I keep getting the take that the Emergent church is great at reaching the un-churched seeker but that there is a lack of meat over the long term. How does an Emergent church take an un-churched person, talk to them in a manner that is readily understood by a secularist and then proceed to teach them beyond an infants understanding?
I’m asking this because my church is trying to create a service that is more outreach in nature.
Any thoughts?

I suspect not all of the emerging church leaders see it the same way Michael does. A few of them probably don’t even make the distinction. But I think we both agree that Michael’s points are still valid.

I must say though… if the people who hosted this service really wanted to use a “secular” song to relate a message, couldn’t thy have picked one that didn’t suck so much?

Oh, and BTW, you said: “I see emerging churches as a more revolutionary way for the church to do its mission, not a creative way to make church more interesting to a younger demographic.” I completely agree, and so I must wonder… whats with all the heresy labels?

This comment in your entry, is, in my opinion, spot on when it comes to describing how I feel about the emergent church: “I see emerging churches as a more revolutionary way for the church to do its mission, not a creative way to make church more interesting to a younger demographic.”

I think that all churches can look to other faiths, other ways of practicing religion, etc. and draw from them ways to “do worship” that more completely serves the mission of the church, while not betraying their guiding principles, doctrines and beliefs. To say that somehow, simply because we have accepted Christ as our savior, that we have all the answers on how best to worship him or lead people to Him, is foolish.

I think the complaint many people have about many emergent churches, however, is also valid. Most emergent churches spend too much time trying to use “modern, real-life analogies” to explain Christ’s love or the Bible, rather than using the Bible to lead people, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to an abiding relationship with Christ and to confess that they are unworthy of forgiveness without his grace. In the emergent churches I attended, there was too much time spent on the “rules” of how to be a proper believer, too much time on believer-to-believer judgement and too much emphasis on the “seekers” with no attention being paid to those who would walk alongside those seekers who chose to become believers to aid them down the path to Christ. Rarely was the Bible opened, referred to or used beyond the seemingly numb references to the “John 3:16″-type verses of the Bible. Granted, John 3:16 is an important verse, but the Bible is chock-full of such messages and should be used in its depth and breadth as often as possible, in my opinion.

I truly believe a balance can be struck at an emergent church between remaining true to the Great Commissioning and the cultivation of strong, devoted followers of Christ and the ideas of drawing in unbelievers and seekers by giving them the world in a “non-church-looking church.”

I only can hope there are more emergent churches out there similar to the one you preached at, than of the two churches I attended that left me longing for more.

If only there was less critical analysis of churches and more of an open dialogue between them on how they could learn from each other to do things better (i.e. much the perspective you offer here in this post) — but alas, that is the age old, neverending struggle of Christianity and not something that could be solved by one comment on one blog.

Tom
Doctrine Matters

I have a question about one small aspect of the service you described: the prayer room. I’ve noticed that many emergent services I’ve heard described include some kind of private prayer area for people to go off into during the service. I’m wondering how that fits with the communitarian, anti-individualistic impulses I usually hear from emergent folk. Seems to me that the last thing they’d want to do is have people go off an be on their own during a communal event. I wonder if this lends at least some support to the criticism that much of postmodernism, as it is actually lived out, is really modernity taken to its extreme conclusion of hyper-individualisation and consumerism?

I suspect that the prayer lofts/rooms/stations/mazes come out of emergent folk’s attraction to medieval mysticism. Granting for the moment that there’s something good there to be attracted to, wouldn’t it be better to have such places available during the week, but to emphasize the community/body during the time of public worship? I’m certainly not opposed to either “prayer spaces” or individual devotion; I always loved the old, now largely defunct, practice of city churches whose sanctuary doors were open during the week for anyone to come in and pray.

Sorry your first comment on this post is picking a nit out of the larger sweater you knitted for us. This is just one little detail out of emergent worship that has always puzzled me.