So first, before you read my response, head on over to his blog and read his original post.

Back already? Ok, here are my thoughts: While I think Rhett’s points are all spot on, I walk away from them with a little more hope for the PC(USA).

I did my undergraduate work at Oral Roberts University, a mecca of Evangelical Christianity. And as top-down-hierarchical as mainline denominations are, I know firsthand that non-denoms are often far worse. Usually there’s a pastor, and he IS the unquestioned authority. The heirarchy then flows down from him (and yes, I did intentionally say “him”). Contrast that with the PC(USA) which, as Rhett points out, so often functions as a top-down hierarchy. But within that hierarchy is a framework that is also surprisingly peer to peer, bottom up self organizing. Think of the autonomy of local churches and sessions, and the democratic values inherent in the Presbyterian system. That will have appeal to millenials also, especially those raised in Evangelical churches looking for an expression of faith that more closely reflects their own values.

The gay issue is certainly dividing our church, but at least we’re talking about it — millennials made up their minds long ago on this issue, but so did Evangelical conservatives, and their decision was to exclude. Period. End of discussion. Because there is still a discussion in our denomination, I believe there is still hope that we will emerge on the inclusive side of this one.

Rhett points out that there is no gender divide among millennials — so I think those millennial women who feel called to ministry are going to be far more likely to find a home in a denomination that has embraced and empowered them for a long time now. And finding a home, or a tribe, a “brand” or a community — these are things that are also important for millennials of either gender. And since they’re two to one more liberal than gen X’ers or boomers, some might argue that the PC(USA) is the obvious home for them anyhow. Certainly for a generation focused on social justice, our denomination has a rich history and tradition of to offer them. True, sometimes we forget about it and focus on other things, but our church has often in the past stood up for issues of equality, justice, and globalism.

And speaking of rich history and tradition, Rhett notes that “Millenials do not like to desert their elders — even when they do crazy things” Or when they live by crazy books of order, perhaps? Where non-denom and Evangelical mega-churches often have little history and tradition, the PC(USA) does, and I think that’s something millennials are finding their way back to.

I think the greater danger with this generation is them leaving “the church” altogether, especially in its less-tolerant, ultra-conservative incarnations. But that’s why I think it’s such an important time for those denominations (like the PCUSA) who have something to offer to this generation. Remember that the church, at the end of the day, is people. I have hope and faith that a Presbyterian church of millenial people will look a lot different than a Presbyterian church of boomers. And if we hang on to our crazy elders for a little while longer (and maybe even learn from them and work alongside of them), I think we can bridge that divide and bring the PC(USA) into the next generation, if not the next era. Maybe that’s what presbymergent is all about anyhow.

So…that’s my response. Would love to hear yours, but I’m going to turn off comments on this post, and direct you back to Rhett’s post to carry on the conversation there.

UPDATE: Tyler and Drew have joined the conversation with posts of their own, plus some interesting conversation back on Rhett’s original post.  And now Bruce Reyes-Chow has also responded on his Moderator Blog.

But we’re a small group, and off and on we wonder what the American Buddhist future will look like. What’s going to happen when our teachers — part of the generation that launched the spiritual tradition in the ’60s and ’70s — grow too old to teach and we don’t yet have a new crop ready to take their place? And while I eventually felt more comfortable with Buddhism — now, the rituals and the chanting in my practice seem necessary, not foreign — what if some people who might connect with the teachings feel too intimidated by the window dressing to walk through the door?

Ah yes…the seeker-sensitive Buddhist movement And then the Emerging Buddhists quickly follow…

Walk into many American Buddhist meditation centers, and you’ll see a majority of white, middle-aged faces. That’s not the case with a Dharma Punx gathering. On a Tuesday night meeting last fall, Korda sported a trucker’s cap, long plaid shorts, a bowling shirt and massive Buddhist tattoos. After a 20-minute guided meditation, many in the audience — arty hipster types in their 20s, 30s and early 40s — sprawled casually across the cushions while Korda and his co-teacher, Craig Swogger, gave a classic Buddhist teaching on the origin of suffering (using the word “stress” instead of “suffering,” though, and punctuating their points with a few expletives).

Wow.  They even cuss.  And did I mention they’re really into social justice, too? Anyhow, it’s a neat article, and a good reminder that we’re pretty connected as human beings in our struggles to find deeper meaning and spirituality in a post-modern, hyper-consumer age. The full text is here.

I left the Bible study with my mind already on my next task. I had to deliver a check from the ministerial alliance to another church in town. I like the pastor of the church where I made the delivery. We may be from very different traditions, but we get along really well. When I noticed aloud that he had Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy among his books, we entered into a discussion about the Emerging Church Movement. I’m 43 and my colleague is probably only ten years older. We both expressed the same concern: we’re out of our depth when it comes to the emerging culture. We commiserated that, no matter what we do to keep up with innovations in technology and culture, we know we’re falling behind. That’s when my friend spoke the first half of the epiphany. He said, “When I went to seminary, the emphasis was on exegesis of scripture. I think that’s very important and seminaries should continue to do that. But I wish someone would have taught us how to exegete culture.” What a marvelous way to put the need in terms “classically” trained clergy can understand: Would someone please teach us how to exegete culture?

The conversation continued as we discussed what our two congregations think about the ECM. My input was brief because the ECM isn’t on the radar of most of the congregants I serve, no matter how often I raise the issue. We’re too rooted in institutional Presbyterianism to do much but grumble about “the loss of loyalty and respect for the Church.” My friend’s congregation, however, has many members deeply interested in — and concerned about — the ECM. They met with him, studied current literature (like McLaren), and discussed emerging issues. When it came down to it, they were comfortable with missional emphasis to a point, but were nervous about relativism.

After comparing notes, we confirmed that we each have a fair number of members who believe that converting to the Christian faith includes converting to the dominant culture of the congregation. That means that outsiders are required to do most, if not all, of the work, while the congregation critiques the results. “It’s their job to change, not ours.” That’s when I spoke the second half of the epiphany. I said, “It’s Paul and James all over again. Paul was willing to reach outside the tradition to include people in the gospel. James was willing to include others, as long as ‘we remain true to the faith’.” The Church has never been a monolith. I now think of the emerging movement as Paul to the conventional Church’s James. Is the Church willing to accept that the tension currently experienced between conventional and emerging perspectives has been with us since the early Church? I ask, as someone who lurks on the margins of Presbymergent, if the “loyal radicals” can and will teach people like me to exegete culture? Perhaps with proper training we could help the Church learn to recognize and balance the tension between James and Paul.

My thanks and respect go out to Carol Howard Merritt, the lone emergent author who, though not completely on board with the idea, at least engaged in the conversation. Emergent Village’s Coordinator, Tony Jones, was asked about his response to the article in an interview, and had this to say:

I’ve read that post, and there are some really good points therein. There are also some naive misconceptions about the publishing industry … In the early days, many of us were committed to publishing everything for free on the Internet. But, at this point, that is just not feasible.

Apparently, however, no one sent that feasibility memo to one of the publishing industry’s oldest and most respected names: Harper Collins. Here’s what the tech-news blog Mashable has to say about it:

HarperCollins will be offering free electronic editions of some its books on its website. In an effort to increase book sales, HarperCollins is adopting a web-based “try before you buy” approach to book promotion, both for online and on the iPhone.

If a profit-driven company can see the wisdom in doing this for good business practice, how much greater would it be for those of us in God’s Kingdom to do it for the sake of spreading the message, the ideas, and the stories that are at the heart of our mission?

And if award-winning author Neil Gaiman can let his fans vote on which of his best-selling novels to put online for free, shouldn’t Tony Jones (or Brian McLaren, or Doug Pagitt) at least be open to considering the idea, rather than dismissing it as naive and infeasible? Surely at least one of Emergent’s three different publishing partners is forward thinking and/or courageous enough to give it a shot?

I had seriously hoped that Emergent, as innovators crying out that “Everything Must Change” could have led the industry on this one and set a bold, generous, example for the secular world. Now my hope is that we can at least not be the last ones to change, as so often happens in the church.

Ah, well. At least Harper-Collins was founded by a Presbyterian. He must’ve had naive misconceptions about the publishing industry…

If the industrial era was acquainted with consumerism, and the modern era flirted with her, then surely post-modernism slept with her and made LOTS of babies (mostly plastic ones in a post-modern assortment of sizes, shapes, and bright neon colors).

Enter the Emerging Church, which (to its credit) takes post-modern tendencies like deconstructionism, subjectivity, and diversity right in stride without skipping a beat. But what does this conversation have to say about consumerism? Better yet, what actions back up the voices in the conversation?

I do hear lots of voices. Mostly in the form of a never-ending stream of books from emerging authors. Don’t get me wrong — I love these authors, and I consume every word on every page of just about every book I read from them, and they have been more than helpful. In fact, there probably wouldn’t be anything emerging if not for the books. But therein lies the problem: I consume what often seems like the flagship product of the Emerging Church — books.

That in itself isn’t entirely bad. Books are great. I’m an English major; I love books. The Bible is a book. But books are decidedly tangible, material, products that both cost money and generate money, not just for their authors, but for large publishing companies as well.

There are exceptions. I hugely admire Shane Claiborne, who practices what he preaches at The Simple Way, and gives away all the proceeds from his book Irresistible Revolution to a slew of noble causes and organizations.

I’m also not against authors making a living (especially because I hope to be one, and make one someday) and being compensated for their time and effort. But there seems to be something wrong with the idea that the very best in emerging ideas and resources:

• are available primarily to those with the cash to keep buying them
• are protected by strict copyright laws designed to limit the spread of information
• often generate more revenue for their publishers than for their authors
• are not freely available as shared online resources for all

This is where we could take a lesson from the Open Source community, where software is written by talented programmers, and reflects many of the qualities emergents aspire to: it’s generative, collaborative, open, transparent, free, good, and people are passionate (or “evangelical”) about it. Just ask anyone who uses Firefox, Linux, or OpenOffice.

Or consider the rapidly changing music industry, where artists are experimenting with creative ways to share their music with listeners — the band Radiohead recently released their album In Rainbows directly from their website (bypassing record labels) where listeners can pay whatever amount they feel is appropriate, including nothing. All indications thus far are that sales are strong, fans are happy, critics are happy, and the artists still receive more than they would have through traditional distribution methods.

Even closer to the literary medium is Creative Commons — an organization that allows writers (and artists and composers, etc.) to retain some rights while giving others (like the right to distribute and share) away. Cory Doctorow, a respected and award-winning science fiction writer who released his first novel both in print (through a publisher) and online (via Creative Commons license) has this to say:

However an author earns her living from her words, printed or
encoded, she has as her first and hardest task to find her
audience. There are more competitors for our attention than we
can possibly reconcile, prioritize or make sense of. Getting a
book under the right person’s nose, with the right pitch, is the
hardest and most important task any writer faces.

All forward thinking writers should read the full text of Doctorow’s article, which is deeply insightful and visionary.

I guess it all boils down to this: In the emergent conversation, are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to sell books, or are we writing the things we’re writing because we want to change the world? Do our ideas, our theologies, really belong to us or to they belong to a King and a Kingdom that transcend profit? And if it’s possible to give those ideas away, to reach more people, (while still selling books and supporting the labor of the thinkers and writers), isn’t that worth trying?

I visited the Emergent Village website today, and noticed two interesting things, side by side at the bottom of the page: A Creative Commons license for all of the web content, and a disclosure that Emergent Village is underwritten by a grant from Abingdon Press. My first instinct was to be cynical: Why is the leading voice in the conversation financed by the corporation that stands most to profit from it? But my second (and better) instinct was this: Perhaps both paradigms (traditional publishing and P2P information sharing) can co-exist, and even help each other. And if it works with a website, couldn’t it work with all these books?

So here’s my challenge to any and all Emergent Authors, both aspiring and accomplished, from an avid reader, supporter, and customer:

1. In addition to selling your books through traditional publishers, consider making them available for free online distribution as well, through Creative Commons, or another similar open source license. I doubt your sales (or livelihood) will suffer significantly, but I’m confident that your audience will expand, which will benefit not only you in the long run, but also your audience, the Emergent Conversation, and the Kingdom of God.
2. If that’s too big a leap, consider making some or all of your earlier works available for free distribution online — especially if some of them have gone out of print, or are otherwise difficult to obtain. Again, you might pick up a few new readers who will then go out and buy your latest.
3. In the process of making your words and ideas more available, less exclusive, and less profit-driven, you’ll undermine the consumeristic tendencies of our post-modern culture, live up to the words and ideals of the Emerging Conversation, and set an example of generosity and sharing that are entirely fitting companions to the gospel we proclaim.

I promise I’ll still buy your books. And attend your conferences. And tell my friends about you. And maybe, just maybe, in the midst of this hijacked consumer holiday we call Christmas, the gift of your words to a hungry and hurting world might remind us all of another gift from long ago — a gift given freely to all people, from the Author of the universe, on a star-filled night in Bethlehem.

I will be the first person to admit that even our lowest standard of living is higher than many countries average daily income levels. We are not the worst. We are also sitting atop a volatile mountain of debt, spending, and imaginary power cells. What the fuck are we living for? Where is the service to Christ? Where is the transformation? We are dying as a church in the west and people say they care but they are not supporting it.

I wrote this in response to Carol’s post. I am not a pastor, but a seminarian on the verge of graduation. I am terrified to go into ministry. All of the fears you spoke of add to my anxiety. What shall I do to ensure I can afford to raise a family or even serve a congregation? I heard far too much, “trust God! It is a matter of faith.” I agree trusting God is the beginning. Where is the practice of trust when it comes to financial support from the congregations? Folks will complain, but they will not support.

We are all to blame in the decline. We are part of the problem. This stance of “trust God and if you do not then you have no faith” removes the responsibility from congregations, the Body, and all have in supporting the church. We do not train pastors for free. Is it fair and good stewardship to expect these individuals to shoulder the cost of training that is required?

We have to pay 80 dollars per ordination exam — that is 400 dollars if you can pass these antiquated monsters in the first shot. Not many do! Then there are the psychological evaluations, anywhere from 600 to 2500 dollars. Then the cost of seminary itself, from 10,000 to 15,000 per year for tuition and an additional 10,000 or so to live each year. That is about 60,000 to 75,000 in debt to begin your service with. We need to be smarter with this. If we say we are concerned with the death of the church then we need to step up and support.

The day of the full time pastor maybe behind us. I for one think it is. We must seek sustainable ways to minister in the context to which we find ourselves. Does this mean we have to do away with seminaries and the education they provide? No, the seminary education is foundational to service in the reformed tradition. We must change our lives to live responsibly and centered on Christ.

I used to joke that I wanted to open the First Presbyterian Church of Holy Rollers Bowling Alley. I am no longer joking. Is a coffee house, pub, bowling alley, or restaurant the answer? It is sustainable and attracts folks. In some areas it would respond to the desire and need of a distanced population. It would provide a place for community, care, warmth, outreach, and financial resistance. We just need folks to grasp the idea. Like one of my favorite groups would said, “Rage full on!”

In conjunction with a new way we can inventory our stuff and ask: Do we need the ipod? The newest phone? The cable TV? The two cars? The this or the that? All of this stuff is nice. What does it say about what you live your life for and for whom you live for? I am a f’king hypocrite right along with many of us. I crave the technologies! The Apple computers. The name brand running shoes, the jeans, the shirts, the designer vitamins and food. I love to eat out and am overweight and a burden to this world. I do not practice all that I preach. I need grace, forgiveness, and courage to be what I have witnessed in this world. To stand against the tyranny of consumerism and stereotypes, and hopelessness.

There is a better way. Please pray about it and pray that we can find the way to the cross and sit at the feet of Jesus. The rebel rousing Jesus that roundhouse kicks the money lenders out of a house of Prayer. WTFWJD?

How and to what extent does your congregation utilize new media as an implement for evangelism?

I know that we blog, and that we’re open to integrating media into new forms of worship. This is good. But that we have connectivity within our respective fellowships doesn’t speak to how deeply we utilize internet media as a tool for bringing those outside our churches/faith communities into relationship with us.

I’ve been encouraging my little church to view our suite of web-based materials as a support for relational and affinity-based outreach. Between our website, a Google groups, a YouTube channel, and my own compulsive text and video bloggery, there’s a tremendous level of congregational and pastoral transparency.

The issue, as I see it, is moving those essentially passive media into a more engaged and active mode. The potential seems great, but I’m not sure what to do other than working to teach and empower my flesh-and-blood congregation to view our blogging and vlogging as a vital resource for our outreach efforts.

For those of you who’ve been actively using new media as part of your congregational life…how have you seen this played out? Are there any good best-practices resources in this area?
——-
As a side note, as I reviewed the Categories to tag this post, I noticed that neither “Evangelism” nor “Outreach”…nor any other variant of those concepts…seems to be present. Hmmm.

There has been much ado about postmodernism these days. There is postmodern architecture, postmodern philosophy, postmodern art, postmodern film, postmodern literature, postmodern music, postmodern theater, postmodern theology, and even postmodern postmodernism. You cannot escape conversation in many circles without postmodernism entering into it and mocking your modern intellectual vision.

The effects upon the cultural landscape moves today into tension with tomorrow. It begs us to ask the questions of where, when, why, and how of the very human fabric that weaves history, time, and space into a society or does it?

No matter how you interpret postmodernism you must contend that it is a reaction to the status quo. It is rooted in an outsider perspective that mounts attitudes of “us verses them” upon a position of entitlement.

What is Postmodern Theology?
Postmodern Christian theology is a theology rooted in reaction to the status quo. It should be counter-cultural in nature. It seeks to disturb and transform those engaged in the practice of theology. It looks to the pervading culture for means to express and illuminate the gospel message of Jesus Christ. It must not be comfortable or commodified. Theology that seeks to transform cannot and should not be consumed like fun size Halloween candy. To partake in the radical transforming nature of the gospel direct opposition to the status quo is called for.

Gone is the ability to stoically sit by as the gospel is used to propagate a conquering message that excludes and builds division. We are far to concerned with difference rather than similarities.

All are called to ministry. All are sought after to serve. In the Presbyterian tradition being a Minister of the Word and Sacrament does not entitle you to anything more than service. There is no difference between congregation and pastor. We are a body of Believers! Some of us have lost our salt. We are SALboosT as a denomination already.

Where must we go from here?

My outcome in this process
In the course of researching the topic of Postmodern understanding of call I conducted many interviews. I came across a few conclusions:

1. Call is relative to one’s culture.
2. Postmodern understanding of call is rooted in vocational understanding and a longing for security.
3. Action is called for today. we must seek to engage the culture around us to become effective instruments of witness.

There is need for ministers, pastors, and preachers. There is also a need for the understanding of these roles to sift and become more flexible. Churches would benefit from becoming uncomfortable and challenge he status quo. What are you protecting and from what are you protecting it from? In a world full of adjectives, may we be a people of verbs.

I’m In An Open Relationship With The Lord

“With Jesus as my personal Savior, I felt like I had it all. But then we hit a rough patch, and before long, I was beginning to question both my…”

I wonder if all of the arguments and fighting over Gay rights within the denomination and other denominations has lead us to an idolatrous and unfaithful response to the Gospel.

In the pervading culture of 2000’s America we demand to be individual and special. We cannot stomach to be a sheep. We make fun of sheep. We look down at sheep. Yet we are called to be sheep. When we put on our religious gear we wear the sheep costume uncomfortably. When we go into the world we seek to hide our lambs wool.

What happened to the call to be in the world and not of it? Sisters and brothers have we lost our salt? Have we truly sought a biblical discourse on reconciliation? I am tired and weary from the fight. Maybe we need to split in San Jose. Perhaps the solution is to part ways and schism? This would be the seemingly easiest solution. It is the one I have been kicking around lately.

What would a missional posture mean to this discussion? Imagine the call on all our lives if we walked humble and in the shadow of Christ, absent of the false confidence of possession of the truth. We, I, fail and fail big. We all must don the sack cloth and ashes. Let us mourn together for we have crucified Christ again in our zeal to be right, to hold the truth. In this we miss the silent, quiet Christ that blesses the meek, that holds the marginalized in his arms and reconciles.

I believe, help me with my unbelief. I want to be faithful. I want to be true. I want to be right. This is my sin.

In my experience of the missional and emerging church I feel that there is more breathing room permitted for individuals and fellowships. What has been your experience? How can this breathing room be allotted for and spiritual formation be lived out in the same space?

This poem, is a reminder to my body, mind and spirit and remember God’s beauty around me. Take a deep breath. Go for a walk. Make a new friend. Maybe even take a nap. Possibly its in the living out of life and honor to God that the missional church gains it’s life and strength. Instead of looking at the emerging church as an organization I feel it needs to grow and live as an organism.
Tara

See, Breathe, Exhale, Sing…

Fireflies spark catch eye as the wheels of cars go speeding by.
Waves crash and tumble over, washing the grains away.
Water moves and calls me to live in this moment and stay.

Slow down and live in the day you’re given,
slow down and really see -
the memories in the moments that only want to be.

See, breathe, exhale, sing
the moments of time that memories bring.

Birds sing at morning light calling to wake the heart.
Listen to the song and rise to live and love your part.
Sun is setting in pools of color, bathing the world in dusk.
Light is calling to see the moment and twilights’ spark in us.

Slowdown and live in the day you’re given,
slow down and really see -
the memories in the moments that only want to be.

See, breathe, exhale, sing
the moments of time that memories bring.

Copyright 2007 Tara Eastman