The 18-Month Window

As Presbyterians, we have focused on ourselves, mistakenly believing that our 40-year “decline” was a Presbyterian one. You are right, Phyllis. Our inaction out where it matters was made worse by our preoccupation with ourselves, and now some of us seek a more effective and meaningful experience outside the institution. But others of us are seeking ways to redirect the institutional assets.

How many curriculums, conferences, coaching, and action plans directed us to do something within our “space” without realizing it was almost a narcissistic framing of the problem and our solution that made the situation worse. As a denomination, we missed opportunities to lead a revival of the re-investment of social capital and volunteerism, driven by authentic spiritual energy, and instead, with little reflection, followed the status quo.

18 months will indeed reveal if we can choose swift and decisive realignment of our congregational resources to tangibly benefit the communities we are located in. The institutional model was about preservation. The Emergence model is about incarnation. Our disconnect from the community (world) reduced the community’s connection to us. Instead of merely asking our congregants to bring a friend to the institution, we must ask our “congregants” to re-engage their communities. We need to invite our congregants back into the real world with little need for an institution.

The Church is peculiarly well-suited for this transforming and participatory mandate of re-engaging communities since God has sent the Church into the world, not to be served, but to serve. We can lead our congregations as servants, empowering them to become a Reciprocating Church. A Reciprocating Church is a church that reinvests its experience of God’s love into the world, so that their community knows God loves it, too. A Reciprocating Church will ensure congruence between its congregation and building capacities and by God’s grace, be a healthy and effective demonstration of the Christian gospel in the Church and the world.

Can we turn the institutional into incarnational? The clock is ticking.

I think anyone that doesn’t have their head absolutely buried in their own church has felt, if not actively participated in this ongoing conversation. The time frame itself is not so important as where organized religion decides to take itself.

As more and more organizational units go through their yearly (or whatever) organizational meetings, they will move toward or retreat from this conversation. As the “mother churches” decide what they are, individuals and families will decide if that fills their needs or if they feel compelled to make a move.

The irony will be that there will still be overlap and various levels of adaptation going on. People may choose to stay with a traditional denomination that has actually moved further from its historical roots. Some of the more emergent-ish churches will likely pull back toward more traditional roles.

Just as with all the existing groups that are still identified as denominations and those that have appeared to set a new course, it comes down to individuals. The history of their own journey and what they see as their future journey is more about the particular group of people that are choosing to occupy space and time in each other’s lives than any label that happens to be applied.

Our church could be the poster child.
We are literally in the throes of a last gasp effort by some to return to the 1950s (“We need to hire a youth pastor so that we’ll have more youth.”) and a forward-looking effort by others (“Allowing coffee in the sanctuary is not about the coffee.”)

Phyllis,

Great insights and I am amazed at the buzz this has created.

TheOOZE.TV interview was designed as a discussion starter, so, this is great. The “18 month window” is an opportunity to be as creative, proactive and motivated by love to take action… I wonder if the mainlines let this “window” pass them by – then the opportunity turns into reaction, resistance and fear that will guide their response. This is an invitation to engage and dream…

I don’t think this is a mechanical opportunity. We will not control the opening or closing of this time (and the 18 months is just intuition). OPENING – it has already happened – that is why we are taking about it and people are engaging (many factors – cultural, technical, theological, global…). CLOSING – as we have learned – nothing can remain unchanged and survives. When you want to kill something say “we need to study it more”, “we don’t have all the facts”, “let’s send it to a committee”, and the list goes on… Only you and your community will know how to navigate the possibilities and adjust / evolve for a thriving future. Others (like me and Phyllis) can help challenge you and share form our own journey. But, it is your path that you will need to discover and welcome the challenge of being Jesus in the world you and your community reside in…

I don’t know about the 18 month window of opportunity – but I do know that Jesus operated on the margins and we – in discipleship making – have to get back to the basics.

The era of Christendom is passing (albeit slowly) and that provides us with an opportunity to reassess where we are and what it is that Spirit would have us do

A bit like the churches in Revelation? Let us have ears to hear … and hearts willing to obey.

The 18-Month Window to me expresses that point of intersection between “The Church That Is” and “The Church That Could Be”. Even though we have had years of opportunity to change, to fully embody the people we are called to be, and even though prophets have been telling us this stuff for well over a decade (two, for the globetrotters among us), we are at a moment of contact. A moment in which this stuff seems timely.

The image I have in my head is the solar system. Our orbit and the orbit of Saturn’s mean that we have few points of relative proximity before we continue on. Astronomers have been telling us that Saturn is coming and we ignored them. Then more said something and we took note. Now that Saturn is here, don’t we wish that we had bought telescopes earlier?

The Episcopal Church’s Church Pension Group Calendar September picture/cartoon by The Rev, J. Sidebotham illustrates Phyllis’ points about the institutional church hyphenateds, I think, at least as far as the worship wars are concerned. Two folks (hyphenateds?) are standing in front of a church with a flashy sign:THE EPISCOPLEX. On each side of the front walk, numerous arrow signs are pointing the way to 6 varieties/styles of worship services. One person is saying to the other “This is not your father’s Episcopal Church.”

I think the term for this is chronological snobbery. We all want to be important, to be the hinge of history. As someone who has been excited by and following the emerging church conversation for years, I’m beginning to wonder if we and not the institution are the passing fad.

Phyllis, I respect your erudition and I apologize beforehand because I may be misunderstanding some of your key points.

My understanding is that the institutional christian church, the mainline denominations in particular, are in decline. And not only are they in decline numerically, they are in decline by influence. As an example, many American Anglicans are now looking to the more conservative African bishops for support and direction.

Proportionally, the fastest growing church in America is the Assemblies of God, (10th largest) growing at a 1.81% rate (over twice the growth rate of the Catholic church). The charismatic element of the church in America seems to be on the increase. According to the World Christian Database, there are nearly 80 million renewalists in the United States, including pentecostals, charismatics and neo-charismatics.

We Americans always tend to see the American church as the hub of the action, but we are small in size and diminishing in influence compared to the world church. Numbers are always slippery, however the trends behind the numbers are significant. There are now 200 million Chinese Christians and 380 million African Christians. If present trends continue, by 2025 there will be 633 million Christians in Africa, 640 million in South America, and 460 million in Asia. By 2050, to extrapolate further, only a fifth of the world’s Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. And the overwhelming majority of those are theologically conservative, evangelistic, charismatic believers. A Kenyan scholar says, “the centers of the church’s universality are no longer in Geneva, Rome, Athens, Paris, London, New York, but Kinshasa, Buenos Aires, Addis Ababa and Manila.” According to the World Christian Database, the pentecostal/charismatic movement is now the second-largest and fastest-growing Christian group in the world, behind the Catholic Church, with about 580 million followers. Recently we’ve read of the explosion of Assembly of God based home churches in Cuba. African Episcopalians are now developing church organizations in the United States to reach out to those looking for an alternative.

I have always thought of the church in my city as the Church of Portland which meets at a variety of locations and denominations. Cooperation among evangelical churches in Portland is high and our Foursquare Church works together with the neighboring Catholic and Presbyterian and Conservative Baptist churches to feed the poor, provide school supplies to our neighbors that can’t afford them and volunteer time to re-paint and refurbish local public schools. We sent teams to Mississippi and Louisiana to help with the reconstruction. Yet most of these churches are theologically conservative and quite evangelistic.

Perhaps emergents will infuse some new life in these mainline denominations in the next 18 months though I don’t see them as adding anything substantially new. There just seems to be a pronounced ennui among these historical churches. The rallying cry for more involvement in the community, more social activism honestly sounds like the same old message I heard in the Episcopalian Church I attended years ago and will probably produce the same results.

If emergents refuse to define their belief systems (as LeRon Shults insists) and reject what they view as old paradigms of evangelism, I’m afraid that they may dissappear like the Albigensians who died out in one generation because sex was a sin and they failed to reproduce. But strangely some emergents are able only to envision a future where they dominate, somehow believing in the inevitability of their conversation.

I think Phyllis is just talking about the u.s. church which has been hemorrhaging for decades. Indeed the “majority world” is exploding with Christian faith and church growth – and finds itself more and more disconnected with the Western church whose trends tend to be either toward a marketing, prosperity-preaching growth or else culturally over-acclimated, almost capitulating faith. Part of the shrinkage and disconnect comes from younger generations not finding belonging in the mainline and part of it has to do with lack of evangelism. Yet another part has to do with the more conservative element leaving. All of these play a part. As someone who was “emergent” in sentiment before knowing what emergent was, I find these perplexing.

I don’t know if there is a time window or if emergent is a passing fad, as our mainline establishment perceives it, but I do know that something drastic needs to change because we’re sinking. I am not clear that “emergent” is the answer, nor the megachurch ways (although that is working for some mainlines – but perhaps that too will be a passing fad) nor just being spirit-filled or whatever theology is thought to be the antidote (although I am sympathetic to re-emphasizing the Holy Spirit who’s been on the sidelines way too long). My position right now as a mainline ‘emergent’ is not to do whatever works but to seek God and follow the Holy Spirit’s prompting like Jesus did, seeking change in the US mainline unless I’m rejected… or unless I’m clearly led out. It IS about relationship – with God and each other. May God give us the answers and some semblance of unity and cooperation … and be merciful.

I remember hearing Phyllis speak here in my hometown of Birmingham al. She spoke of Pentecostals, or Charasmatics as if they probably would be the “first plank” in the emerging leadership. I can’t help but read Ricks post above & see the connection. I believe that there are aspects of emergence Christianity that penecostals have emphasized for decades. I also believe that the conversation needs to be more intentional about seeking out these neo-pentamergent- charasmatics (mystics) & engaging them for spiritual insight. For many of us God has been speaking OUTSIDE of scripture for years:)

The fastest growing church in America may be, as Rick says, the Assemblies of God, but it is my understanding that the fastest growing religious identification is “none of the above.” And that’s how I read much of this—the struggle to be “something” rather than nothing, often at the expense of the something we have been before.

At the same time, this conversation seems awfully dualistic for a bunch of postmoderns. Will we be incarnational or institutional; hyphenated or one or the other? I think it has been the goal of the hyphenated, of which I suppose I’m one, to bridge the parts of our hyphenated labels, to recognize that an institutional faith is a barren faith, but that an individualistic one lived outside of community is equally self-serving and unproductive.

As for Africa, Asia, South America, etc., I find those statistics interesting—and some of the stories frankly dismaying—but that is not where I’m called to live my life or practice my faith. The cultural trends here are the opposite of those there, and I find it disingenuous to celebrate trends in one place and decry them somewhere else.

I am not sure about the 18 month window as a critical time for institutional Christianity to decide its fate, Phyllis, but I trust you on it; you are certainly more observant and knowledgable about such things than I am. It seems to me, however, that there are two basic approaches to Christianity (or for that matter religion in general)that take on different forms and expressions within the culture. One puts the emphasis on the system, while the other puts the emphasis on relationship. One is more concerned about getting the doctrine, liturgy, and tradition right; the other is more concerned about treating people right. The one is focused on protection and control—maintaining, preservering, and controlling the system; the other is more focused on transforming persons and communities. All religious systems have a propensity to move in the direction of protection and control. People who aspire for position and power tend to rise to the top of unhealthy religious systems.(This is why we need prophets and reformers; we tend to go to sleep and drift along with the system, until someone, who is willing to bear the wrath of the system, jars us awake, calling us back to what was healthy within the tradition and inspiring us to dream new dreams. This is why we need the conversations and community taking place in the Emergent Village.)I have found that for most Christians these two approaches are more like overlapping circles, rather than separate circles that never touch, though we tend to be oriented toward one approach or the other. The pressing question for individuals and for religious bodies, and if you are right Phyllis, now more than ever, is: Do I care more about getting the doctrines and tradition right or about nurturing holistic relationships, pursuing redemptive justice, and learning how to love? Do I care more about maintaining the system or being part of what Clarence Jordan called the God Movement, the kingdom of God on earth, joining God to help create the beloved community?

I like Chuck’s thought. I think I would add one more circle though. While there are some primarly concerned with getting the doctrine, liturgy, and tradition right; and there are others more concerned about treating people right, there is also a third circle. Those that are focused on experiential devotional worship of a personal God.

Think of Mary and Martha. Martha was concerned with “the preparations”, the proper etiquette for hospitality in a middle eastern culture and the need for the work to get done. Mary was simply sitting at Jesus’ feet. When Martha complained about her pietist sister, Jesus’ replied, “Martha, Martha,” “You are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” So I propose a third circle. These would be renewal churches or charismatic churches or some (not all) pentecostal churches who lack a codified liturgy or ritual for devotion but are nonetheless preoccupied by direct worship. In this tradition, evangelism or healing is really only a by-product. An example would be the International House of Prayer, an evangelical charismatic mega-church in Kansas City that has conducted around the clock worship and prayer since 1997. I dropped in one weekend and found the sanctuary half full at 12pm with people in their 20s and 30s worshipping (praying, speaking in tongues, dancing) to live music. I would also cite the growing popularity of “soaking” music designed to accompany prayer and worship or the contemporary worship anthems made popular by artists like Chris Tomlin.

Here’s a curious thought. Social justice/emergent churches and fundamentalist churches actually seem like two sides of the same coin and both part of that first circle. One is concerned with issues like promoting peace among nations, clean drinking water, HIV prevention and environmental protection. The other is concerned with getting people saved, sending missionaries and legislating moral laws. Two different ways of building kingdoms.

The second circle, historic denominations, the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church have been concerned with getting the doctrine, liturgy, and tradition right.

The third circle is focused on the immanent presence. Perhaps this is a third alternative for Phylis’s 18 month window.

We need all three and it’s best when they overlap.

Rick (14):

For the most part, I agree with your observations. To emphasize either doctrine, liturgy, and tradition or treating people right is to fall into the modern dichotomy of theory and practice, beliefs and values, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. But what those who emphasize either side of this dichotomy miss is the role that both sides play within a life of worship. In other threads here I have talked about this life of worship as orthodoxy understood in the ancient sense of right glory or worship.

However, as an Orthodox Christian, I must push back on your characterization of Orthodoxy. While Orthodoxy is inherently conservative (seeking to conserve unaltered that which has been received from the Apostles) and does insist on getting doctrine, liturgy, and tradition right, the reason for this insistence is that these things are absolutely necessary if we are to worship God in spirit and in truth as Christ compels us to do. The Divine Liturgy is an ascent to the throne room of God, where we join our voices with those of the angels: singing Holy, Holy, Holy Lord of Hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory! What is more we ascend to the heights so that we can participate in the Eschatalogical feast of the Lamb, which we do every Sunday in the timeless Divine Liturgy by which we are caught out of time, in the timeless eschaton.

I agree that we need all three of the circles that you identify. But it is precisely orthodoxy as right worship that Orthodox Christianity has sought to preserve, and in Orthodoxy the other two circles find their proper places as well since we cannot offer right worship without also proclaiming right beliefs (doctrines) and engaging in right actions (ethics, relationships, social justice, etc.).

I notice that my Russian Orthodox friends are extremely defensive about the correct rituals, traditions and liturgy. That being said, Orthodox Christians have a deep appreciation and participation with the real presence of the Holy Spirit, the communion of the saints and the realms of the invisible world. From my readings in the Philokalia these were the real charismatics of the early church. They raised the dead. They cured the ill. They ascended into the Heavenly Realm and conversed with angels. My apologies if I characterized the Orthodox as one dimensional. There is also a deep charismatic tradition within the Roman Catholic church as well. These circles don’t just overlap, sometimes they occupy the same space completely.

I think that the moderate Baptist church I pastor in the heart of the Bible Belt, is becoming,in terms of theology and mission, one of what Phyllis calls “the hyphenateds.” Though we are still very institutional in how we function day to day. I have noticed that as believers become more open, engaging, questioning, and less dogmatic on theology and questions of faith, this has a tendency to translate into a greater flexibility and freedom in living and expressing their faith. But very few institutional Christians are ready to abandon the institution.

I am an emergent theologically, but I am located in the mix of institutional Christianity. I think Phyllis is right about individuals and churches and denominations being forced to decide on the institutional form of Christianity or the emerging paradigm. This, as Phyllis suggests, can take many different forms, shapes, and expressions, but it will be oriented in one direction or the other. I don’t see much of a future for traditional, institutional Christianity (whether its Orthodox, Catholic, mainline Protestant, or Evangelical). As people of my generation (I’m a relatively young baby boomer—age 50)die off, the Christian institution will die. This is as true of the traditional evangelical (known for their emphasis on evangelism) as it is of the liberal mainliner.

As I observe the ebb and flow of Western Society and the constant change, invention, and fluxuation of our culture, I can’t see a long term future for institutional Christianity. Those of us who depend on the institution for our financial support will one day be few and far between. Christianity will not die; it will exist in both healthy and unhealhty forms, but it will be less institutional.