Emergent Church, Emerging Faith, or Heretics?

After returning from the pool tonight I had a package sitting at my door. A BOOK!  W’hoo, I’m always open to getting books to read. This book is by Spencer Burke, those of you who read  The OOZE or are connected with the Emerging church are familiar with his presence.

What is the book titled? A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity. A rather provocative title but one that caught my attention as I casually wonder if I’m a heretic at times. I’m already on page 33 and found a quote that really speaks to me and I just had to stop and post about it.

“Similarly, some people see the growing divide between religion and spirituality as a loss. They bemoan the shift away from religion and decry secularism because they cannot conceive of alternative ways of encountering God. But with the loss of religion comes the opportunity for other ways of practicing faith to emerge.”

So often we think that these news ways will be rather similar to what we practiced before. While some may not diverge very far from the standard template of the Christian religion, other go far a field. Some will indeed become heretical sects while others may not look like the norm at all yet grasp the spirit of the religion.

While the central “truths” that make up the classic teaching of the faith may remain static, the mode of expression will vary greatly. WHY? Because those who seek to encounter God will naturally look to ways that fit a person of their time period and cultural setting. What does that look like in 21century America? What "new things" are happening?

The popular focus is shifting to the “Emerging/emergent” form of expression. Yet this is just one cluster of experience that is widely know about. There are others that are more hidden from the popular mind and therefore less familiar than the “stereotypical Emergent Church.”

I’m painting in broad strokes here. Yet the existence of the(se) stereotype(s) demonstrate the veracity of these strokes.

The popular success of these Emergent churches results from the maintenance of their contact points with the public mind. They do not diverge too widely from the familiar forms of church as they have buildings, set service times, songs and and so forth. While their heart and soul may beat to a different drumb, they look very much like the rest of the band.

Today we are probably more open to the clusters of alternate communities that may not look like the common understanding of a church. These communities have been making radical departures from that comfortable form of church the rest of us know about. Being widely out of the public mind, these communites exhibit the central nature of Christ through their actions without all the fanfare and praise of men.

There is plenty of room to consider divergent flavors of what emergence / emerging is. It is a mistake to think that the stereotypicly Emergent communities are the only things that are emerging in the 21st century. While it is true that these communities form a necessary and comfortable touch-point with what is commonly thought of as church, they may be just the tip of an iceberg.

What does emerging faith in the 21st century look like?

I think that people practicing an emerging faith may not even be part of the “Emergent Conversation” or consider themselves emergent. They may form communities that are practicing a radical praxis in their quest to encounter God yet would not even be recognized as churches in the classical sense. 

Some people living an emerging faith may indeed be heretics in the classic sense. Others my look like heretics but actually recover the heart of what it means to practice the Christian faith in our day.  Which camp do we fall in? Which do I fall in? Only time, faith, and practice can give us a clue. Ultimately God will be the judge.

I so enjoy books that stir my thought processes.  I'm going to continue reading now and process what I'm thinking later on.

Comments

[spencer burke]

Darren,

Thanks for taking the time to read the book for yourself. Interesting insights, this whole "heretics" thing seems to be coming alive... I like your thoughts about the typical emerging church and where we might see the future of church expanding to "I think that people practicing an emerging faith may not even be part of the “Emergent Conversation” or consider themselves emergent. They may form communities that are practicing a radical praxis in their quest to encounter God yet would not even be recognized as churches in the classical sense."

I look forward to more of you observations. Thanks again for reading and posting...

[spencer burke]

Darren,

Thanks for taking the time to read the book for yourself. Interesting insights, this whole "heretics" thing seems to be coming alive... I like your thoughts about the typical emerging church and where we might see the future of church expanding to "I think that people practicing an emerging faith may not even be part of the “Emergent Conversation” or consider themselves emergent. They may form communities that are practicing a radical praxis in their quest to encounter God yet would not even be recognized as churches in the classical sense."

I look forward to more of you observations. Thanks again for reading and posting...

[John K Riordan]

Darren,

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on Spencer's book. I look forward to reading it myself. I may be an irreligious heretic, maybe always have been.

You wrote: I think that people practicing an emerging faith may not even be part of the “Emergent Conversation” or consider themselves emergent.

I'm new to the emergent conversation. My interest was piqued by some reading in the science of emergence and complex dynamics, a field I find rich with theological possibilities. It reveals a world of hidden wholeness, not unlike the celtic cross you're using on your blog.

My faith is post-Catholic catholic, post-charismatic and apophatic. Emergent speaks to me. It's saying things I've been feeling, groping to express. I thought I was alone.

I see that you've been reading John of the Cross, a great influence on me. I recommend Peter Rollins' new book, How (Not) to Speak of God. He wants to bring negative theology into the heart of the emergent conversation. I agree with this suggestion, heartily.

Negative theology is a way to speak/not speak of the radical inadequacy of all God-talk, an asceticism of the heart and mind, which prepares us to encounter the Lord more authentically in silence and poverty of spirit.

Negative theology is biblical. Demonstrating this from the Scriptures is essential to the emergent theological task. Emergent is not rejecting orthodox Christian faith. It's retrieving a neglected dimension of biblical faith that can free the church from the stunting effects of dogmatic ossification.

Negative theology can help the church announce the gospel meaningfully to post-modernity. The world awaits a word out of the darkness. Everything we can say about the Lord is provisional, ad hoc, a hitchhiker's guide. Yet we dare to speak.

We foolishly dare to say, "God is love", knowing that "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." (1 Cor 2:9)

John

[D~]

Thanks Spencer! I'm reading and will be posting more,

John ~ I'm all over the Apophatic way of knowing God. I've not posted much about it but have been teaching it in my community. Thanks for the book lead. Try reading Pseudo Dionesus - a 5th century pseudonym that is often credited with the roots of the via negativa.