Ok, so far I’ve given you my take on ‘what happened’. I haven’t offered a lot of comment and interestingly – despite this being one of the most read posts ever on my blog – nor have you…

Maybe there isn’t enough worthy of comment yet, or maybe this is one of those issues that makes us a little uneasy.

If we comment publicly we risk choosing a side, or alienating one group of people… Fair enough, but I’m going to give some of my own random reflections on the experience. Feel free to agree, disagree or lurk… (as I write this another punchy comment comes in from the rev – some people aren’t shy about speaking up!)

1. The real problem with doing some reflection on what we need to hear is that its very hard when you are in the thick of it. I think it would be equally difficult for Don to offer a fair critique of Calvinism! So the rest of this is offered with that caveat. I think I do a pretty fair job of listening to others so if you want to offer some thoughts on what I have missed then go for it.

2. Perhaps one of the most unsurprising and yet critical observations to emerge from this conversation is the fact that if it is hard to define the EC then it will be even harder to critique it fairly.

There simply is no EC stance on issues – no EC doctrinal statement – no EC creed of any form at all. John has indicated in his most recent comment that he and I probably see things differently theologically – and although I’m not sure exactly what he means I’m sure he’s on the money. That said, there is no question in my mind at all over the commitment John has to Christ and the authenticity of his faith.

Perhaps the critique that is offered of the EC would be better received if it were not given (by some) with the implication that many of us are probably no longer Christians. In the face of those kinds of comments I do get tempted to sign up for a crazy liberal theological position just out of frustration. Usually its only the more wacky ‘reformed’ bloggers who make these suggestions, but others sometimes walk a thin line too.

3. I am still confounded that a diverse worldwide movement was judged on the basis of very limited and selected writings. I will agree that Carson does make some valid points in assessing BMac in Generous Orthodoxy, but I have never read anything by Steve Chalke, Robert Webber or Dan Kimball!… and I think I qualify as some kind of leader in this scene.

Sivin makes the point that even if there is some validity of this stuff to the English speaking western world, there is still Asia and Africa to consider. Do they fit the critique also? Sivin – I’d love to hear your take on it all.

4. At first I thought Carson had done some damage to the way we are perceived here in Perth, but after Wednesday I think he may have actually helped to put us on the map in a more substantial way.

How ironic!

He did make a point of saying he felt we were not a deviant group and were unlikely to veer into eccentricity. After the event on Wednesday I had many people speaking very positively of what we were doing as a result of being there. I think he portrayed us (locally) quite positively and I think we were able to speak clearly also in defining our core identity.

5. Let’s take some time to look at Carson’s critique a little more closely and see what we ought to pay attention to.

Here are his concerns again:

– understanding of modernism and post-modernism is limited

– avoidance of truth claims / inability to speak of knowing something certainly

– accomodation of pomo rather than critique

– sloppy about history / exegesis

– need to learn to listen more to what scripture actually says

– need to be more careful to avoid sectarianism

As I read this I am happy to say they are all valid to some extent somewhere in the EC movement.

I am also happy to say that they are also valid to some extent somewhere in the evangelicalism.

That’s not a cop out!

Read them thru and apply them to the ‘church down the road’ and to a greater or lesser degree I am sure you will be able to get them all to have some resonance.

If I had to choose some issues to say ‘yes’ to, then I’d sign on to the final warning about sectarianism. There is always the danger of creating divisions and polarising, not what we are about (see Geoff’s section) Of course the publishing of the book actually contributed to a further marginalisation of the ECs as churches became somewhat more skeptical and other significant leaders (Piper etc) began to speak out also. So in a sense the sectarianism was actually foisted on us by the critique.

Hmmm… This idea of looking for what we need to hear isn’t going so well is it?

6. Ok – I’ll forget Don’s critique and do my own. Every year at the first Forge intensive in Perth I do a session entitled ‘A Good look in the Mirror for the EMC’ (although I am thinking of retitling it to ‘A Good look in the mirror of the EMC here in Perth in 200x because obviously this is a slippery issue!)

My critiques at the start of this year were:

– Pendulum swinging (leadership/structure/evangelism/music) I suspect there are some doing the opposite of what they have always known because they just don’t want to go there again.

– Fragility (leader dependent?) As with most effective groups quality leadership does make a big difference. Remove the leader and what happens?

– Are we making disciples? (or have we just moved the consumers around a little) This is the end game – the (not so) simple assessment of our effectiveness. If we aren’t doing this any better then let’s not be too quick to critique.

– It looks like a church” (you gotta meet!) In pursuing a more missionary lifestyle we still need to meet in some shape or form. How we do that is still an issue.

– Foolish idealism (we can create the perfect church!!) Very few of these folks go the distance. Starting a new missional community is too disappointing for them.

– A lack of genuine working models – there still aren’t too many in our city and it’d be great to have a few more gutsy pioneers put their hand to the plough and make it happen.

– The Bitch Factor (its very easy to de-construct”) No explanation needed really…

– The kids/youth? (if its important enough for us”) Always a struggle for any group under 100 strong, but I’m not convinced we need to be as concerned as we sometimes are.

– Fluffy evangelism (Jesus of the cross?) relational evangelism can sometimes be evangelism by osmosis. You need to speak up at some point and make some truth claims.

– Sustainability (the mission / meeting balance) We are still figuring out how to get the balance right in a busy suburban life.

Biblical literacy – in a mission team where people are expected to ‘feed themselves’, rather than coming to slurp from the trough each Sunday, reality they often don’t…

I guess there is a little overlap here with Don’s critique.

Anyway…

This post is already long enough!

So for those who can see my blind spots feel free to arc up and leave a comment about what you feel we can learn from Don.

I’d be interested to see how you feel my own critique lines up with Don’s… or maybe its just time to kiss this one goodnight and get on with the job…

When Don sat down it was morning tea and then my turn…

What follows is a rough outline of my notes. (I’m not normally too rigid with notes, but with only 15 minutes to respond I wanted to make sure I used them well.)

It seemed appropriate to begin with some humour. Laughter is a great way to ease a crowd, especially a mob of ‘theologians’. So I compared the following two blog posts as an intro. it took 3 minutes of my allocated 15 to do this, but I think it was time well spent.

I’m not sure if I fit”

Purgatorio – you might be emerging if”

Backyardmissionary – you TOO might be emerging if”

Am I part of the emerging church?

If I define myself by the caricatures on Purgatorio then probably not…

I’m a tad old and boring and bland to be a funky hip post-modern church leader.

And yet I am here today because I do find myself for better of worse aligned with the tag of ’emerging church’. I don’t fit the descrip very well!

(Ned Flanders as the ‘evangelical’ rep!)

The thing is I don’t think I fit the description in Don’s book very well either. I don’t know many in the Aussie emerging missional church who do.

In fact if I did I would be concerned.

(If I did then I think some of you would have had some fierce arguments with me by now!)

1. My own struggle with the term

Those who know me would know that I haven’t always sat comfortably with the term ’emerging church’, because it has such different meanings around the world and I don’t want to sign on to some of those definitions.

If it’s the next clever trick out of America to make your church grow then I sign off now.

In Oz we choose to use the term ’emerging missional church’ to emphasise the focus of our attention – the recovery of a missionary identity in the west.

I often use the tag ‘experimental church’ because we see ourselves as pioneering, innovating and experimenting. Some of what we do will succeed, some will fail and we need to be ok with that. At Forge we often refer to ourselves as the R & D arm of the church.

When I am asked what I am doing in Brighton – my own context – my response is usually to say I am leading a missionary team, who are seeking to plant new church communities in the local area and my dream is that we will have many small churches scattered all round the community populated by people who would otherwise not participate in church life.

Our (upstream) closest parallel may be the crowded house movement in Sheffield UK. (Note: ironically Steve Timmis – leader of Crowded House is a close friend of Don’s…)

2. Deviation from Orthodoxy?

If this really were the ’emerging missional church’ then I would be concerned too and I would not want my name associated with it. However if there are even 5% of churches in Oz that fit this mould then I would be surprised (and I am very familiar with the scene.)

The discussion in Australia has rarely turned to re-theologising, (at a foundational level) but has revolved around shaping a missional ecclesiology, rediscovering what it means to be the church in what is now undeniably a missionary context.

When Don’s book was published the Forge crew in Australia produced a response: Let me just read to you two paragraphs from that document:

(Caveat: Forge does not speak for all of EC in Oz any more than ‘Emergent’ speaks for the EC in other parts of the world… yes it is tricky!)

With regard to theological basis –

“We believe that the missiological agenda is best supported by a clearly framed theological approach that prioritises evangelism as part of an active, holistic, mission engagement in our world. As such we fully affirm the Lausanne Covenant as the theological basis for Forge and lovingly affirm the church as the primary agency for God’s mission.”

With regard to focus:

Forge remains theologically funded by an orthodox theology whilst being committed to a radical missiology based on innovating church and mission in the post-Christendom West. The predominant issues for us remain the pursuit and recovery of a full-orbed biblical Christology which in turn will fund our missiology which then informs all subsequent ecclesiology.

We are simply seeking to recover the same classic missionary principles that have guided our overseas missionaries for years now and apply them to the western context.

So we would affirm Don’s concern that we continue to build a movement on the foundations of orthodoxy and faithfulness to the scriptures.

One of the authors quoted in Don’s book is Spencer Burke, also the author of ‘A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity’. Recently Spencer sent me a copy of his book to review on my blog as a way of gaining exposure and interaction.

Spencer calls himself a universalist who believes in Hell – which to me seems an oxymoron – (not unlike a Baptist who believes in change – or a Sydney Anglican with a sense of humour) – and advocates a movement from religion to spirituality with what he calls ‘mystical responsibility’ as the final destination. He questions how we can know anything for sure (an issue Don covers in his book very well – where he writes about knowing truly without knowing omnisciently) and in discussing the issue of salvation pays minimal attention to the place of the cross.

My reviews are online on my blog. You will find that I do not agree with Spencer on many issues and I am more than happy to say so. That said I was impressed with Spencer’s willingness to engage with Scot Mcknight re the content of his book. (Don did mention why he doesn‘t comment on blogs – but more on that later)

FWIW I am not worried that most here will believe me a heretic because of Don’s book – those who know me certainly won’t – but I am concerned that those who are new to the area will accept the word of a respected theologian over and above a local missionary they do not know personally. And I am concerned for the shadow his book may cast over those seeking to experiment and explore new ways of being church and doing mission.

Given our unwavering commitment to orthodox theology I am disappointed that many of us are portrayed as questionable in this area.

3. Which makes me wonder if the book ought to be retitled

It would seem that the conclusions Don arrives at are based on the writings of Brian McClaren primarily, as well as Spencer Burke, Steve Chalke, Robert Webber, Dan Kimball and Len Sweet. There may be one or two others.

My understanding – (please correct me if wrong) – is that there was no actual face to face interaction with emerging church leaders or interaction with specific ’emerging churches’.

The sample group for research were the writings of a limited number of texts which may or may not have been read accurately. (At this point I was ‘gonged’ giving me 3 minutes to wind up my talk. I wanted to address some issues related to B Mc but just didn’t have the time…)

As well as being limited to the writings of Americans (Chalke excepted) it does not explore the variety of nuances of the Emerging church around the world. It seems to define what is happening around the world by what is happening in America. This is problematic.

Would American evangelicals feel comfortable if a book was written critiquing evangelicalism based on the views of Phillip Jensen?

So I am raising a serious question as to the research methodology. Is it fair to review the writings of a few and then apply them worldwide?

Is that good practice?

Given that Don’s critiques do not resonate at all well with us, I would think not.

I wonder if a more accurate title might be ‘Becoming Conversant with Brian MaClaren, Steve Chalke and others’

4. Regarding the question of whether we accomodate post-modernism or confront it.

Not everyone is down on propositional truth. In fact I don’t think I know too many EC Aussies who would dismiss propositional truth at all. A more humble approach to scripture is not a denial of its truth, simply a recognition that we do not know completely.

Our primary concern – as with all missionaries – has been how to live in the culture and yet not embrace its negative aspects.

Our own church name ‘Upstream Communities‘ was arrived at after believing that our core task was to make disciples and to call people to swim against the flow while living in society.

(I skipped over this bit up to the ‘conclusion’ as I was short of time)

As we engage with people we do risk syncretism – but we are already syncretistic and I believe we kid ourselves if we think we are untainted by our context. We just don’t see it as well.

I like Paul’s words in the message:

1Co 9:19 Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people:

1Co 9:20 religious, nonreligious,

1Co 9:21 meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists,

1Co 9:22 the defeated, the demoralized–whoever. I didn’t take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ–but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I’ve become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life.

1Co 9:23 I did all this because of the Message. I didn’t just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it!

Ironically we don’t speak a lot of the whole post-modern deal over here. It was talked about 5-10 years ago, but it doesn’t seem to be the primary issue. We just accept that this is the world we live in and get on with it.

Conclusion

In conclusion I would like to think we are as concerned for biblical fidelity as I am sure Don Carson is concerned for seeing the gospel transform our world.

We may come at these questions from different angles and that may shape our understandings and perceptions.

We need each other and we need to listen to each other. We need quality biblical scholars to help us read the Bible more effectively and we need earthy on the ground missionaries who can keep the scholars honest.

———–

I was disappointed that the time went so fast!

I had so much I would have loved to say, but finished up really just defending the turf of ECers here in Oz. A large part of my concern with what Carson had to say was related to the fact that I don’t know any theologically aberrant ECers, but the book seemed to suggest they were the norm.

In part III I’ll try and remember what my good mate Geoff Westlake had to say because he was sensational and spoke with great clarity and conviction.

I am often asked by people observing us in Brighton, ‘where are the runs on the board? Where are the results of your ministry?’

Coming up shortly we have a Forge event where we will be addressing that specific question.

The format for the morning will see 4 practitioners given 10 minutes each to share how they answer that question, followed by 10 minutes of interaction and then a longer open question time at the very end. We will hear from:

Geoff Westlake – community development approach to mission

Jarrod McKenna – mission among the poor and marginalised

Stuat Wesley – mission in an established setting

Andrew Hamilton – incarnational church plant in suburbia

I thought I’d share with you one of my responses to that question.

The picture above is a graph of my own faith journey. The X axis is my sense of commitment to Christ (yes – measured very subjectively) and the Y axis is time.

I did this exercise with my Mission and Culture class recently (getting them to graph their journey of faith) and the results were interesting. Most of us raised in a Christian family started the line above the ‘zero’ mark, (I am still wondering if that is a biblical understanding) but at some point realised we were not following Jesus. There was some form of ‘conversion’ (how you see that is another issue) and then some ups and downs afterwards.

Now here’s the issue.

In most of my experience, the only place where we record ‘runs on the board’ is at the moment of conversion – the ‘hot spot’. The rest does not show up on our charts and denominational statistics.

But…

BUT…

BUT…

Does that mean that the rest does not count?

‘No no no… no one would say that Andrew!’

In my experience the stuff that goes on pre-conversion (even if there is no ‘conversion’) is every bit as important as what happens at that point and afterwards, but it is rarely considered in that light.

When much of a missionary’s time is spent in preparing the ground or ‘sowing’ and there is yet to be a harvest, the natural response seems to be to say ‘there is no fruit’ or ‘there are no runs on the board’, but is that the right answer?

How do you measure ‘runs on the board’?