No Mo’ Pomo?

I must confess before writing this that I hardly feel qualified. I don’t know that my toolbelt is adequately prepared for the thoughts that I need to express. At any rate, I shall stumble forward in hopes that my foolish ramblings might make sense.

Last weekend, I stumbled across a post on Andrew Jones’ blog that made reference to an article in Christianity Today. I wrote a post and referred to both the blog entry and the original article. The author of the article posted a comment, and I re-visited his site, where he had linked to my response, which he considered pro-emerging church. He also linked to a response to his article that he identified as being against the emerging church. I realize that the authors of that response most likely will never find their way to my little corner of the cyber universe, but I feel compelled to write a rebuttal to their post. If for no other reason, it will help me clarify my own thoughts.

In their post, the authors state “There is no such thing as a ‘different kind of unbeliever.’ ” They then go on to quote Romans 1:14-16 and Romans 3:9-12 to make their point. Frankly, as I read those same scriptures, it seems apparent to me that at least Paul recognized what the authors do not: that there are, in fact, different kinds of unbelievers. If there was no difference then why would he feel the need to differentiate by saying that he felt an obligation to both Greeks and non-greeks? It seems to me that Paul is stressing that the need is the same, but the people possessing the need are in fact different. Chris Armstrong never seemed to state that their are different needs, he simply stated:

This generation, say the Emergents, doesn’t need to hear the old platitudes of a leftover Christian establishment. They need instead to hear the trumpet call of the gospel—a new song for new people. To really reach them, we must re-tool church for the new realities of a postmodern world. We must re-translate the gospel for a different breed of unbeliever.

Chris is simply acknowledging the obvious: there exists within 21st century America a different breed of non-believer than existed 25, 15, even 10 years ago. The need is the same, and Chris acknowledges that by communicating that the need is for the gospel. The message may be the same old gospel truths, but the methodology must be different.

The apostles in the New Testament recognized that different audiences required different approaches. In Acts, Peter addresses a group made up largely of Jews, thus he draws heavily on the scriptures of the Old Testament. Did Paul do this when he addressed the people at Mars Hill? No, he did not. In Acts 17, we see that he told the narrative of God in ways that the audience could understand. He made the message relevant to the audience and used words and language that they would comprehend.

Yet, the authors state that “using, reveling in, and approving of anti-God rhetoric and thinking is clearly unscriptural.” How is telling the story of God in a relevant way anti-God? How is singing a new song unscriptural? The authors try to prove their points by quoting scriptures, but I remain less than convinced. Read the article and decide for yourself.

If I were to go to the jungles surrounding the Amazon to minister in the name of Christ, I would have to learn the most effective ways to minister there. I would have to learn the language, the customs, the taboos and mores of the people. Otherwise I would be a babbling idiot who made no sense to the locals. Listen to me, friends, especially if you intend to minister in the 21st century. We live in a different world today than we did 20 years ago. We have seen major shifts in our culture, and to pretend otherwise is simply denial. The need remains the same, but the ones in need are vastly different. The need is the same, the solution is the same, but communicating that solution requires new methodology. (A concession: at least in some contexts. If you live in an area that is slow to respond to cultural shifts and changes, you might get away with doing ministry the same way you have been doing it for the past 20 years.)

The authors continue by being criticial of the desire of some within the emerging conversation to embrace the heritage and history of the Christian church. Forgive me, but I just don’t buy that 21st century America has a monopoly on church. I don’t believe that we do it prefectly, and I think it is pretty foolish to ignore the incredibly rich heritage of the church. Have atrocities been committed in the name of Christ? Yep, and they still are. Have incredible things been done in the name of Christ? Without a doubt. I forget where I read this, but I know that we must remember that the road to the future runs through the past.

The authors conclude by stating, “Let’s not look to pagans and/or Rome to dictate what is the gospel and how it should be preached and lived out.” Chris never suggested redefining the gospel, nor do I think he intended to. However, it is utter foolishness not to consider your audience when you are attempting to communicate. I would never go into a church in Mexico and start delivering a sermon in French. (Unless, I suppose it was made up of French expatriates.) They would never understand me. Any person truly concerned with ministering to a group of people must consider the best way to communicate with them

I am not an authority, but I know that the world I am living in is changing, and I know that its inhabitants are as well. I can choose to keep trying to do church the same way it has been done for years, but I can’t expect it to be very effective if I do.