Broad Street Geneva

Rather than dwelling in ever expanding comments, I thought I would keep our recent discussion going by creating a new post. However, Bill (G or #2, however we should refer to you), Bruce, and Jared please consider this post a response to your insightful words.

My respect for the work of newborn communities such as Broad Street Ministry and Mission Bay Community Church cannot be measured. They are places where the Gospel is rightly preached, heard, and practiced, I'm sure of it, though I've never worshiped at either place. Why be so sure? Because people who have been on the margins of church for too long are participating in leadership. They who climbed a tree to see or raised a roof to hear the Gospel have seen and heard and responded. I need no other proof.

Such communities are the exemplars of the teaching that filled the classrooms of Columbia Seminary. Carlos Cardoz-Orlandi talked about a vision of the church where the center heard the Gospel from the periphery. Chuck Campbell spoke about the foolish Word overthrowing the destructiveness of principalities and powers. Kathleen O'Conner urged us to stop shielding ourselves from the power of Bible texts. BSM, MBCC and a host of others are bringing this conversation to real, tangible fruition, and I do not want to denigrate their work, their journeys, their life together.

That said, I yearn for a new conversation. The next conversation. The one that stops asking if the Church or denomination can survive, stops showing us what a new Church and new communities would look like, and instead starts an earnest reformation in every church community.

Take, for example, Broad Street Ministry. With "an articulated vision and 8k and conviction" (from Bill G's comment), the community was able to feed everyone who walked through its doors on Sunday evenings. A fish and loaves situation if ever there was one. Bill tells us that the journey was a mixture of resistance and opportunity. There were some who fought them, and some who championed them.

Indeed, a journey like that of BSM compares to other stellar journeys of reformation. Luther in Wittenburg, called a heretic and a saint. The bishops and church of Vatican II, both embraced and ridiculed. Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church, simultaneously exciting confessions of belief and shouts of "traitor", "unpatriotic", and "un-German" (or translated into 21st century American terms, "liberal", "elite", and maybe even "terrorist").

And finally, Calvin in Geneva. Or perhaps: and especially Calvin in Geneva. Invited, ridiculed, derided, exiled, re-invited, begged, welcomed, praised, celebrated, and then compromised Calvin in Geneva. The people of BSM and other newborn communities can certainly compare their work of doing something new, of "performing the Good News" (from the meeting last Tuesday), of "pursu[ing] the kingdom" in a context (from Bill G's comment) to the work of Calvin reforming the churches of Geneva.

The work of Calvin didn't stop with Geneva, though. The Academy of Geneva trained ministers with new insight and energy to go all over Europe and the world with this new vision. Never content to say, "here is what you do", the Academy of Geneva trained ministers to think and preach for their own contexts. They trained their ministers to work at both the big, established cathedrals and the little, struggling rural parishes. In Glasgow, this meant tearing out the choir section and letting the masses come close to hear the Word and actually share the Bread and Cup (which wasn't happening before Knox). In the little country churches, this meant receiving a minister--a conversation partner and vision-sharer--when the church previously could not afford it (Calvin knew the price of an absentee minister; he was appointed to be one while in law school).

This is the conversation for which I hunger. One that goes beyond "Here is what you could do if you started carte blanche" to say instead, "Perform the Good News! Pursue the Kingdom! Here is my context; you tell me yours. Let us work together to reform the whole Church." Sometimes that will mean churches must close. Sometimes it will mean that they must spend their endowment. But my hope is that the vision of newborn commuities will mesh with that of old, established ones to make something new happen throughout the Church.

Wow, after all that, I want to add, "And let us pray." Sorry if this entry was too preachy.

Comments

[Chris]

Two quick thoughts:
1) how can you mention Broad Sreet in a blogpost and not talk about the Phillies?!?!? I love the Gospel and all, but tonight Broad Street will host a gazillion screaming fans celebrating baseball in Philadelphia! Woo hoo!

2) Seriously, I love new churches, but I feel that it is so easy - ok, not easy, but I don't know what other word to use - but so easy to start a new church from nothing in new and creative ways (especially when they have funding from "traditional" denominations or other funding streams).

What is much harder - or at least very different and not often appreciated by many emergent types - is to work with a congregation that is 50, 100, or 200 years old, that has traditions and families and people who have loved and served that place for so many years, a church that has proclaimed the Gospel for generations upon generations, and has the well-honed muscles and scars to show for it.

Like you, I'm sick of hearing how our denominations and our congregations are declining. At St Michael's Lutheran Church in Germantown, they've been proclaiming the Gospel for over 275 years! Praise be to God for that ministry and for other similarly old and established congregations! Let us give thanks for what they have done and what most of them continue to do in the name of the Gospel!

I griped about emergent almost two years ago in a post entitled Sustaining Emergent, and also here: An Emerging Adolescent. I think emergent has much to offer, but the out-with-the-old angry attitude of some emergents is just unhelpful.

OK, enough for now. Back to work for me.

[matt]

Chris, An interesting comment that I don't totally disagree with, but I'm going to play devil's advocate. One could argue that trying to do what you suggest with 'older' churches isn't just harder, but damn near impossible. Many of the congregations you describe carry a great deal of culture-war baggage with them in a very fundamental way. Those sorts of long incubated, institutional biases make real transformation unrealistic. Beyond that, many older churches are highly resistant to change of any sort. To that point, I attened a reasonably 'young' church, and I don't know how many times I've heard 'thats not how WE do it' I really think these ministy ideas shouldn't be thought of in terms of 'easy' or 'hard' but rather viewed and weighed based on how they are working to both make this world a better place for everyone and do the work of the Great Commission.

[Bruce Reyes-Chow]

"That said, I yearn for a new conversation. The next conversation. The one that stops asking if the Church or denomination can survive, stops showing us what a new Church and new communities would look like, and instead starts an earnest reformation in every church community."

Honestly, that is the conversation this is happening is most places that I travel these days. I actually think many are done talking about the church being around simply to survive, but are now thinking seriously about the church as a powerful witness to Christ int the world. And for the record, we at MBCC never talk about church survival so not sure which previous conversation we are part of.

Chris - I do take exception to the idea that starting over is "easier" as I think that is too simplistic of an analysis. Ease or thriving in ministry I believe is directly tied to ones call. "For some are called to be . . ." - get that wrong and it WILL be hard. Not everyone should, could or will find joy in starting something new, just as not everything should serve a redevelopment. I have plenty of friends who THRIVE in a redevelopment setting, have the gifts for that kind of work, but would HATE starting something new. This is not for lack of wanting it to be easier. Okay, off my horse.

[meredith white-zeager]

interesting topic. As an NCD pastor, I have to say that I think I've got the best job in the world. . . for me. However, pastors that are doing 'emergent' in traditional churches have my utmost respect and support. I am in many conversations with pastors who are earnestly working to inspire and respond to the spirit in their 'established' congregations. I always tell them that the spirit is there, it's just a matter of helping the congregation to discern and respond - that is what makes emergent. I also echo Bruce's comment, it's about everyone going where they are called authentically and enthusiastically - that's when God is most effectively able to transform and redeem us all.

[Chris]

I know it ain't easy to start up and lead a "new" or "new kind" of ministry. I was just short on time and didn't know what word to use. But Bill above did admit something to my point - the baggage, tradition, established patterns of ministry and social networks of an established congregation sure doesn't make leading such a church easy (which is why I think starting a new ministry could be appealing for some). It is hard to work with a people who have been about God's work for a while . . . Yet good stuff goes on in those places.

I just resent the flippant anti-denominationalism that comes from some corners of the movement . . . (I just wrote and deleted a rant. Content of the rant found in post Emerging Adolescent linked in above comment). The attitude among some is that real ministry happens only in these new churches . . . many of which won't be around in four years. Meanwhile, the Gospel continues to be proclaimed for generations upon generations in "traditional" denominations and long-ministering congregations.

It's not an either/or. We need both, of course, and I give thanks to God for both. But as someone who identifies more with the so-called traditional corner of the church, I get annoyed by emergent-types who were born, raised, taught, fed and nurtured in the "traditional" church and are now bad-mouthing it. That's all.