The Birth of the Emerging Church & a Missing Voice

There is one important person who helped start the entire discussion about “Progressive Christianity” or the “Emerging Church” who has been silenced. He is speaking again, and I’d suggest we all welcome him back. Let me explain:

Somewhere around 1996 an organization called Leadership Network pulled together about 10-20 young leaders in the church to begin a discussion about ministry for Generation X. Within a few months, the conversation morphed into a more academic one about post-modernism and theology. I was there. I wasn’t a strong voice, but somehow I was invited in a few months into the process. I was only 23.

Many of the “emerging” leaders who sat in that room have greatly influenced the current state of the American church. Around 1998 I wandered out of the conversation and fell into the smaller “house church” or “organic church” subset of the group. Then I eventually left that discussion as well. I was burnt out on discussing anything at all – until recently.

A few years ago, a Yale Divinity student called me to do an interview for her thesis. I thought it was an odd thing, but I took the call. The premise of her paper was that those meetings in the mid-nineties changed the face of American Christianity for the long haul. She wanted to get my take on what it was like from the inside. I could barely remember any details, but I told her a few stories. If her premise is true, I can’t take any of the credit or blame for what has happened since. I didn’t contribute much at all, but evidently I had a great seat to watch history in the making.

The loudest voices of my peers seemed to be Mark Driscoll, Chris Seay, Brad Cecil and Doug Pagitt. (If you know of these guys, you can easily see the extremely different results of those early conversations with 15 years of hindsight.) They were all roughly my age, but much more vocal and confident than me.

There were some “older” voices speaking into the discussion as well. (It’s funny for me to realize that the older people back then were younger than I am now.) People like Brian McLaren, Sally Morgenthaler, Todd Hunter, and many others. I also met rogue Christians like Joel Vestal, Andrew Jones, and Tony Jones. There was this 22-year old clean cut ball-cap-wearing worship leader named David Crowder whom I especially liked. I was just lucky to be there with all these fascinating people.

But, here’s the thing. As much as I liked everyone, there were two guys who interacted differently with me. There were all these green up-and-coming leaders jostling amongst themselves to take the reins of an unknown movement, and then there was Dieter Zander and Tim Celek. They had about a decade on all of us. They were actually pastoring established churches full of young people, so they had less patience to sit around and debate post-modern theory with us. They had just co-written a very practical little book called Inside the Soul of  New Generation.

Looking back on it now, they simply took the time to get to know me and love me. Maybe they saw that I wasn’t ever going to be one of the louder voices in this new movement. But they seemed to see something else in me. Dieter would call to check up on me from time to time.  Tim invited me to speak at his church several years in a row. (Which was great because it meant free vacations to Newport Beach at a time when we were dirt poor.) Of everyone, Tim had the most personal impact on my life, trusting me to wade back into vocational ministry at his church, The Crossing, in 2005. The two years there showed me that I could have a place in the organized church again. There’s no way I am here now without Tim believing in me back then.

But Dieter and I lost touch. He was at Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago leading a huge sub-church called Axis. We’d talk from time to time in those days. Then he moved to San Francisco to start a house church. It would have made sense for us to reconnect then, but we didn’t. In 2008, Dieter suffered a stroke that left him unable to speak, sing or play piano. His whole life he had made a living as public speaker and worship leader. It was devastating. I should have reached out, but I didn’t. I was sure he had closer friends to help him recover and just thought I’d get in the way. Maybe this post now is my way of finally reaching out on behalf of all of us.

Here is how Dieter describes himself now:

“I lost most of my speech and the use of my right hand. I am creative and an artist. I’ve been a musician, pianist, singer, bandleader, composer, teacher, pastor, writer, counselor, speaker, but that’s gone now. I’m alive! I’m married, parent, friend, son, brother, and God’s child. I’m creative and an artist again. I’m a photographer. And I love it!”

Dieter Zander

Dieter’s life is harder now. He is a preacher and singer without a voice. In response, he has turned to visual art to communicate. I would love to add Dieter’s “voice” back into the current conversation. Below is a video Dieter created using his art to tell his story. Check it out, along with his photography website.

YouTube Preview Image

@JoeBoyd blogs daily at www.joeboydblog.com.

Emerging Church Still Making Headlines

The reports of the emerging church’s death are greatly exaggerated. The existence of the new Emergent Village Voice blog is one example of a new chapter that’s being written. My experience with the Charlotte Emergent cohort over the past eight years reminds me over and over as I meet and talk with new people joining the conversation every month. Then there’s the ongoing media attention that this movement continues to receive, 10+ years on.

Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, and I were interviewed recently for a cover story in Réforme, a Christian newspaper in France. Unfortunately the full text of the articles are not available online, but they can be purchased from the Réforme website. Here’s just a snippet of my conversation with Marie Lefebvre-Billiez, who conducted the interviews and wrote three articles for Réforme (keep in mind this is my English answers, translated into French for Réforme readers, and then translated back into English by Google Translate):

What is it that makes a church “missional”?
Its main feature is contextualization. If it is missional, it will blend in perfectly with its local context. This results in many different ways, for example, house churches. It is a network of people do in their homes what is normally done in a church building: worship, Holy Communion, prayer … and add a meal together. I myself have a church in my home, which is affiliated with Disciples of Christ. We have had between 50 and 60 at some gatherings, but a typical house church is often between 20 and 30 members, including families with small children. The advantage of the church at home is that it is less intimidating, the environment is more familiar. It’s more cozy, warm, people can come as they are. This is for people who are not interested in the church, but who have faith nor abandon God.

The meal is an important part of this trend. The food takes a special meaning in the faith and the expression of our worship. The important thing is the fellowship around the meal. In the same way that developed the concept of “slow food” (slow food) as opposed to the “fast food” concept that is more socially responsible and who will look for its products locally, it develops the idea of “slow Church.” It is to know their neighbors, be well rooted in their immediate environment.

This is similar to the first century Christians … Some say it is the most biblical form of church. They would return to the early days of Christianity and get rid of all that was added later. But for me, this is not the case. No, we do not return backwards. Of course, we look at what has been done, we keep the good and we leave the rest behind. This is the concept of “ancient future.” But we are not afraid of new technology. We want to be faithful to the Gospel in our time, with the Internet and our iPhone. I know a woman who is pastor of a church in Second Life [virtual reality social network]! Churches are found in cafes and bistros. The idea is to break down the wall between the sacred and the secular.

Why mix what is holy and what is profane?
This goes back to what makes a church “missional.” In contrast, a “missionary” approach is to think that we have God in our pocket, and we’ll bring it to all these godless pagans. But all the missionaries who have done this will tell you they have arrived in a place where God was already preparing the way. God is everywhere. You cannot go anywhere where God is not already. Thus, there is no separation of sacred / secular. To do church in a bar is no more profane than to meet in a building made of bricks and mortar. The question is simply, “How to join what God is already doing?”

What is the role of the hierarchy?
There is the idea of a “flat church,” which puts everyone at the same level. The role of the pastor is lowered and that of the community lifted. It’s a way of really living out the idea that all believers are priests (universal priesthood). There is therefore an inherent critique of denominations. Some fear that the Emergent Church wants to dismantle its hierarchy and so they feel threatened. But there are many who espouse the movement because they think it will be renewed. For them, God is already at work, a challenge is painful, but necessary. People now join the movement with the confidence that the Holy Spirit is at work.

What do you think? Where do you see life in the emerging missional church movement?