The missional church is not about style. I grow tired of critics setting up straw men and being amazed at how easily they fall down. Any description or definition of emerging or missional church that says we are trying to simply spice up our services with cool hair, goatees, incense and candles is a straw man. This is decidedly not about goatees and candles and cool hair just like evangelicalism is not about khakis and polos and potluck dinners and nicely parted hair.
It’s about theology.
It’s about asking the question, "What is the gospel?" and finding out it’s a lot bigger than "going to heaven when you die." It’s about taking seriously the question, How can we live Christianity instead of just believe it? It goes a lot deeper than just style. It’s about the gospel. It’s about following Jesus in an increasingly pagan world, without simply becoming a shrill, whiny voice with no influence or weight to it (which is what standard evangelicalism is becoming, rapidly). It’s about waking up and discovering that nobody can understand what you are saying, and wondering why, and perhaps in humility learning from others how to communicate effectively in this new world. It’s about a church that takes seriously her call to heal the world, instead of thinking only about her own survival and well-being.
People all over the world are engaging with these things: wrestling and studying and dreaming and planning and starting and planting and failing and succeeding. And it’s not just being done by cool twentysomethings with great hair and impeccable fashion sense. The missional church is not about style, it’s about something much deeper, at the heart of what it means to be the church. It’s a theology thing, not a style thing.
Are you sure you haven’t read McLaren? *wink* I agree with your ‘straw men’, although I would add others such as:
~those who seriously consider the historical bible/Jesus, (“historians are mere men out to disprove the divinity of Jesus!”)
~those who entertain their doubts, (“they are lacking in faith!”)
or my personal favorite,
~those who are sympathetic to liberal ideology -ie: social justice issues- (“they’re becomming bleeding heart democrats like Bill Clinton!”)
It’s not about that stuff either. It’s not even about the unorthodox methods used in the search for that relevant, authentic expression of ‘church’. Unfortunately, that’s what draws attention.
It’s hard to move away from deconstruction (certainly a necessay pitstop) to constructing something new when constantly needled to defend straw men that are simply not the point. But don’t tell the critics they’re not the point….that’s evasive and wishy-washy to them. I think only love acted out in humilty will convince naysayers….like Patty Griffin sings: “Time will do the talking, Years will do the walkin; I’ll just find a comfy spot and wait it out.” In other words, keep loving, keep forgiving, keep spewing grace.
And good thing it ain’t about style, ’cause middle-aged mothers would be left in the cold!
Actually I just ordered one of McLaren’s books, so that’s in the cue now.
N.T. Wright talks about how the original Enlightment historians actually were out to discredit Christianity, but now that the historical study has been going on for some years now, it’s like the prodigal son has come home, because of the richness that historical study has contributed to orthodox faith.
I guess Christians really don’t have anything to fear from the truth.