In my recent studies, I am becoming familiar with various organizational learning (OL) models. One of the models that caught my attention is referred to as the “pure emergent” strategy, which lies at the other end of the spectrum from the “pure deliberate” strategy. An emergent strategy does not begin with any presumptions or “planned strategy.” It suggests that patterns and structures can take form in the absence of intentional strategy. It suggests that most of what is learned in an organization happens outside of the formal teaching models, and occurs in informal settings.
In church, we usually come to the worship service with a strategy. We may have a formal order of worship written in the bulletin, or we may only have it as a strategy that has taken form and is fixed in our ritual or our liturgy. Pentecostals often claim freedom from ritualistic religion, and yet most follow the same predictable pattern. The emergent strategy argues that these strategies form learning boundaries that inhibit or restrict learning to fit within the received framework.
We do this with our interpretation of Scripture, which is why Baptists and Pentecostals differ while both claim to be representing the same book, and both claim the inerrancy of Scripture, but neither claim that they are in error. What if we were to read the Bible without having to fit it into a Declaration of Faith or an Apostle’s Creed? What if we approached the Scriptures with a hungry heart, an open mind, and a seeking spirit? Are we allowed to learn things that lay outside the framework handed down from the Church Fathers?
What if a church gathered to worship God without expecting God to fit our formula? Is it possible to be the church and allow the liberty of the Spirit to direct the ebb and flow of a service? We claim that this is what we do, but such claims are empty in the light of most prefabricated forms and timetables.
If the emergent church is truly going to emerge, then it is going to take more than sitting in a circle and claiming that we are no longer following a hierarchical structure. It is going to take more than employing the arts and deriding traditionalism. It is going to take people with the courage to welcome the move of God on His terms, in His time, and as He wills. It is going to take leaders who are willing to challenge the received text of tradition and allow the Holy Spirit to speak in new tongues to a new generation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dr. Hardgrove, in light of your education an denomenation ties, what do you feel is the best for your church? I agree that the emergent theory has relevance. Considering the moral derailing of society, it's imperative that the COG step up to the plate and, without desecrating the foundation, change the scene for the church. Kind of a functional necessary remodel, if you will. But where does that fit at CCOG? And how do you think that plays into the most important dynamic in a church -- the people? Young(er) people definitely can be reached by emergent strategies, but what about the older generations? How do you bridge that gap?
Good questions. I am not necessarily a proponent of the emergent church. I was simply sharing some of what I learned about the emergent learning model. However, I do think that we tend to bring too many preconceptions, to much "a priori" thinking with us into our Bible study and our worship experiences. As such, we limit our ability to learn and to see God do a "new thing" because what He is ready to do does not fit our old paradigms. Jesus called this the "traditions of men" (Mk. 7:8).
I don't think the future for the COG is the direction hat L. Sweet and McManus want to go. But I do think there is more and because we have the COG blinders on we may be missing some awesome opportunities.
I have never had a difficult time working with older members. I began my ministry in a nursing home and I'll probably end it there. But there are many ways that a church can minister to both generations if we can get past the the recieved tradition of how to do church. For example, multiple services, multiple campuses, blended worship, small groups, and focused staff ministry. That is the point. There is no "one way" to do it. The emergent learning model would not give you an answer, but ask you to release your mind to find your own answers. Furthermore, I believe this can be done while we remain committed to the COG. I am very committed to the COG and it is for this reason that I challenge the church to find the liberty of the Spirit that we talk and preach about. Make it a reality and not just a doctrine.
Thanks for being so candid. I agree with you that the future of the COG is not emergent, but I do that some of the core to emergent theory (the simplest premise that people are tired of watching leaders preach one thing and live another) is addressed. Upon further review, I can see that your church does "expand its borders" to facilitate that. God Bless.
I believe the emergent church is very dangerous. The postmodernism it embraces is very much against biblical Christianity and there is very little that we can learn from it. I encourage you to read THE TRUTH WAR by Dr. John MacArthur.
Seeking Disciple, I don't know what emergent writers you've read or listened to, but to be fair to them, it is not always a matter of "embracing" the postmodern culture, as much as it is acknowledging that this is where this generation is, and then creating a evangelistic approach and worship experience that reaches them. Living in denial of the postmodern reality will not change it.
I do not personally embrace much of what the emergent model proposes, but I believe I can learn something from them. If you don't, then that's your call for your ministry, but I'd hesitate to make blanket statements about everyone who is sincerely endeavoring to be relevant to this generation. I'm not for the emergent movement, or against it. At this point I remain ambivalent.
Post a Comment