|
Can the “Emerging Church” to heal wounds I am part of the Church of Scotland that is currently tearing itself apart over many issues not least “Same sex relations and the ministry”. These battle lines have been drawn all over Western Christianity. The question that we are all asking is whether can ever be healing for a fractured church with a new vision of Christianity for the 21st century? Some say most certainly not and others want to give it a go. As a member of the EuroChurch committee I find myself on the “progressive” wing of the church and often seeing things from a different perspective. I have survived in this role for at least 10 years. Can we stay faithful - and hopeful - during a time when the church is undergoing one of the most wrenching times in the church's history? Not only are churches closing and attendance plunging across Scotland and Europe, but the Church is on the precipice of splitting globally over same sex relations. The controversy's searing heat is a symptom of about what it means to be Christian in the 21st century. We in the Church of Scotland are right in the middle of strategic planning, bringing the church into a new age, and much of our agenda is financially driven. But something needs to give and there needs to be change. That’s the harsh reality. The question is, “can a mainstream institution become a revolution?” The dozens of books describing the emergent church agree on just one thing: it is hard to define. The 2006 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches named the emerging church as one of the most important trends of recent times and defined it like this: it centres on the person and mission of Jesus and leans towards narrative theology, finding the truth in the story, more than church doctrine. People don't just sit and listen to the minister or the choir, but might talk, make music, draw or even dance in response to praise. They see themselves as prophetic, meaning they want to challenge the status quo. Brian McLaren describes his own epiphany this way: "I was very involved in the early '70s in the Jesus Movement. It was quite quickly co-opted and domesticated by a lot of existing religious structures. … Then, in 1998, there was this gathering in New Mexico that in some ways was one of the beginnings of this whole emergent (church) conversation. I remember walking around that and thinking this has that same pure, sincere, hopeful feel of things I remember from the early '70s. For him, Christian faith should be a movement, not an institution. "This, to me, is what we are so in need of now, because wherever it becomes a societal institution, it loses its freedom to be an agent of social transformation." To Mr. McLaren, faith is not a function of how adamantly you hold a particular point of view, liberal or conservative. Chastising the other guy will never bring you closer to God. The movement is really just about listening to Jesus’ message and doing as He would. It means making peace with enemies, sharing - not giving a little, but really sharing - our wealth with the poor of the world. You think of Jesus speaking of 'take up his cross.' I don't think that means say a prayer and have a private devotional moment. I think He is saying, 'you are becoming part of a very dangerous social movement, dangerous in the eyes of the powers that be.' Of course, not everyone buys the emerging church philosophy. Critics say they are appropriating the word Christian to mean liberal and they wonder whether its lack of doctrine would lead it to come unmoored from the basic understanding of Jesus. The emergent church also sees truth as a relative thing, which leans pretty heavily on faith as it is experienced, rather than dogma or orthodoxy, which can keep it on the rails, not only to individuals, but to communities. And others say it is just a fad. It might work for a few years; it might even help get Christian works done. But can you really mobilize generations of faithful to come around nothing but the experience of Jesus? Chris Vermeulen Glasgow, Scotland |

