Over at his blog, Scott Daniels — the pastor at First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena (PazNaz) and the new dean of the school of theology at Azusa Pacific University — has a post on the death of the emerging church.

This is an interesting post because Scott Daniels is not one of those who announces the death of the emerging church as a capstone to a longtime wish for the death of the emerging church. Arguing the emerging church is dead has become the latest tactic in continued attempts to dismiss the movement as a whole. There’s a strategic value in announcing the death of a perceived enemy. If it’s dead, after all, it doesn’t exist anymore and so anyone trying to continue to make arguments for it can be brushed aside as arguing for an already dead movement.

Though not an emerging church guy himself, Scott Daniels has sought to understand it, sees the value in much of the priorities, and even put his reputation on the line in defending it in his conservative Nazarene denomination. I think the five-part series of posts he wrote last year on the emerging church movement are among the better descriptions I’ve read.

I should probably also add that Amy and I have been attending PazNaz since July of ’09. Those who have followed this blog for a while probably realize how much this says about my respect for Scott Daniels. His thoughts on the emerging church were one among many aspects that helped me resonate with his teaching in a way I didn’t really think possible anymore. (As a sidenote, his sermon series are well worth listening to if you get a chance–his last one on Colossians and his present one on Abraham are, in my opinion, brilliant in an all too rare approachable way).

It should be added that his death announcement of the movement is entirely not triumphalist or condemning. Some of the key points he mentions are more indictments against much of contemporary Evangelicalism than they are parting shots at the submerging emergents.

He notes he is not the first to declare the death of the emerging church. There has been, it seems, about a year long conversation on just this topic, with arguments flying back and forth. If the emerging church were really ‘dead’, of course, there would be no one to argue otherwise, so just the fact there is still passion on the topic probably is enough of a response to the dire declaration.

After some pushback in the comments, Daniels added another very helpful post. He writes, “So a major part of what I think is essentially dead (or dying) in the EC conversation is the expectation that in 50 years what we now think of as the institutional church will be replaced by “emerging” communities of faith.”

This provoked in me some related musings.

One is that I think the death of emerging as a church growth, “the great new thing” is likely not only true, but also is a very good thing. For those of us who felt resonance with the emerging movement in the earliest stages, the flood of interest in the movement by those who either did not really understand what it was about or, on the other side, sought to co-opt the “new thing” with their own particular priorities, was continually troublesome.

Indeed, I would say that it got to the point that some of the most public voices stamped with the emerging label were not really all that emerging. There was a decided mixing of new voices, new theologies, new awareness that got lumped together within a common trend. Which is why I always, and still, consider the Gibbs and Bolger book on emerging churches to be a standard reference. The key distinction for me is between people who were emerging by instinct or emerging by intent.

Gibbs and Bolger, being an early survey, got in tune with people who were pursuing an emerging direction in church without being certain of where the next steps were going to go. They were in moments of discovery and exploration, rather than top-down imposition. This was not a clear or pristine reality, to be sure. The temptation was always there to fall back upon imposition rather than being free with instinct. And, to be sure, even very early on there were leaders of communities who got onto the emerging bandwagon without really having what I call emerging instincts. And their communities suffered because of it.

Within this latter reality is where a lot of my critiques of emerging/missional churches come from. But that’s a whole different topic.

Always there have been men and women who were “emerging” not because they wanted to be part of the next big thing, but because they really were being driven by an irresistible force to explore new, or renewed, ecclesial realities. That was always the case, even when “Emerging!” was the toast of the town.

It was said among those who knew the heart of the movement that the “real” emerging people never went to conferences, didn’t get caught up as devotees to the guru of the week, and did not really get any kind of publicity at all. If “conference” Emerging! was the only emerging church that people saw, it is likely they never really ever saw what was truly emerging in the church.

Some of the key, truly emerging leaders did write books, so some of them got exposure, but for the most part what was publicly emerging was never really emerging. It was repackaged ministry strategies from the other church-growth, new-method, gotta-catch-’em-all mentality that derives more from mid-20th century priorities than postmodern sensibilities.

And if that is dead, then it’s probably because it never really was all that alive to begin with. It was a ecclesial animatronics, not a living body.

But just as Gibbs and Bolger tapped into some curious movements going on throughout the world 5+ years ago, so too are there still such communities. I’d even go as far to say that any church planting that happens in our culture will almost certainly have much more of an emerging feel to it than a traditional, institutional feel. So, while established churches are not going to be demolished and resurrected as coffee houses with vodka-and-oreo communion, small tables, and progressive theologies–there’s still a significant amount of emerging church ecclesiology that, I think, is extremely influential and important.

I’m not going to delve into my evidence for such a continued movement. Rather, I’m going to finish this out by saying why church leaders and theologians need to continue to deal with the presence of the emerging church movement (however it may be named).

My key argument for this is the fact that the era of institutional domination is over. This is not to proclaim the end of the institutional church, but rather to suggest that there is an increasing number of non-aligned followers of Christ. In past eras–as recently as my parents generation–to reject the church went hand in hand with rejecting Jesus. Frustrations with the church propelled men and women to look for answers in alternative religions. Now, however, people are increasingly aware that the faults of a particular congregation do not reflect the inadequacy of Christ.

But where are such people to go? The failures of the church model of our era leave a massive amount of people in a vague stage of spiritual discontent and destitution. In experiencing massive frustration or abuse in the context of a particular church, they do not see the pursuit of Christ as being possible in such an institutional setting. This reality either leads to spiritual depression and nominality, or it leads to a more active embrace of alternative expressions of Christian community that more fully reflect the call of Christ in a particular person’s life.

For me, the term “emerging church” is still useful, and the reality is not dead, because if there are non-aligned, non-propertied, non-institutional christian communities then it is helpful to use a term to describe their reality. “Emerging church” fits as well as anything else, because even in its profound inadequacy it at least has the benefit of a season of exposure and thus is a starting place for continued conversation. Maybe another word might be less baggage laden, but it’s tiresome to keep throwing out new words in church conversations.

Saying there will continue to be people who find discontentment in particular church models is not to say that Church as a whole is terrible and that spiritual maturity is impossible in an institutional setting. There are, in fact, some very excellent institutional church communities that spark amazing devotion to Christ, and these can be found in just about any Christian tradition. So, I’m not generalizing discontent. But, I am arguing against a stance that says “because I have found a good experience in church, everyone must have the same experiences as me.”

This is, by the way, a very interesting distinction between me and Amy. Amy has had very fruitful and very empowering experiences in her church experiences. She has had amazing mentors who were real pastors to her. I have not really had that. I have had seasons of it, but these were rare, and mixed in with what are quite depowering experiences. There are amazing possibilities in churches to spark new life, but there is also a great tendency to undermine and discourage. Realizing different people have different experiences is essential. The church is always a particular reality, and anytime we try to generalize it we run into trouble.

So those who have experienced significant frustration, or worse, in their particular contexts are and will continue to look for alternative expressions of Christian community. Emerging churches offer a holistic expression of this in a way that, I think, is not only an alternative but also may be more Biblically valid. But that too is a whole other conversation.

It is important to continue to realize the life of the emerging church because if we declare the death and move on, we are abandoning the men and women who participate in these communities, or need to participate in such communities, to the outskirts of the camp. We are declaring them non-people in the body of Christ, and as such we are abandoning them to the whims and winds and wolves which circle the people of God, looking to pick off the weakened and weary.

Instead of this, my interest continues to be in the emerging church conversation because I think that as a budding theologian I not only have the opportunity but also the obligation to help these alternative expressions of church as I can. As a theologian, my role is not in inventing a new model of church nor is it to give some kind of stamp of validity on any given community. Rather, I see my role as being a watcher, listening and reflecting on what I see and what I hear, putting this into the context of church history and theology. In doing this I can help deepen, steer, and effectively critique how such communities are proposing we pursue Christ in our era.

If we declare them dead, we abandon them to the trends and tendencies which really can lead to death. We abandon them to so much of what previous generations assumed, that the institutional church is identical with the person of Christ, and that to find despair in the former means the latter has no reality.

Rather than declaring them dead, however, we can weep over that which death has touched, while still full of hope that what is emerging may yet still come forth, in a form that no longer stinketh, but full of life as a testimony to the wide work of Christ and Spirit in this world.

I have that hope. Indeed, I think that the Spirit’s work in this world is going to continue to surprise us, and continue to enliven us as we explore new forms of community and Christian devotion in this era.

It is a dance, after all.

Well, if you’re wondering where I’ve been, I’ve been engaged in a very busy quarter, reading a lot and recently writing a lot.  I just turned in my paper for the quarter.  It was 60 pages long, plus a 6 page bibliography.

The title was “Spirit and Truth:  A Study of Susanna Wesley, John Wesley, and John Fletcher as Participants in the Stream of the Spirit’s Work”

Here’s the conclusion:

As my goal was to look at Wesley as part of a stream of the Spirit’s work through the course of history, I primarily focused on those influences which fed into and flowed out of his significant contributions.  Although not within the scope of this present effort, the political, social, and religious contexts of his era were also vitally important and understanding these more fully is essential to understanding not only what Wesley thought but also how he applied and expressed his underlying priorities.[1] Wesley was, to be sure, an intellectual man whose eclectic reading and education shaped him significantly more than most of his era, yet a person can never be independent from their social surroundings.  Indeed, Wesley’s immensely practical interests make his social and intellectual climate even more important for study.

Seeing the work of the Spirit in an ecological rather than reductionistic fashion means that to most fully understand a context we have to look before and after, into the specific details of the people and settings, while keeping in mind the general patterns the Spirit seems to exhibit in every era. In this work, my goal was not to offer a comprehensive view of Wesley or Methodism, but rather to narrow my focus on particular influences which seemed to have led Wesley to explore certain paths, and shaped how he led others down these paths.  To be sure, there were even significantly more religious and literary influences which affected Wesley, each of which deserves fuller study, though I selected those which I felt were the most influential, with other influences often either honing or expanding what the initial influences prompted in Wesley’s continuing quest for a holistic faith.

This quest for a holistic, more purely expressed faith was not new to Wesley.  Indeed, this is the expression of the work of the Spirit in the life of the church since the day of Pentecost.  The Spirit has called and enabled the people of God to more fully participate with God in this world.  This participation calls people to turn away from their own attempts to bring definition to their life, which only lead to an incomplete identity in a struggle against the contrasting forces faced in this world.  The attempts to bring hope or definition or peace are, ultimately, unsuccessful.  For death entered into this world, and death calls all people into its grasp.  Death came into this world through the first man, Adam, but death was overcome by the new Adam, Jesus of Nazareth, who died on the cross but did not remain dead.

After three days, he was resurrected, in the power of the Spirit, the firstborn of all creation becomes the first of the resurrection, and offers this hope to all who seek him, letting themselves find their identity in his identity. In doing this, such people do not lose their self. By letting go of attempts at self-definition, by letting go of the ego’s attempt to form a false, defensive identity, the power of the Spirit reaches in and provides renewal, refreshing, and resurrection, even in this present life.  In the life of Christ, we are given life. In the power of the Spirit, we are reborn to new identities, able to take hold of the fullness of God’s reality, participating increasingly in his fellowship, and in this, participating in the fellowship of all his people.

This fellowship of God’s people in this present era is called the Church.  It is a reflection of God’s Kingdom, formed in unity and diversity to be a people who hope, who help, who love.  Yet, the Church, like present humanity, is not always, or even often, fully reflecting this call in the world.  In every age there are errors and heresies, mistakes caused by zealousness or distortions enabled by gross perversions allowed in sometimes even the highest leadership.  The Spirit who calls the people, who empowers the people, does not abandon the people.  In every age there is a constant work of the Spirit of God, calling people back to wholeness and truth, empowering those who truly seek Christ to be light in their contexts, teaching and prophesying, for the sake of the whole of God’s people.  This work of the Spirit often enlightens the people to a more fully realized truth, building on the insights of the past to help each generation see more and more clearly the fullness of the truth that God is calling all humanity to live.  This stream of the Spirit refreshes and enlivens; it sometimes breaks down but it also helps build up, bringing fresh life wherever it goes, even in the face of deep struggle.

Martin Luther participated in this stream, seeing the perversions of the Church of his era and fighting against them, and when they would not listen he helped lead the Church to new forms of gathering, forms in which the people could, once again, find more freedom in their worship and learning.  Yet, there was not an end to corruption or distortion.  The Spirit continued to work, however, leading men and women to find renewal as they explored the fresh paths of the Spirit. Often this involved looking back to those who had walked with God in previous generations. They followed the call to “Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.”[2] In England, a people arose who were known as Puritans, for they sought a refreshed purity in the Church of England.  However, even as many sought with a Spirit-enlightened spark, the church still had not found the full way of light. Errors were made.  People were lost.

The Spirit, however, continued to work, both in those who remained in the Church of England, and in those who Dissented from it.  Susanna Wesley, a daughter of Dissent, returned to the Church of England when she was a young teenager, following a call on her life that led her to a deeper spirituality, and an intimate relationship with a man who also sought God in his return to the Anglican communion.  They had many children, and Susanna saw it as her life mission to help these children learn how to participate with Christ, to truly walk with the Spirit in life and light.  The testimony to Susanna’s faithfulness in Spirit and Truth is seen in her children, the most famous of whom is John Wesley, a man who helped transform people not only in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, but also throughout North America.

It was in England, however, that Wesley’s continued leadership through preaching, teaching, and writing found some of his most treasured growth.  A young Swiss man named John Fletcher was drawn into the Methodist fold, and was soon drawn into John Wesley’s own inner circle, becoming a helper and a friend, and one of the most important interpreters of Wesley’s theology, helping the many tributaries which poured into and out of John Wesley to find even greater cohesion.  They sought perfection, but not perfection as performance. Rather, they sought a perfection that was itself a gift and testimony of the Holy Spirit, a true holiness which was reflected in inner purity and outward actions, a purity that was at its very depths one filled will divine love.

This stream did not stop in the age of Wesley and Fletcher. Their contributions helped to steer others, men and women, towards an even better understanding of the call of God in this world.  Though there were also still temptations and distortions and many mistakes leading particular churches down wrong roads and out of the stream of the call of Christ, there was always a testimony of God’s Spirit in this world, calling and leading, enlightening and empowering.  John Fletcher called this great work of the Spirit in a person the baptism of the Spirit, seeing it as a continual Pentecost that can be experienced in each person, in each generation.

Those in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries understood this to be a true call to the signs of the earliest church, and sought a renewed Pentecost in holiness and healings, tongues and prophesying.  The renewal the Puritans sought in England found new insight in Susanna Wesley, who passed her wisdom to her son John, who was a mentor to John Fletcher, who gave new insights and understanding to men and women of, at first, two continents, and then many.  This is a church that is constantly emerging, finding both renewal and fresh insight in every generation.

This stream of the Spirit continues to pour out even to our day.  Often, as in the beginning, this work of the Spirit is warming hearts in unexpected places and among unexpected people and in unexpected ways.

Supreme eternal being!  Fountain of life and happiness! Vouchsafe to be ever present to the inward sense of my mind. I offer you my heart—take possession by the Holy Spirit for the sake of Jesus Christ.  Amen. Amen.[3]

---

[1] Very helpful texts for understanding the context of Wesley, Methodism, and nonconformity in general are the earlier works of  J. Wesley Bready, England, before and after Wesley : The Evangelical Revival and Social Reform (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938) and  Maldwyn Lloyd Edwards, After Wesley: A Study of the Social and Political Influence of Methodism in the Middle Period (1791-1849) (London: Epworth Press, 1935).  For more contemporary studies see David Hempton, Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750-1850 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984); David Hempton, The Religion of the People : Methodism and Popular Religion C. 1750-1900 (New York: Routledge, 1996); David Hempton, Methodism Empire of the Spirit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005); James E. Bradley, Religion, Revolution, and English Radicalism: Nonconformity in Eighteenth-Century Politics and Society ( New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys, A History of Evangelicalism ; V. 1 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003); Patrick Karl O’Brien and Roland E. Quinault, eds., The Industrial Revolution and British Society (New York: Cambridge University Press,1993).

[2] Jeremiah 6:16.

[3] From the journal of Susanna Wesley, in Wallace, Susanna Wesley, 333.

Here are the notes I put together for the sermon I preached on Saturday night. This was mostly used as a guide for me, and I didn’t read it–except for brief moments when my mind blanked. I’m adding the text of verses here where I did read those.

What have we covered so far?
3 basic sections so far: 1) Colossians 1:1-1:8 Intro 2) 1:9-23 The Gospel! 3) 1:24-2:5 Paul’s contributions

2:6-7 Our section begins, we touched on this a little bit last week. So then… (having said all that, now we’re getting to the meat).

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

We are to continue to live our lives in him. This is holiness. But it’s not just about performing or having the right opinions or doing certain actions at just the right time. It’s a lot more. We are to live our lives in him. To live is Christ, Paul says in Phil 1:21. We are to be rooted in him. We are to be built up in him. We are to be strengthened in our faith, as we were taught, orienting all our life in Jesus.

All well and good. But we get distracted. Paul is writing to make sure we don’t.
See to it… Read v. 8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Hollow and deceptive philosophy. Note he doesn’t just say philosophy as though all thinking is bad. He’s not being anti-intellectual. Though a lot of people over the centuries have assumed this. Even recently (history of Fundamentalism) It’s a particular kind of philosophy. Hollow and deceptive. What’s a hollow philosophy? What’s a deceptive philosophy? Tertullian quote: “What has Athens have to do with Jerusalem.”

It’s not that we are taken captive by force. We’re to see that we’re not taken captive. We allow ourselves to be taken captive, so Paul is trying to ward off this tendency. He’s giving counsel to spiritual battles here and he’s showing the techniques that undermine us. Here, he’s not pointing to moral issues or obvious failures. He’s talking about what is a more subtle temptation. We can be taken captive by religion, by traditions, by philosophies. A problem in Colossae was not nominality, but a form of over-religiosity.
Human tradition and elemental spiritual forces of the world. What are these are in the text?
Galatians 4:1-3 has related comments:

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.

What are examples now?

So, why would we be tempted to be taken captive? It’s not like we wake up one morning and think we’d like to try to make our lives more complicated. What’s the urge there? Most sins come out of trying to alleviate some pressure? What’s the drive?

a) To try to better explain something that’s complex or confusing (Lord’s supper and Golden calf). To just do… something.
b) To provide order (church order, liturgy, this stuff then gets solidified) Pharisees, Ch. Hist
c) To know more because we want more power, or knowledge. The sin of Adam and Eve!

2 Timothy 3:1-5 gives us some examples

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

We are tempted by power, and knowledge, and other things. But it distracts! Don’t let anything distract you from Christ! Why? Verse 9.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Fullness. We go back to 1:15.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…

The fullness of God is in Christ. If we want to know God, we seek Christ. If we want to see God, we look to Christ. Everything that is God, is found in Jesus. Which means what? What does it mean that the fullness of God is in Christ?

We don’t need all kinds of other commentaries or help or practices or anything. Jesus is God. In Jesus we have all we need to see God. What’s more is that this fullness isn’t a vague, ethereal, mystical spirituality. This fullness, this total picture of God, is in Jesus, who came in bodily form. The old Adam brought sin into flesh, and we share this flesh and we share this sin. We suffer from it, we are beaten and battered by it. We get hit by our own sins and we get hit, crushed, by the sins of others. But, God did not give up on his creation.

So that’s not all of it. We don’t just look at Jesus and see God from a distance. We aren’t stuck musing in philosophical ways about all the details about what it means that Jesus is God. There’s a new Adam—Jesus. He came in bodily form, and as a man showed all of us what it means to be truly human, in wholeness and fullness. He does not just show us.

v.10

In Christ you have been brought to fullness.

Let’s stop there, because this is astounding. You, me, don’t just look at Jesus as a philosophical concept or a religious ideal. There’s something that he did that changes everything. We have been brought into fullness. What does this mean?

Galatians 4:4-9:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

we could go on in Galatians because so much of that book is being summarized right here in these verses.

Continue in v. 10.

He is the head of every power and authority.

So, if he’s the head of not just some powers and authorities but every power and authority, who can say “wait, there’s more. There’s other things that need to be done. There’s all this extra stuff you have to learn.” In Christ is the fullness of God. So if anyone tells you, if anyone tries to be a power or authority, whether it’s leaders of traditions or spiritual or elemental forces, you do not need their permission. You have been given fullness by Christ, who is the fullness. The source has invited you to the source, no middleman is needed. No one has the authority or power to put obstacles in the way of you going directly to the source.

v.11

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[g] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,

What is Circumcision. It’s about identity. Christ gives us a new identity in him. When we were alienated, we tried to form our identity in other ways. Job, sin, money, knowledge, power. Only we can’t. Nothing else can give us identity. God is the only source of fullness and being. And only as we are participating with him, as part of his people, do we have an identity that is full and whole. Paul is making a big deal about all of this because it’s not just having extra bits of opinions. We get caught up in things that take the place of Christ, things that we then try to make our identity. In trying to do…whatever, we make our identity into these things.. whatever they are.

This is not losing our identity, becoming part of shapeless mass where we all become mindless robots. It’s about becoming who we truly were made to be. In Christ, we become fully who we are. We tried to pursue an identity of our own making when we were apart from Christ, but it is never enough. There’s no fullness or wholeness or peace, not ultimately.

v. 12

having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

When we are baptized, when we take this step of aligning with Christ, we are doing more than making philosophical declaration of our religious opinions.

Our old self, with our egos, and fears, and attempts to define ourselves through actions or knowledge or whatever is put aside. We die to that self. Our old way of being, our old, ultimately futile attempts to define ourselves are put aside. But we don’t become nothing. We’re not just forgiven. We’re raised again. We are raised with Christ, who is the fullness of God, and we are invited by Christ to partake of this fullness.

So don’t be distracted. Paul is warning us that there’s a tendency, a temptation to be caught up again in all those old attempts to define ourselves. We’re not slaves to those things anymore. Christ has risen! We have risen with him and are offered a chance to participate in his fullness, taking up a new identity, our true identity that reflects who God has made us to be.

This is not something we wait for, this is an experience we participate in now. We have our identity in Christ. Don’t let anyone distract you, and don’t distract yourself. You’re no longer a slave. You’re free. Don’t let yourself be taken captive and lose the hope, the freedom, the power, the true fullness and wholeness that is only found in Christ. Keep your eyes on Christ, who has given us the Holy Spirit to continue to form us and teach us and lead us into ever more experience of this fullness—an experience that does not end but continues throughout eternity, which is how full Christ is.

We have massive edifices and complex organizations all designed to help spread the message of Christ into this world by any means possible. Instead of doing this with a measure of bounty and joy, however, we are sad, and the world considers us sad.

Surely, however, we are not all sad. For despite our lack of noticing and understanding the Spirit continues to go about the business of convincing this world of its sins and redeeming this world so as to become in full what God originally designed. We are sad when we neglect the Spirit’s work and try to work on our own, finding the burdens all too heavy and the yoke frustratingly oppressive. With this we enter into a terrible rhythm of what can only be considered works righteousness even if we might deny such a thing in our testimonies.

We work, and work, and work to do God’s work, burning out, and losing light, to be replaced by others who similarly work and work. The Church is, in military terms, much like a Civil War regiment who gathers in a line of battle and slowly advances in the face of brutal musket fire, not because it works but because that’s how things are done.

That’s not how the Spirit gets things done, but as we have not considered how it is the Spirit does work we have only relied on the methods that have been passed down through the generations, methods which have, from very early on, suffered from a significant lack of Spirit consideration.

The Spirit is entirely not sad. The Spirit works and if we can gain hold of how the Spirit works, and the oftentimes non-intuitive ways the Spirit works, we can begin to experience the fullness of power in this world which convinces people of who Jesus was and is.

Now, what is interesting about the Spirit is we can’t just go and say what we want about the Spirit as though our opinions are binding. With Jesus we are given a set of stories, and a number of prophecies, and a lot of early reflections on who he was. These things give us the primary evidence which we can then use to paint a picture. This picture was wrestled with for centuries, especially in the 4th and 5th century, so that now we have a concept of who Jesus was as a man and who he is as God.

The Spirit, however, is still writing the story. We can go back to Scripture and see how the Spirit worked in the lives of the prophets and heroes and disciples. But, we can’t be limited by this. For the Spirit is still about the very same work, meaning our analysis has to be both a study and an observation. We begin with a look at the Spirit in Scripture then must look around at history even until our very day to determine the methods and styles and approaches the Spirit uses in order to really be a convincing Spirit in this world.

When we see the fruit of the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit, and the joy of the Spirit then we can get our hands around the fluidity of the Spirit in this world. And in doing this we can embrace those aspects which the Spirit is doing and let go of those aspects which we insist upon as being Christian, but are not really part of the Spirit’s nature.

So much of our churches have been built upon an anemic understanding of the Spirit’s work that we have developed significant amount of structures and styles which are in essence human substitutes for the Spirit, for in our lack of consideration we cannot leave a vacuum but instead create models of church which fill in the blanks, and get us to display ourselves in a way we think is for Christ, even as these things are not really of Christ.

Theology makes a difference, and the sad fact is that our churches should be a reflection of our theology and our understanding of each person of the Trinity. Rather than having a flexible understanding of church, however, we have a committed understanding of Church which is really the only unimpeachable doctrine. For most people the doctrine of the Church trumps all other doctrines, and leaves us in a state of disunity and sadness because having built a lovely building we can’t bear to remodel it just because God has revealed aspects of himself anew.

The Spirit demands doing such, however. And so a renewed study of the Spirit’s style and nature cannot just be a rhetorical exercise but insists upon practical change. In this a thorough study of the Holy Spirit both watches what the Spirit does in this world, and as it learns it also creates. We learn from the Spirit by watching the Spirit’s movements, and we respond to these movements by renewing our churches to best encourage freedom for the Spirit’s methodology.

Abstract:
The emerging church has recently gained attention in regards to its liturgical innovation and postmodern methodology. Viewed through the lens of Jürgen Moltmann’s theology, however, the emerging church is not merely another church growth movement but is in fact reflecting key pneumatological principles, emphasizing and exhibiting a more holistic perspective on the broad work of the Holy Spirit in the church and in this world.

Keywords: PNEUMATOLOGY; JÜRGEN MOLTMANN; EMERGING CHURCH; HOLY SPIRIT

Document Type: Research article

Patrick Oden, “An Emerging Pneumatology: Jürgen Moltmann and the Emerging Church in Conversation,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, Number 2, 2009, pp. 263-284.

Essentially, this article is an academic approach to the content I first focused on in my book It’s a Dance. In the book, Moltmann and others were influences, but the specific influence was not noted. In this article I take the same basic nine traits of the emerging church, as shown by Gibbs and Bolger, and show how these traits seem to match Moltmann’s own pneumatology.

Those of you who have been following my exploits for awhile will remember I spoke on this at Duke in March, 2008 with Moltmann himself sitting in the front row. This article is the paper that went with that talk.

I was interrupted in the writing of this post by a phone call from my friend and fellow Fuller PhD student, Kyle Bennett. He let me know that our proposal for leading a whole “Emerging church and Pentecostalism” session at the next Society of Pentecostal Studies conference was accepted. So, hooray for that too!

Needless to say, this is a good professional day for me.

I’m continuing my story on the emerging church, but for now there’s a really interesting addition now available.

Earlier this summer, my friend Eric Herron and I sat down with Aaron Klinefelter of the Praxis Podcast. We chatted for about an hour about emerging/missional church stuff and our own projects that seem to come out of it.

Just was posted online. Have a listen: Praxis Podcast Episode #41: Patrick Oden & Eric Herron

Matt Stone has a great post on the ‘mini-movements’ that are beginning to get more defined in the emerging church movement. The categories aren’t his but his commentary is quite worth reading. I’ve my own thoughts on those, and will post on it soon. For now, I’ve been making some points in the comments and so invite you all to join in on the conversation.

In November 2007 my book It’s a Dance: Moving with the Holy Spirit was published by Barclay Press. It’s about the Holy Spirit, but more than that it’s about a hoped for renewal in the church, in spirituality, in this world that is, I think, more reflective of authentic Christianity than a lot of the customs and trends that have developed. That’s not me saying I know something other don’t know. It’s me saying I know something a whole lot of people know and have known, but because of the nature of this expression it doesn’t get the same kind of publicity that the more salacious and the more traditional (which often–certainly not always–have a fair bit of salaciousness about them, albeit a ‘respectful’ sort of salaciousness like greed or control-seeking) forms get.

It has been on sale for a while but I just realized it’s also available to look at on Google Books. Buying a book on theology or church or ministry or Christian anything isn’t exactly first on someone’s buying list. Among certain circles it is, but then among those circles there are already a lot of books similar on the surface, and many written by much more successful writers, it is hard to stick out or get attention, even if it really is something a fair bit different.

Books on the Holy Spirit are generally assumed to be about the fancy tricks such as miracles, or healings, or tongues, or unleashing prophetic pronouncements or they are about using Spirit to become our personal genie–who gets us what we want, whether it be more territory or land or hot chicks or personal happiness or a parking space on Christmas eve at the mall. Or, more often than not, books on Christian ministry or theology tend to leave the Spirit out altogether, or mention the Spirit only as a sanctified topping, adding a hint of Triune flavoring to a much more mundane dish.

My book is about the Holy Spirit who works actively in this world. People who let go their assumptions and explore the works of God discover how the Spirit already is working. When such people start studying Scripture it becomes a bit surprising what the formal teaching leaves out about the work of the Spirit. The Spirit isn’t about putting on a show or adding rhetorical flair to theological talks.

The Spirit is the one who leads people to Jesus–the real Jesus, not the Jesus who far too often becomes our tool and excuse to pursue ego-enhancing satisfaction. The Spirit is the one who draws people into community and breaks down the artificial barriers created between sacred and secular. God works everywhere, after all, even if we aren’t aware of the fact or prefer he left parts of our lives alone. The Spirit empowers holiness and continually encourages welcoming strangers—who aren’t strangers to God at all. The Spirit spurs people to give, incites creativity of all kinds, and provokes this creativity into becoming realized within the community—though not necessarily, or even primarily, in some Sunday service.

The Spirit leads the church as a body, and unites the community in time and space with others who worship God. Realizing these works—acting on these—leads to seeing fruits of the Spirit all around, in all kinds of people in all kinds of spaces. There develops a joy and a peace, a stillness and a wholeness, even as there are still certainly questions yet to be answered.

That’s what I explore, using a light conversation to develop the theology.

Now you can have a look at it without making a commitment. Though if you do find it interesting, I’d appreciate a purchase of your own copy. I’m noting this now because I just noticed it over at Google, and thought it might be an interesting way to get people to browse my book and other books they wouldn’t commit to buying, books that might be outside their usual purchases, or usual worldview and might change how Christianity is perceived. They can look and not feel like they need to justify, defend, or falsely praise.

I’m also, I think, going to step up a bit in talking about why, I think, there should be more theology in missional efforts, not as a stodgy, polysyllabic club but as foundational to why and who and what we say, do, respond.

Jurgen Moltmann wrote, “The more that Pentecostal theology is broadened into a kingdom of God theology, the closer it comes to that liberation theology that, through the work of Jon Sobrino and Gustavo Gutierrez, is nowadays also embedded in a kingdom of God theology. In a comprehensive kingdom of God theology the healing of hte sick and the liberation of the poor are effected together. With the kingdom of God, which is ‘coming’ with Jesus, we gain not least apocalyptic counter-images to the state of this world and messianic counter-narratives to the increasing threats and danger of ‘this age’. Advent eschatology is always the eschatology of the divine alternative: ‘Jesus is God’s defiance against poverty, against sin and against all misery’.”

I feel like a lot of missional efforts are on this path, but aren’t quite there, leading to good intentions but incomplete efforts and pursuits dependent on how much personal energy we have to keep it up, rather than on the Pentecostal experience of God’s propellant–the Holy Spirit. It’s not the good, natural salesman, after all who are the best expressions of God’s work–even as they tend to be the most vocal and active evangelists. It’s those who the Spirit is working in and through who truly change their particular part of the world, and together can change the whole of it, as God’s holistic work becomes infused within us. If we have a model of goal in Jesus, but don’t have a model in method, the Spirit, we have good intentions that struggle to find expression or that burn out far too quickly, leaving the mass of people emptier shells, even as some can sustain the efforts for a significant while by their own charge.

As Paul said to the folks at Corinth: May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”>

During my junior year at Wheaton I took an American Church History class. The major assignment was to write a Family Religious History. So I did. And as I’m still wrestling with how ‘missional’ I am, I got to thinking about that paper. Because, we really aren’t isolated individuals who spring forth to do or not do mission. We grow up in a certain environment, with a particular history, that shapes how we press on in the world–shaping our fears, and our hopes, and our drives, and our cynicisms, offering to us experiences of generations that shape how we respond to certain contexts and questions.

So, here’s my history–the story of my family–that I come back to every few years as I assess my contribution to this well-churched tree.

Patrick Oden’s family religious history.

That’s the question I ended with last evening.

And it’s one I don’t have an answer for really.

If I were to go by the sorts of things that make for good stories at conferences, such as meeting the gang members and drug addicts over coffee every week, then no. Not really.

Indeed, for the last five years I lived in what is described as ‘the mountain resorts’ area of Southern California, a mile high in a small town surrounded by national forest.

Not really a missional hub.

I’ve mostly kept quiet about my personal life, except for some of the more exciting details. Even as, of course, I tended to bare my soul in consideration of spiritual themes and areas of utterly needed spiritual maturing.

Am I missional? I guess that depends on what you mean by missional. What is missional? That link points to an answer I gave a while back.

Now, I’m a PhD student in systematic theology. That’s not really missional. Even if I want to go chat with other intellectuals about missional things using big words and obscure historical points. I enjoy doing that, mind you. But, I don’t see that as really being missional as often defined.

Formational. Sure. Missional would be, I think, how I use this degree, and how I’ve used my Masters of Divinity and how I’ve used my BA in Biblical and Theological Studies. Three degrees that show my increased study of the work of God and his ways in this world.

Am I missional? I’m shy. More shy than most people who meet me would suspect. I’m talking really shy and really introverted. Like a perfect score on the I side of the MBTI. I’m not the sort of guy that hangs out in pubs or coffee shops and strikes up conversations with all and sundry, leading a wide variety of people towards a varying degree of spiritual interest.

I moved to the mountains because I tend towards being a contemplative. I like the sound of wind, the songs of birds, the quiet of a still mountain day, where my thoughts can wander, and leap, uncurling in their untrammeled freedom, unknotting from life’s frenetic entanglements.

I was single.

Now I’m married. I moved from the mountains last month and now I live in the middle of Pasadena, where the major sound is the flowing traffic of the 210 freeway located right behind my bedroom window.

I’ve spent a decent amount of time in nearby pubs and such places hanging out with old friends and meeting new people almost every day.

Am I missional now? Well, the new people I’m meeting are mostly all seminary students. That’s why I’m here. My entire apartment complex is seminary students. My old friends are pretty mature Christians. My new wife? She was a worship leader in the Portland area. Yeah. One of the least churched regions of the country and I still find the Christians to focus on and bring one back with me.

What is missional?

I’ve sought God. I still seek God. Not with big words and magnificent ambitions. I seek God having tasted humility in isolation and poverty, and turned towards deeper and deeper teachings to help me again see the God who just wasn’t like for me as so much of the popular teaching claimed he was like.

Paul writes in Philippians words that I certainly can’t say with the intensity he does, but I would like to, and get what he is saying now more than I did ten years ago:

What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

I press on. But am I missional? I write a lot about missional/emerging things. Indeed, I wrote a book that begins with emerging/missional themes and shows how they are aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit among us. That book got some fairly nice comments from some fairly intelligent, and truly missional, people, including Dan Kimball. Hasn’t sold all that well.

Maybe because I’m not really missional, and couldn’t put on the book bio anything about my ministry in the city or my extensive work with the devastatingly poor in an unpronounceable town in central India. “He lives in Lake Arrowhead, where he hikes, kayaks, and watches birds” it says, or something to that effect. What do I know about missional?

Am I missional? Maybe not. But, I’m not entirely willing to let go quite yet. Maybe I need to do more of what Dan suggested in his question. Maybe I need to tell more of my actual story and maybe there’s a bit of God’s mission to be found in that.

I guess maybe I’ll venture into doing that next.