One of my aspirations when I started this blog was the blog MORE about the books I read, kinda as part of a New Years resolution (to read more). As I didn’t read many books in ’08 (and so flopped in my resolution) that didn’t happen much. HOWEVER, I am getting in early this time and am ‘hoping’ to blog on books regularly, starting with one I am reading right now.
The book I am reading now is called ‘Why we’re not emergent (by 2 guys who should be.) It’s a book by two 30 something men, Kevin Deyoung and Ted Kluck who fit many of the categories many (note: not all) that young emergent leaders fit…but don’t subscribe entirely to the philosophy. Now I myself quite like the ‘conversation’ that goes on in and amongst the emerging missional church (or whatever you want to call it, if you can even ‘label’ it) however…I have to admit to some apprehension around the conversation at the same time, so this books title alone stood out to me.
I have only read 2 chapters so far and didn’t think much of the first, but I do want to document my thoughts on the 2nd…though this could be dangerous! So I set a disclaimer straight away…I do not wish to offend anyone but I also want to give an honest assessment of what ‘I’ think…and sometimes what i think isn’t the same as others shock horror! So here goes.
I am reading chapter 2 whilst on my holiday in Brisbane. The title of chapter 2 is ‘Rebel without a cause: what is worth submitting to?’Not far into the chapter, Kluck starts to talk about the 1950′s actor, James Dean, and the fact that in many ways he has come to symbolize ‘rebellion’. Kluck then suggests that rebellion plays a high role in the world today, that as people we almost thrive on it. Kluck says
It’s [rebellion] a way to distance yourself from the masses. A way to communicate the fact that Nobody Keeps You Down. Nobody tells you what to do because, friend, your unique and special. In spite of your khaki’s and polo shirt, gray cubicle, and Ford Taurus, you are a spicy, flavourful, expressive human being with lithe hips and lots of feelings.
This resonates with me, but it is also ironic in part because, though I definitely see rebellion as a trademark of our time…so often people fight to be ‘just like’ others as well. It is almost like we want to be like every one else…uniquely. We don’t like to be ‘told’ what to do by ANYONE, often regardless of their motives (whether good or bad), we want to be our own people…but we want to copy others to do it. Sometimes we even seem to rebel for the sake of it, we make changes that actually don’t change a thing…but they might seem to.
This even creeps into church. Instead of ‘Senior Pastor’ we have ‘Team Leader’ Instead of ‘Youth Pastor we have ‘Youth Worker’. Sometimes these changes change things, sometimes they are made for missional reasons or to define a ‘role’ better…but sometimes they are more catch phrases that everyone ‘in’ is doing, and we can’t be caught in solidarity with what is old because the old is so obviously out.
Not long after discussing James Dean, Kluck tells us a little of his story. He paints a picture of a time when he attended a ‘glitzy’ church. He paints the picture so well even I feel like re-exploring what I had for tea…and I’m not even necessarily against glitz! Kluck sums up his feelings after this event brilliantly, so rather than trying to paraphrase I will quote a few bits here.
I was done with conventional church, and done with what I perceived as a bunch of middle-class Christian whites who didn’t care about social justice and just wanted health, wealth and prosperity.
Kluck then describes how someone wise reminded him that no church is perfect and that you will always find yourself with people who do not look, act or think like you, and at some point you just need to commit to a body.
This here kind of encapsulates why I wanted to blog on this chapter. You see, I am not at ALL against people being ‘over’ conventional church. I love a lot of the different expressions of church that are popping up all over the place. I love the fact people are experimenting. If you are part of the ‘emerging church’ and are committed to a body(whether that be conventional or emergent) then this is probably not directed at you. What worries me about the emergent conversation is that so many 20 somethings use it to justify their non-committal to a body. They attest to being ‘over’ conventional church…and so somehow this entitles and justifies them to float aimlessly without committment. They follow ‘faith’ alone(or in pairs). Where in the bible does it justify floating without commitment to SOME local body?
I also question this because it tends to mean, and I speak again mostly of young adults, but it tends to mean we have a lot of people who want to be chiefs but are NOT willing to be Indians. The emerging conversation appears to entitle either everyone, or no one to be ‘leader’. Maybe this works? Maybe I am speaking wrongly…but the mere fact that so many people I know in their 20′s are ‘anti’ any leadership that doesn’t put them as equal leaders, and then ALSO use this to justify floating, makes me question this. It ‘appears’ to me that throughout the bible there were LEADERS. Do i believe in the ‘priesthood of the saints’? Yes, of course! But being a ‘Priest’ did not always (and I propose did not often) mean leader, that is the role the Judges, Kings and the like played. Even in the NT the disciples were ‘leaders’. Leadership by individuals or SMALL groups was important. Does not Paul suggest not everyone should aspire to leadership? Perhaps the answer to this is to not HAVE leadership, sure…I just don’t know if this is the best solution.
Another great quote from the chapter, which I think in many ways sums up a ‘healthy’ dislike for glitz, is as follows. When discussing what Kluck was looking for in a church after a few more experiences, he says ;
I wasn’t looking for the guys with the biggest projection screens, the coolest ‘gathering place’, or the best film discussions. I was looking for a theology and a body that I could give my life to and entrust with my children.
The sad thing I see is so many people leave the church ‘disillusioned’ and float. They don’t look to commit. They try bits and pieces of various different flavours of alternative church, but never commit. And the problem here is that because of the NATURE of the emerging church, with it not being a denomination (which overall is a HUGE POSITIVE) it means it is hard for anyone to call them to account. ‘I don’t fit conventional church’ is the catch cry. Beautiful. So, who IS worth submitting to? Find a body and a theology on ANOTHER TYPE but commit, get in it for the long haul. Find people who AREN’T all the same as you…that is much harder to commit to but I would say much more beneficial.
I am at a conventional church that is very different to what I am used to. It has people who hold very, very, very different views to mine. It grates me the wrong way on many occasions. It challenges my theology (in healthy ways). Being deeply committed to it, I find it impossible to sit by, it forces me to grapple with why I think what i think. It forces me to dream about reaching people more. It forces me to look at being more missional. It has old guys, old gals, young guys, young gals etc. Its beautiful. Whether or not ‘conventional’ church fits you…I believe the bible is clear in saying we need to be committed to ‘some’ body, and we need to submit to the leadership (what that means and looks like is another entry in itself.) I’d love to hear if you disagree with me in the comments section.
I find myself really wondering if we have thrown the baby out with the bath water in ‘rejecting’ conventional church, conventional leadership, conventional submission. I think both sides of the camp would agree what we DON’T need is thousands of individual crusading Christians ‘going it alone’. I honestly believe we need less chiefs and more Indians. And I am definitely willing to be an Indian. Are you?
I look forward to grappling more with this book as it progresses!
