What are the Benefits of Being Independent?

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Sure, just as long as you don't expect me to have all the answers. I'm post-modern, I have alot of questions and very few answers.

It's funny the reactions I get from church folk when I mention pomo and emergent. I carpool to school w/a good Conservative Baptist guy and you should have seen him weird out and get all twitchy when I said, "I want to start a church for post-moderns." I thought that was a pretty harmless statement, but he about passed a large-print KJV hardback in my front seat. After awhile he calmed down and now we're friends again. There's alot of misinformation out there about 'the emerging church' from what I can tell, although I can't comment either way on your website. You recommended it to me recently but I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. I bookmarked it though.

I really agree with a lot of the post modern concepts, but my problem up until now (you may be shifting the tide here!) is that is most of the post moderns that I have come in contact with personally are soooo opinionated and arrogant that it totally turns me off.

I am a big believer in the idea that there is more than one way to do just about everything, so when I come across anyone that seems to think that their way is the only right way, well, I get "peeved"!

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

I really agree with a lot of the post modern concepts, but my problem up until now (you may be shifting the tide here!) is that is most of the post moderns that I have come in contact with personally are soooo opinionated and arrogant that it totally turns me off.

I am a big believer in the idea that there is more than one way to do just about everything, so when I come across anyone that seems to think that their way is the only right way, well, I get "peeved"!

Yeah, alot of emerging church folk get all elitist "up in here" too often. It's a pretty stupid stance to take since the whole pomo scene is so new and evolving so rapidly that there really isn't anything to get all snooty about. The ironic thing is that some emergent types get all twisted in a knot over how 'yeserday' modernity is yet the churches that seem to be having the most success in the emerging church genre are decidedly modern in many ways. The biggest difference to this point is one of style and some ecclesiastical issues in how they're organized. Other than that they do many of the same things. I think prob the biggest difference is perhaps on emphasis with churches trying to truly be missional in their community as well on a more artistic, creative, participatory form of worship. But to get all arrogant about an era that doesn't even have a name yet is pretty dumb, imo. All we can really say about it is that it's after modernity, post-modern. It'll be awhile before we can categorize it any meaningful way. But to be fair, I run into alot of opinionated and arrogant people on the other side of the fence who are quick to castigate all things pomo and emerging which can be just as frustrating. I guess that's why I appreciate my pastor. He sees the growing hole in his church demographic between the ages of 18-34 and he realizes he doesn't know what to do and is willing to give a newbie like me a shot at it since I have a passion about it and feel called to it and I'm willing to lay my neck on the line to see if we can't do something positive. I respect that kind of honesty and that kind of humility in a leader. Not all that common in middle aged Pentecostal preachers ( of which I am almost one myself. haha). Fortunately for the emerging movement not all of their spokesmen are stuck up. I've spent a little time with Brian McLaren and although I disagree with some of his theology I must say he's a sweet soul. I've spent a little more time with Dan Kimball and he's a really nice guy, very humble and kind. It's worth noting too that there are variations w/in the whole emergent scene, i.e. libs and cons. Unfortunately if you say "emergent' too often you get lumped automatically in w/the liberal wing. This is only fair in the sense that they're the ones organizing and have their websites, etc... But there are conservatives (theologically) in the group too (Kimball, Driscoll) that are very uncomfortable w/the liberal theology of the other group and while they like the overall goal (keeping the church relevant in a new age) they aren't comfortable w/changing to the orthodoxy.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yeah, alot of emerging church folk get all elitist "up in here" too often. It's a pretty stupid stance to take since the whole pomo scene is so new and evolving so rapidly that there really isn't anything to get all snooty about. The ironic thing is that some emergent types get all twisted in a knot over how 'yeserday' modernity is yet the churches that seem to be having the most success in the emerging church genre are decidedly modern in many ways. The biggest difference to this point is one of style and some ecclesiastical issues in how they're organized. Other than that they do many of the same things. I think prob the biggest difference is perhaps on emphasis with churches trying to truly be missional in their community as well on a more artistic, creative, participatory form of worship. But to get all arrogant about an era that doesn't even have a name yet is pretty dumb, imo. All we can really say about it is that it's after modernity, post-modern. It'll be awhile before we can categorize it any meaningful way. But to be fair, I run into alot of opinionated and arrogant people on the other side of the fence who are quick to castigate all things pomo and emerging which can be just as frustrating. I guess that's why I appreciate my pastor. He sees the growing hole in his church demographic between the ages of 18-34 and he realizes he doesn't know what to do and is willing to give a newbie like me a shot at it since I have a passion about it and feel called to it and I'm willing to lay my neck on the line to see if we can't do something positive. I respect that kind of honesty and that kind of humility in a leader. Not all that common in middle aged Pentecostal preachers ( of which I am almost one myself. haha).

Oh, I totally agree, the arrogance definitely goes both ways. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about anyone feeling like their way is the only way.

The funny thing is that while my pastor cringes at the pomo term, largely for the same reasons that I have done, he is is fairly progressive in his methods. It is really all semantics, most of the time I think.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yeah, alot of emerging church folk get all elitist "up in here" too often. It's a pretty stupid stance to take since the whole pomo scene is so new and evolving so rapidly that there really isn't anything to get all snooty about. The ironic thing is that some emergent types get all twisted in a knot over how 'yeserday' modernity is yet the churches that seem to be having the most success in the emerging church genre are decidedly modern in many ways. The biggest difference to this point is one of style and some ecclesiastical issues in how they're organized. Other than that they do many of the same things. I think prob the biggest difference is perhaps on emphasis with churches trying to truly be missional in their community as well on a more artistic, creative, participatory form of worship. But to get all arrogant about an era that doesn't even have a name yet is pretty dumb, imo. All we can really say about it is that it's after modernity, post-modern. It'll be awhile before we can categorize it any meaningful way. But to be fair, I run into alot of opinionated and arrogant people on the other side of the fence who are quick to castigate all things pomo and emerging which can be just as frustrating. I guess that's why I appreciate my pastor. He sees the growing hole in his church demographic between the ages of 18-34 and he realizes he doesn't know what to do and is willing to give a newbie like me a shot at it since I have a passion about it and feel called to it and I'm willing to lay my neck on the line to see if we can't do something positive. I respect that kind of honesty and that kind of humility in a leader. Not all that common in middle aged Pentecostal preachers ( of which I am almost one myself. haha). Fortunately for the emerging movement not all of their spokesmen are stuck up. I've spent a little time with Brian McLaren and although I disagree with some of his theology I must say he's a sweet soul. I've spent a little more time with Dan Kimball and he's a really nice guy, very humble and kind. It's worth noting too that there are variations w/in the whole emergent scene, i.e. libs and cons. Unfortunately if you say "emergent' too often you get lumped automatically in w/the liberal wing. This is only fair in the sense that they're the ones organizing and have their websites, etc... But there are conservatives (theologically) in the group too (Kimball, Driscoll) that are very uncomfortable w/the liberal theology of the other group and while they like the overall goal (keeping the church relevant in a new age) they aren't comfortable w/changing to the orthodoxy.

Pomo,

Another head's up for you, Dan Kimball is going to be on "Conversing with the Scholars" program via PalTalk March 20. In case your interesting...

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/cws/futureguests and Mark Driscoll a week later.