Wednesday 2 August 2006

Lairg in the sun..Emergent church


Lairg in the sun ...


The future of the church including in Scotland will be heavily influenced by the "emergent church", whose growth is substantial in America.

It would be good if viewers could check out the writing of Richard Foster and Dallas Willard who are indirectly quoted as linked to this emergent church. It is no doubt because they hope for a community that is God centered and not overly religious for the sake of being religious.

Mark your diary today for looking back in the future the emergent church is on its way. Are you tempted to find out with a google search?



22 comments:

Dave Lynch said...

Hi Brian,

As someone who has benn involved in Emergent, read all the stuff, and was the first to have an 'emergent' church north of Edinburgh as far as I know can I just say that it is not the answer.

It is already forming into a denomination, it will be dead within 5 years, though sadly by then the mainline churches will be buying into it, ie; you will be able to buy a 5 steps to emergent.

Interesting to know what DBC think of it, they rejected it it when I started speaking about it and rejected what I wanted to do, (I was in the same thought process as Willard et al)they ultimately rejected the ministry I wanted to develop saying that the whole 'emergent' thing has no roots etc and is not very sound.

To be honest the church you are in at Lairg is fairly emergent, by that I mean we have to be what our community needs. If that is black ties and hats then that is emergent, not much good presenting a VJ sermon via Mac laptops to a group in Rogart!!

That is the trouble though, people will think you have to do AB and C to be emergent, and they will think that emergent is a great panacea for the church, its not, and ultimately will leave people feeling even more dispondent, oh well, thats my 3 cents for you.

Brian Robertson said...

Dave
Thanks

"First to have An emergent church"
I would be interested to know what are the hallmarks of your church that makes it Emergent.

Is it not the case that the emergent church or a Church -emergent is the only one that can survive if religiousness is to be dumped as worthless?

When new or rediscovered things arrive many want the control of a "denomination to hold it" control it or sustain it.

DBC is certainly needing to look to the future its not the church I left those years ago when I moved south.

It seems to be more "reformed baptist" than it was or how I remember it.

What were you advocating as your " 5 steps" (tongue on cheek) At DBC that they declined or took issue with?

I wish, I had the thought process of Willard!


As for Lairg its early days.
The leadership need to find the direction they want to go in.

At the moment I see it with an alternative to the Highland Presbyterinsm form which may develop a "moderm" worship, but needs like minded people.

AB and C
True, this same way in Scotland in the 70s when "renewal" came around.
"Lets can it and let it out now and again." Buzz words etc....

The church is about discipleship not buildings or even Westminster confessions, creeds or constitutions.

A Spiritual formation!

Check out renovare at the side.

regards

Brian

Dave Lynch said...


I would be interested to know what are the hallmarks of your church that makes it Emergent.


I think because of the stuff I was reading and recommending there were many who said 'you sound like an emergent church', and to be honest I rode with the tag for some time. The thing was that my thought process had changed two years earlier and I found that what a lot of the emergent guys were saying was the same as I had been thinking and beginning to apply.
That is why our services are more discussion based and though ordered, it seems more organic.

Is it not the case that the emergent church or a Church -emergent is the only one that can survive if religiousness is to be dumped as worthless?

I think if we dump religion as worthless, as all religion is unless it is true religion, then we will find ourselves in an arena that we are not used to, from there I believe we evolve into the form that the Spirit knows will work for the body that is gathered.

When new or rediscovered things arrive many want the control of a "denomination to hold it" control it or sustain it.

Yes, the Philistines learnt that lesson when they tried to contain God in the Ark before Dagon

DBC is certainly needing to look to the future its not the church I left those years ago when I moved south.

I knew and still do know what DBC needs, but the point about control above, coupled with bad choices in the past has left them in a wilderness, there is a way back though. It was that I was trying to bring, but hey, more of that by email or when we next meet.

I wish, I had the thought process of Willard!

You do! Maybe you just do not see it yet, and you need like minded people to stimulate your reasoning, and by that I mean people who are willing, and who you are willing, to let challenge your structures.


As for Lairg its early days.
The leadership need to find the direction they want to go in.


They also need to know that they have the gifts to be all that God has purposed for them, and not too look for some big name to come and do it for them.


The church is about discipleship not buildings or even Westminster confessions, creeds or constitutions.

Amen, confessions, creeds etc are good and right, but they are always to be subject to the Lordship of Christ and following Him. I often check the Renovare site, thanks for the reply by the way, we must meet up soon.

Peace

Dave

Brian Robertson said...

Dave,

I have observed over the years that when something that looks new comes around there is two stances.

1 Control keep things as they were.
2 Got to move on to discover the freshness of the moment.

In a church setting there is a need to have both types of people for stability and for moving on. Thats the faith bit.

For all the plans there needs to be a general acceptance that people will take a certain stand. (spies in Cannan two views).

The important thing after recognising the difference of approach is managing the poles to progress the kingdom. A diserning chairman is so important in the church meeting. Some times the Minister is not the best person.
The chairperson should chair, the minister seek Gods insight from the wings. (Good Baptist principle?) Anyway, The jelling of the two poles makes for a tolerant church much stronger. Conversely where the poles are not recognised there can be fights and division. This message of tolerance is a missing point in churchlife.

Churches seem to think that every one is the same and as we bow to Jesus we all become the same.
This encourages a get in line stance to new things.

Rubbish we follow Jesus to make us more like Him.

We cannot all be the same we would need the same parents born in the same place and at the same time ...we would need the same social background and education and have the same fortune/misfortune and the same career.

Hope we get more input from across the country.

Let the church not hide behind definitions when it comes to moving on emerging or not.

My visit to renovare conference last year in Denver was an eye opener.
In Scotland everything from the states is suspect.

Let me tell you of the church that lost 3,ooo members to get rid of number counting converts and establish a church based on discipleship.!...which has a 6,000 membership now!
...We await the next bit.

Dave Lynch said...

I have observed over the years that when something that looks new comes around there is two stances.
1 Control keep things as they were.
2 Got to move on to discover the freshness of the moment.
In a church setting there is a need to have both types of people for stability and for moving on. Thats the faith bit.


Not sure why we need both types of people, I know Peter and the Gentile question was a point 1 person, so were the Pharisees as Jesus moved through their experience. People often fall into the trap of seeing new, fresh and movement as unstable. Sadly it is the desire to control and maintain a status quo that is unstable, for it is built upon shaky foundations. Following Jesus Christ is a movement not an organisation, and simply put, a movement is always that - movement!


The important thing after recognising the difference of approach is managing the poles to progress the kingdom. A diserning chairman is so important in the church meeting. Some times the Minister is not the best person. The chairperson should chair, the minister seek Gods insight from the wings. (Good Baptist principle?) Anyway, The jelling of the two poles makes for a tolerant church much stronger. Conversely where the poles are not recognised there can be fights and division. This message of tolerance is a missing point in churchlife.

A discerning chairman is good, but maybe this reveals a business and safety net thought process. The minister should be the best person, if he is not then why is he the minister? I think that you are to reliant on 'good baptist principle' :) Why would we need a chair to 'jell the poles' if we all have the same goals, and everyone submits to one another. Most people say that this is not possible because you are dealing with people, but why does the church always live with second best, total unity is possible.

Churches seem to think that every one is the same and as we bow to Jesus we all become the same. This encourages a get in line stance to new things. Rubbish we follow Jesus to make us more like Him. We cannot all be the same we would need the same parents born in the same place and at the same time ...we would need the same social background and education and have the same fortune/misfortune and the same career.

We are all unique, and that is why we need to let people grow by the work of the Spirit and not by our forcing, sadly this is not how most churches work.


Let me tell you of the church that lost 3,ooo members to get rid of number counting converts and establish a church based on discipleship.!...which has a 6,000 membership now!


This is interesting, especially in the light of 'jelling the two poles'. Surely this would make a weaker church, as you yourself say The jelling of the two poles makes for a tolerant church much stronger Sadly Brian everything is number based nowadays, whenever people ask about our church they ask 'how many go', that is how we measure, I normally tell them about 50 attend. Even last night at the DBC bible club thing (very good by the way) three members came up and told me 'how many' children attended each night. We really need to drop this insanity!!

By the way the thought of belonging to a 6000 number church fills me with horror. I remember in the Navy how easy it was to turn our slim and lightweight frigate in time of war or rescue, compare that to moving a supertanker, phew...no thanks.

Brian Robertson said...

Dave

I am enjoying the process of chewing over our thoughts. If only others would consider rather than just accept want they have been told (right or wrong).

It is proof of a shift that in America the re- "emergence" of a close following of CS Lewis has been revived- A thinker!.


"Not sure why we need both types of people..."

I know we dont categorise people although many do label. I think the two poles of Church people are a God send for a health stable/unstable dependence in God.

Good that we can agree to disagree on the who should lead the church meeting.


"Let me tell you of the church that lost 3,ooo members to get rid of number counting converts and establish a church based on discipleship.!...which has a 6,000 membership now!"


I herad of two (first hand) situations one in CA where the Church leaders were asking the Minister to "keep serving up the same" because there were converts each week which aligned with the Church targets.( I see you gringe already)The minister over time was convicted that what was happening was not really the right activity to expand and grow the kingdom into maturity.

When he tackled the leadership after some reflective time -he was convinced that after some rest the church should seek a new direction. This was a Willow Creek type seeker church. During the process of considering the change he found himself on his own but sure that the reconsideration would be of benefit in the long term to the kingdom. With the new approach many left and as he presented the possible change to the church he said it was like taking a large aircraft carrier and turning it right around. Interesting picture and certainly unstable. (parellel to converstion).They went through the shift to a Spiritual Formation church. Dallas Willards books and study material was used and he had given some direction during this time of change. The church grew and is now bigger than it was before the turnround ( numbericaly) but the formation of the church is group based discipleship. I assume the targets ...went overboard so to speak. I took lengthy notes about the change but this is not the platform.

The points that impressed registered with me were.

deconstruct
Need not to feed the monster of ambition and consumerism
A need not to just serve it up.
New life in Psalm singing and vespers!

If God did not show would we know?

Gospel more than an invitation not to die!
Resource shift from production to spiritual formation.


The church needed to have the desire to be "Spiritual Formation."

One thing to have a vision the another to want to go that way!

Oh for God seeking leaders to point the direction to a closer walk with God.


B

Philip Magee said...

totally agree with two poles being healthy for any kind of church/church plant. Naturally human will resist change - it is in our nature. Not to acknowlege this, means that we are just living in a dream world! Just because there are two poles doesnt mean that churches dont move forward with fresh & new ideas!

Philip Magee said...

"Some times the Minister is not the best person. The chairperson should chair, the minister seek Gods insight from the wings. (Good Baptist principle?)"

Havent seen this practiced very often? Brian, have you seen this in any of your churches?
It is definetly a good thing that pastors are released from this ex officio role that they often have and frees them up to share the vision from the floor and therefore give a better lead.
But this means that whoever you choose as chairman has to be impartial and this often difficult to find.

Dave Lynch said...

Brian I am becoming a slave to your blog!! Just good to see some local bloggers...one question I have for you and Phil, genuine because I may be missing something, now remember this is not a major point, it is unproveable but I am interested...Phil said totally agree with two poles being healthy for any kind of church/church plant.

Do you know of any NT examples of this in action, the only one that springs to mind is the Paul vs Jewish question, though ultimately Paul got his way (Gods way)...any others??

Brian Robertson said...

Do you know of any NT examples of this in action, the only one that springs to mind is the Paul vs Jewish question, though ultimately Paul got his way (Gods way)...any others??

Friday, 04 August, 2006

Dear Dave & slaves

I observe that most personalities are either Reactionary or proactive.

These types are seen in business and most walks of life. and in the Church

Perhaps Paul was proactive and Barnabus was a reactionary person.
...and that had an impact on the work continuing in different ways.


I think there are triggers in our make up that "defend" situatiions when we are threatened. Perhaps its a genes thing going back to the hunter.

Then there are the times when , sometimes in desperation when people want to step out,faith based or not to a new thing.

At different times in church life one can see the need for a stability of establishing and a time for moving on. The church needs different "personalities" for different times.

Jerimiah could not have handled Goliath.

Nehimiah would not have coped with Paul's ministry.

Its wonderful how God does mange to use us in the situations we are in.

Sometimes it looks like he could use no other!

For such a time as this....

Think about a church calling a minister.

Often its simply.- is he a good preacher?

Is he a teacher is he a pastor.
( She)

The best preachers will no doubt get the best Churches. Denominations need to watch this. Often if the best preachers went to the more challenging areas.- There would be real growth.

In my humble opinion.
it works like this

What is the vision for the Church.

Who can help us move this forward.
Call that person.

He may not be the best preacher but what about the other skills.

If a church wants to get in the community, find some one with the experience in that field??

Vocation calling is paramount.

and how about expanding the "traditional" model 5 fold ministry

Apostle, prophet evangelist pastor and teacher. ( no order)

let me quote from The passionate church Breen and Kallestad.


As pastors we understand the turmoil church leaders are dealing with today. For the past decade it has become apparent that the modern church models and methods are no longer effective. High control/low accountability church leadership systems are not working.
The preoccupation of programmes property and products is missing the mark.

We know you want to see real-change in your people and to see the church grow. We know you want your church to make a difference in your community and in the world. \Jesus showed us the way in his teaching to his disciples 2,000 years ago. Its the only way.

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion, I'm late to it, but would like to join in.

I agree that you need to look at far more than "are they a good preacher" when looking at calling a pastor, but if already know what your church's vision is before calling him, then you have probably got a church that can lead itself without calling a man in from outside. What I mean is, you will have a person or people who have a vision of where they want the church to go; others have the ability/leadership/charisma to unite the church behind them in this vision; there is the ability and authority to teach to get this vision understood by the church (uniting the two poles in the language of this thread); and probably most important, you have a church ready and willing to be led there. Why call in a pastor from outside? If you need a full time minister, call one of the elders. I would suggest that any church with all the above qualities will have godly elders, or they would not have got to the point of being united in their vision.

Brian Robertson said...

Dinsy

Hi, Are you take a stance like John Glas - use the resources there God will provide.
Glas would not use "Learned people" (those who had done divinity at Uni etc)

The Glassite church had some great innovative ways- Love feast washing feet, more than one elder.

Amazing that it would be 240 years old if it still existed!.

Some things are not new under the sun.

What about the church that does not have the gifts /person?

Israel drew on David to fight Goliath. Nehimiah went back with a burden for the people to build the walls.

What about the settlers and pioneers mentioned later in this blog......?

I await ....
b

Philip Magee said...

I suppose as well as it being a "Glasite" approach, it is brethen styled thing.

My feeling is from observation and speaking to folks - appointing someone within seldom works. It often destroys perfectly good relationships. It can get a bit like Jesus was when he was ministering in narzareth. He was unable to miracles there. Also people were going about saying "isnt that the man from Nazareth"
Brian is right that small churches would not normally neccessary have these kind of gifts within the fellowship.
Suppose where there has been an assistant Pastor he sometimes becomes senior pastor. Again often he may well have come from outside in the first place.
There is no reason that any incoming pastor cannot catch the vision and run with it with the other leaders and the rest of the church.

Dave Lynch said...

It would appear that the NT practice was to appoint someone from within, why do we think we can do it better. What about Moses and Joshua, or Jesus and the disciples, or Paul and Timothy, they never advertised for someone 'new' to join them. Appointing from within would only destroy 'good' relationships if those relationships were built on something other than unity in the Spirit. Getting a new man is often a way for differing factions to play to the new man, gaining his favour.
It also means that the gifts in the existing fellowship are not fully explored, people are overlooked, become despondent and leave, it smacks of hirelings to me, and is partly the reason for the current state of the church. People should be committed to churches for life, that includes elders, pastors and deacons, if there is noone to take over in certain areas it is shame on the current leadership, at what point to the people become teachers, or do they remain as babes forever.
Not sure what the 'Nazareth' verse is, but I don't think it reflects on this discussion, lets face it how many pastors perform miracles, whether in their home town or any other.
If the churches do not have the gifts within then we serve a deficient God and a Holy Spirit that can no longer lead a people. Sorry guys to sound so harsh about all this but I am tired, in my own experience I have to say that there is not one established church in Dingwall that even closely resembles a NT gathering, the Kingdom is nowhere to be seen and the life of the Spirit is all but departed. This is partly because people refuse to come to the living God because he does not suit their plan for church building, and to be honest as long as we have a mindset that is just passed down from others, instead of discovering Jesus for ourselves, then we will continue a sad and defeated church in the eyes of the world and the devil.
The witness in Dingwall is now so dim that we need to do something real soon, I know for I have visited every church in this town on many occasions, and have been faced with attitudes from 'Gods' people in churches and colleges, lay people and ministers, that is frankly abhorrent and has no part in the Kingdom of God.
Brian, sorry to rant all over your blog, but just how precious is Jesus Christ to us...I wonder?

Philip Magee said...

Just looking back on some of these posts & Brian said a number of posts go:

"If God did not show would we know?
Gospel more than an invitation not to die!
Resource shift from production to spiritual formation.
The church needed to have the desire to be "Spiritual Formation."

Striking in this post that none so far desire to produce a church of many numbers but rather of first importance is the "Spiritual formation" Is the church family and those who make up the family growing in Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Brian, never heard of the Glassite church, but I have to say, some of it sounds good to me. I've got nothing against "learned people" as long as learning is not placed higher in the list of requirements than practical ability to minister, (eg. proud of their learning for its own sake; too full of scholarship to shepherd a flock who almost certainly won't all be "learned" themselves; too highly trained to consider that they may be wrong; etc). There certainly are "learned" people like this. On the whole, I would rather have humble, thoughtful and questioning people than people who are either learned or dull, and not humble.

If a church doesn't have the resources to pastor itself, then I think that calls into question the ability or committment of the previous incumbent to "grow" his flock (the bit in Hebrews about how they should all be teachers, but instead need to keep going back to the basic stuff comes to mind). Perhaps also, the detecting and fostering of gifts within the fellowship has been neglected.

In your example of David, he was a jew, he wasn't being brought in from outside. He had faith in God and did the task set before him. His brothers were part of the army, and presumably he would have been also when he was older. I think this is more of an example for my position than against it. (I will grant that he wasn't a regular part of the army however).

Nehemiah went to a people demoralised and pretty nearly helpless to do anything for themselves. This is not the scenario you first gave, where the fellowship were described as having a vision of where they wanted to go, and were united in it. If your fellowship in question genuinely does not have the gifts within then of course it has to go outside to look for them, but I think that should be a last resort, and only where God has witheld such gifts/abilities. I do believe that God will meet all our genuine needs if we honour, love and follow his ways, I think providing leadership from within a group is a genuine need. If God was not meeting the need for leadership within a fellowship that I was part of, the first thing I would want my fellowship to do would be to examine itself and see where we were failing God, to see if through prayer, and repentance, we could put that right. Then the need would be for someone to teach us better, to lead us and to grow us, before we started pursuing any other vision for the fellowship.

Not sure what you mean by the reference to settlers and pioneers, I've been a bit short of time for reading new threads the last couple of days, maybe I'll catch up on it later.

Phil, I can't see why calling someone from within the group to lead should destroy relationships, unless human egos allow it (an "I'm not going to be led by him" mentality). Even if you don't particularly like someone, and we can't all like all our pastors and ministers, if we do not have biblical grounds to object to them (false teaching, openly sinful lifestyle, unable to keep confidential matters confidential, proud, arrogant, hypocritical etc) then we should accept them with good grace. If God has bestowed gifts upon someone, then allowing a relationship with the person to be broken just because that puts them in a certain position is seriously dodgy behaviour in my opinion.

I've no idea about how the bretheren organise themselves. I don't think the thing about Jesus in Nazareth works as an example here, because he was not being appointed from within a fellowship to continue to lead them on a path which they had already been following. Jesus was doing something new, he was not in the position of an elder being called to minister. Rather it appears that he went from full time carpenter to full time preacher, healer, prophet, miracle worker - in short, Messiah. It is not that surprising that his neighbours had trouble realising this.

It is true that there is no reason why an incoming pastor cannot take on the vision of the church, but why not go with "home grown" if you have been gifted with them? It seems ungracious to reject God's gifts.

Anonymous said...

Hi Yall,(Brian & Dave )Just to set a few things straight, I hope, bearing in mind the limitations of blogs. Brian, you were right to say that DBC is not the church you left 6yrs ago how could it be if it were it would be dead.

You say elsewhere that DBC seems more reformed, I would hope that DBC is constantly looking at reforming and reforming as a result. Is there a church that has stayed the same since the reformation ?I don't want DBC to remain static I want it to be relevant and that means constantly looking at how we do things. DBC has come under imense attack in its short life this for me is a sure sign that it is doing Gods work.
DBC was right to reject the emergent thing, as Dave has already said it is "not the answer"(What was the question?). For what its worth I believe that small is beautiful and that when a church gets to a certain size it should realy look to foster smaller working groups that work within that church Dave has given me some really good ideas on pastoral work which I hope to use . I believe that both yourself and Dave have roles to play within DBC as DBC develops. I see team work in churches more important than ever. I hope that DBC can help both of your churches in any way it can. That is what we should be working toward while keeping the love of Christ in our hearts.

Everytime someone leaves DBC for whatever reason it suffers a loss, every time someone joins it rejoices, ultimately it is up to God who leaves and who joins, and we have to accept his will and move on. It has been said that DBC is in the wilderness well that is only an opinion and in any case when the Israelites were in the wilderness God was with them day and night even in their rebelion.

DBC is a miracle of God how else would it have survived so many key people leaving the way it has done. On the issue of appointing from within or outwith, it really is not important, what is important is that it is Gods man for the job. If someone from within should step forward and gain aproval that that would be great. If not, then that should be recognised and acted upon. What we have to recognise also is God's soveriegn will in all of these things.

I have learned a great deal from the people in DBC and they have been a blessing to me. My prayer is that God will bless them with the best possible pastor to take them forward. For all its faults DBC deserves no less and no more that that.

Some of the dicussions on these blogs are very interesting and its good to see them taking place. I would like to see these disciussions take place over a cup of tea. I wish you both well as you go about Gods work I believe he took you both out of DBC for very good reasons. I believe you have both developed as a result and Gods kindom will enlarge as a result.

Keep blogin


Peter

Brian Robertson said...

Hi Peter
Glad you can joion us. I was thinking we should try and separate out some of the the thoughts as they are now intermingled. I will try and start new entries.
b

Philip Magee said...

Good to see you here Peter & encouraging to read your post.

Dave Lynch said...

DBC was right to reject the emergent thing, as Dave has already said it is "not the answer"

When I said it is not the answer, that response came from many many hours, over 18 months, meeting with National emergent leaders, phone calls, reading and listening to many podcasts. The reason it was not the answer was simply because my position and thought process was already where the emergent churches are. DBC rejected it without making any enquires and over the space of just a couple of weeks and without any discussion. I think churches like DBC could learn a lot from the thoughts of people like Willard and McManus.

Brian Robertson said...

Dear slaves to the Blog

While the context of stuff for the Church in the Highlands will be affected by previous church involvement, Please as a kindness try and keep to the contextual questions and where appropriate think of other readers who may not have read fully and ..therefore pick up the wrong stick.

There is a need for open discussion i have a concern that browers might not read the whole concept of our discussion and have certainly not read the Vision and Mission statament.

Vision & Mission
::Vision::

A Highland community engaged in full worship and praise and the Church developing into maturity. ::Mission::

To act as a revival catalyst to the church in developing worship and praise in an appropriate way relative to the Highlands

Appologies to regular viewers.

Thank you.

There is something with in the spirit of man that is suspect.(No surprises here then) Some have concerns when a new thing is presented (is there anything new under the sun?)

It could be threatening ignorance and many more aspectsd past hurts selfish ambition you name it. The settlers in a church want to settle. So dont rock the boat.
The pioneers want the change to re- discover to move on to enter a new phase so get moving.

One can see that in praise.

Those who want the new songs those who want the old songs.

Now the way forward in my humble opinion is the coming together to say brother sister you have a natural bent to settling or pioneering I have a inclination towards"X" lets work together to the benefit of the kingdom.

Is that another look at the mission of the people going out in twos. One supports the other.?

I am more convinced that if the church recognised the Pioneers and Settlers then it would change lots of the way we react to things in a prasctical way.!

B

Brian Robertson said...

Spelling is a problem today!