Deja Vu all over again?

I've remarked to a few people that what I have been reading about the emerging church tends to put me in mind of the Christian Brethren. This blog is about that impression.

Do read the disclaimer at the end. I'm emphatically not saying "this is that", nor would I dream of making predictions, or offering warnings.

The Brethren have their origins in the early decades of the 1800s, in various places in England and Ireland, most famously Plymouth. Though they attracted people from various backgrounds, the bulk were from the Anglican (Church of England) tradition: they were disaffected with the lack of real spiritual life they found there, and wanted something more. The same malaise in the Church of England is also what gave rise to the Oxford Movement - the Anglo-Catholic Wing of the Church.

These men (and women: it must be said they only got a background part) did their best to throw off all the trappings of the Church. Their principle act of worship together was a "meeting" (never a "service"), where everyone met together (in a "room" or a "hall", never a "church"), without any pre-planned order of events. Everyone (well, ok, every man) was free to speak, pray, read the bible, begin a song/hymn, or, well, whatever, really. The climax was sharing communion - bread and wine - together.

Well, that's the typical pattern, anyway. Each local gathering (which was often called "the assembly", or "the meeting") was entirely autonomous, so all kinds of local patterns grew up. Some were led by a group of "elders", others, simply by having another open meeting to discuss the plans and life of the community. Paid, full-time leaders were very rare - though some would serve the church, and rely on gifts (and God's provision) for their subsistence.

Most assemblies would also hold mid-week meetings for prayer and bible study. There was a strong sense of community life here, and also much openness - itinerant speakers from other like-minded fellowships would visit, and, at least in some places, there would be cordial links with other local Christians. There never has been any Brethren "denomination": some have taken it upon themselves to publish directories of like-minded fellowships; in the hey-day there were several magazines appealing to the constituency, and there have been a number of mission agencies dominated by Brethren ideals.

Indeed, these groups have been characterized by a very high commitment to mission. Most would hold a regular "gospel meeting"; engage with the needs of the whole person in a variety of ways (Muller and Banardo did huge amounts of good work with orphans, for example), and most notably be very involved in overseas educational and medical missions. Proportionately, the Brethren are reckoned to be among the most mission-sending denominations (if they were a denomination).

There's a rosy picture. I wonder if it strikes any chords. How did it pan out?

Well, rather early on, there was a big split. I forget what the original split was over, but those with a more purist approach left, to form a more exclusive group. These "Exclusive Brethren" continued to split and fight among themselves, eventually becoming sect-like in quite a few ways. These days, one thing which characterizes the few remaining Exclusives is an unwillingness to use computers, for example.

The majority, "open Brethren", thrived and developed - with all sorts of patterns of activity arising in many places. The mission work has given rise to like-minded meetings in many countries, all of them autonomous communities, and almost without exception with shared leadership - though some will have paid full- or part-time staff these days.

The Brethren have not tended to be terribly prescriptive when it comes to theology. There is a common point of view, but an openness to differences of emphasis. I've belonged to three Brethren meetings, I don't think any of them has a doctrinal statement or basis of faith. Yet the Open Brethren have tended to be mercifully free of perambulations into paths of heresy.

Indeed, perhaps the biggest problem the Brethren have had has proven to be an unwillingness to change. Proceeding by consensus, and bearing with each other in love, often tends to discourage us from big initiatives. Without some initiative-takers, we have a danger of being stuck in the good ideas of the 1840s. Quite a number of the dwindling meetings are using a staggeringly ancient hymn-book, full of the most atrocious Victorian poetry.

"Dwindling" is probably an accurate term. Many are now disappearing. Some have seen a pattern at work throughout history: God by his Spirit does something new and mould-breaking. It has an enormous energy for a while, and then things ossify and fossilize. Then they decay. That's quite an indictment of our fallen nature.



Final note: as I said at the beginning, I wouldn't presume to say "this is that", nor to offer predictions or warnings. Emerging Church puts me in mind of the Brethren, and that thrills me, because I think some of the Brethren ideas are awesome ones whose time has come. If a new generation is discovering them (with a different spin, with other ideas thrown in), that's great.

Time for a review: Nooma

Thank you to people who have left comments here: it's a little scary to find I have a blog with readers. So, here goes with more of a proper review.

My introduction to this kind of thinking was the Nooma videos, featuring Rob Bell. I'm still not sure about whether he would describe himself - and his church - as part of the emerging church phenomenon or not, but that doesn't matter here. Nooma is a series of short films, styling itself "the new format". Presented on DVD, most are about 10 minutes of Rob speaking to camera, in a variety of settings, with music and film cut in.

I think it's fair to say that the Noomas have very high production values. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever come across Christian media of higher quality. It's stylish and up-to-date. And very non-cringeworthy. There's so much I encounter in the Christian community which I wouldn't dream of sharing with those outside. But Nooma is an exception.

The topics of the talks are varied. They are some very Christian themes, by and large. The first one, for example, is about God's love for us, and his longing for us to live in relationship with him. It's the sort of stuff which can be thought-provoking for Christians, but by no means inaccessible to those who aren't so sure. It's certainly not a classical presentation of "the gospel", nor, in any sense, some kind of apologetics. But for a less head-on discussion (something I'm inclined to think is very timely), here are some really good thoughts to kick around.

Despite some criticisms for his rhetorical style (leading some to dismiss him as a denier of the truth), my own impression of Bell is of someone who loves and teaches the historical Christian message - in a relevant and current way. He draws on the bible, on his life experience, and many other sources. He's clearly studied Jewish thinking at some length, and draws on rabbinical insights to discuss how Jesus' first hearers would have understood his teaching.

Each Nooma comes with a booklet - again exquisite and stylish - with quotes from the videos, and many open-ended questions. We've used a few of the Noomas in our home study group. Even the ones which seemed to have quite a straightforward conventional message have been followed by good, long-lasting open discussion which seems to push the boundaries rather well, facilitated by the booklet questions.

You might have formed the impression that I'm quite taken with these things. What are the drawbacks? Well, they retail for $10 in the USA and £10 in the UK (that's $20 !). $10 seems fine, but I take exception to the latter for a 12 minute DVD. The booklet presentation doesn't lend itself to giving each group participant a copy, which is a shame. And the whole thing is a bit, er, American: the vocabulary doesn't bother me, but in just about every one we've watched as a group, there's been something I've had to explain to those less-travelled. And I still don't really know what a kickball is.

The blogsphere is not postmodernism

Part the problem, I think, is the way that the stuff of "emerging" has been equated with postmodernism, and that itself has been equated with the phenomenon which is the world-wide-web, and more particularly, Web 2.0 and the interactive world-wide conversation.

But these are all different things. Postmodernism, strictly. is a rather academic notion, some would say something of a spent force, a self-limiting somewhat over-ironic commentary on 20th century self-importance. Now, I tend to see some of its themes impacting on wider society: the lack of a privileged metanarrative; the preoccupation with the medium as much as the message; an aggressive kind of relativism, and so on. Whether these are properly described as postmodern is perhaps moot. Undoubtedly, society is undergoing (or has undergone) some profound changes: but how far-reaching are they? I don't think anyone can say.

On the other hand, I think there is a consensus that the creation of the web is on a par with the invention of the printing press. The effect on society, in the long run, is probably as profound. And it is a truly global phenomenon, though it has to be admitted that language barriers (and to some extent, cultural barriers) mean that much of the interaction is actually limited to a collection of largely non-overlapping (albeit very large, in some cases) online communities.

What does all this have to do with the emerging church? Well, it's evident that there is an emerging, community, web 2.0, kind-of spirituality (if not theology). And it's easy to make over-blown claims about the stuff you are at the centre of. But does it add up to a whole heap of beans?

Emerging hubris

So, I've been trying to make sense of what people mean by "emerging" and "emergent"; what my Anglican friends call "new expressions of church", whether post-modernity has anything interesting to say to faith, whether post-evangelical is a category, and so on.

I guess it's often hard to see, from the middle of a sea-change, the impact and repercussions of the changes taking place. Are we looking at a 1-in-30-year movement, on a par with the Charismatic movement at its height in the 70s and 80s? Are we looking at a 1-in-100-year movement, like the rise of modern evangelicalism to be a dominant force in the British church? Are we looking at a 1-in-400-year movement, on a par with the Reformation or the Great Schism?

My first reaction - egged on by reading the likes of Maclaren - was the latter. Or if not 400 years, then certainly something on a par with the rise of the Enlightenment, at least. But,

• perhaps because MacLaren and Rollins are really "out there",
• because there is a real lack of coherency within the big tent called "emerging", and
• because I keep reading stuff about how we need to rediscover the joy of being a Christian community uncluttered by man-made structures - which all sounds so reminiscent of the Brethren movement (1840 and afterwards),

I really do wonder. To much, too, seems caught up with a 30-year shift in American politics, to the ascendancy for the time being of the Democratic Party, and the espousement (is that a word?) of green issues because they seem trendy.

Being part of something new and radical is exciting. And Christian faith desperately needs to reconnect with western society - and, all the more, with Jesus' way of life. And that means re-thinking a lot of things that too many have taken for granted.

But how much, and how important it all is ... I'm just not sure yet.

I have more reading to do.

Random Thought

I've heard it said that Richard Dawkins would like to see the University stop teaching theology. On the grounds that it's the study of made-up stuff. I'd have to agree with the idea - but not the reason - since academic theology has always struck me as amiss. It seems to lead in entirely the wrong direction.

Motivation

Hmm. Long time since the last blog. It's all about getting started, isn'it. Probably no one knows this blog is here. But that's partly good. I get to practice writing blogs without pressure. But it's bad, too, because it makes me lazy about recording my thoughts. And the point of this blog was definitely to post some thoughts about emerging things.

So, note to self: time to post comments on the books you claimed to read on holiday, Andrew.

Don Carson : Becoming conversant with the emerging church.
I can see why this upset a lot of people. It's more about Don than about the emerging church.

Donald Miller Blue like Jazz Awesome book. A kind of Christian Generation-X. Must read more Miller.

Steve Chalke The lost message of Jesus. What's controversial about that (other than that there's a lot of living up to it to be done)?

Peter Rollins How (not) to speak of God. Wow. Really out there.

Douglas Coupland Jpod. Very very odd mix of postmodern genius and clawing cuteness. Having Coupland appear as a character in the story could have worked, but didn't.

Proper reviews must follow.

Such vitriol!

Something else that strikes me forcibly is that those who take the adjectives postmodern, emerging, or emergent, seem to have raised the ire of an awful lot of people. A huge amount of energy seems to have gone into denouncing those people.

Perhaps the feeling is mutual. But it seems kind-of one sided. I'm preparing a talk this week on believing in Christ and becoming like him. I'm dwelling on 1 John 5, though it won't be a traditional exposition of the passage. I Googled

"1 John 5" emergent

thinking I might find some helpful commentary/discussion. Instead I found link after link of bile and denouncement (is that a word?).

Oh, and the other thing that amazes me is how many of those people seem to want to 'resist' postmodernism. Like you can outrun an express train which is about to catch your arse.