of management must undergo transformation. A system cannot understand itself. The transformation requires a view from outside.”
This describes exactly the process that I and a few of my friends have been in for several years….we have gone from being pastors/churchplanters/missionaries, inside the church system … to various secular endeavors outside the church system… while continuing to “seek first” the kingdom and to follow Jesus. It is amazing how different the system looks from the outside! especially when one is no longer depending on a church salary to feed your family.
Some of our other friends, who are still inside the system and depending on the paycheck are sympathetic to the EC and to us…. but just don’t quite see it the same as we do.
Here is the second quote that impacted my thinking and is congruous with my current life process:
“The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.”
I feel like God has literally taken me apart and put me back together again (almost!) over the last 4 years. I am no longer the same person. Transformation of the church cannot begin at the CHURCH level….it must begin at the individual level …. especially with leaders. And for many of us, this means being removed and taken outside the system. As 1Cor. 13 says…. “without love…..”
Deming says that the transformation of the individual will result in the ability to:
We can change our eschatology, our soteriology, our doctrine of hell, and our views on sexual preference and the current political situation… but if we have not love…. if we have not had individual transformation….it is but a noisy gong….and clanging symble, and another re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Thanks again John!
By the way, all of my quotes came from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
joseph
Joseph Holbrook
Re: The motivation of the emerging church...
Hi, Joseph
Yes, Deming does have some striking things to say; they get our attention when we are interested in transformation.
I do understand that when acting upon industry, the SPK requires a great deal of continual improvement to bear real fruit. But there is great evidence that it really works. However, some of the folks I networking with in the midlands have come to the conclusion that there are few organisations that are as resistant to change as religious ones.
Add to that the common misconception that ideas such as Deming are ‘secular’ and therefore, by definition in such a worldview, could not possibly be of interest to churches and inertia is multiplied. Having said that, I have heard a rumour - I stress a rumour - that Demings ideas are in use with the Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Church set up. I don’t know where nor how; I’m not sure Deming fans will necessary be pleased to hear that! but it’s interesting.
Deming is, I think, unlikely ever to be a panacea for the Church, not necessarily because of inherent faults, but some things simply aren’t likely to mix. The church globally is inevitably going to be based on ameteurs and likely to always outgrow even the best models of leadership. It has ever been thus.
Nevertheless in terms of highlighting some of the profound transformation that can be expected simply by someone entering into a new way of thinking, I’m sure it has something to say - as you have discovered, just in your initial viewing.
Re. being outside the system, yes, it does look very different doesn’t it. I’ve really spent most of my adult life here and although I sometimes hanker for an ‘inside job’ I suspect I will always be on the outside looking in to a large degree. It seems to bring out the best in me, on behalf of others. (Have you read the post on ‘the narrow road’ which I wrote? it speaks a little into this area of things)
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)
Re: The motivation of the emerging church...
hi john,
now that I think about it, a friend of mine, a businessman, was hired by a PDI (People of Destiny) megachurch in Cleveland about 12 or 13 years ago to assist them in their organization. I visited him one day when he was teaching them the principles of “Continuous Quality Improvement” … it didn’t take and he finally left the church in frustration and went back to business.
lets keep talking… Joseph Holbrook