T.V. Show
Did anyone catch the Nightline (I think) special on the emerging church last night (Friday 1/13)? I just saw the last 5 minutes. They were interviewing McLaren, and had a piece about John Musick, pastor of Bluer Vineyard Church in Minneapolis. I don't really know what the show was about other than that.
I also saw part of the 'Book of Daniel.' It was really exagerated, far-flung, and not something I would recommend anyone watch to learn about the church... but it was probably a lot truer than many of us inside the church would want to admit, and pretty funny too.
I understand the irreverence of it, but I think it could be possible for it to have a positive impact too. I know many people who view the church with a lot more contempt than was shown in this episode. I think sometimes we feel the need to defend God so much that maybe we forget about living like Jesus - and we forget abotu how others see us. And we could probably stand to lighten up a little too. But those are just my thoughts. Please don't go telling everyone I am endorsing the show. :)
posted by dan at 8:37 AM
18 Comments:
I wish I had seen that Nightline. Any idea if it's available online?
I looked and couldn't find anything. I'd be interested too. Amazingly though, I can't find anywhere that describes what last night's nightline was about. In a day or two, we could check the podcast. In a day or two, we could check the transcripts. But today, nothing tells what happened yesterday. I thought this was the 21st century.
I'm not positive it's the same piece, but it might be under "Prayer Party" at: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/
I jsut watched a bit of the video. I have dial-up and got tired of waiting.
Dan, you were right. It is now available at nightline.
As for the Book of Daniel, I didn't watch all of it, but my wife and I caught about ten minutes of it and that was about all we could stand. Everybody seemed to be a stereotyped joke. The mafia brothers were a joke. The gay couple were a joke. Actually both gay couples. The mother was a joke. The wife was a joke. Needless to say the pastor was a joke. And even Jesus was a joke. I do believe that people might see the church that way and that wasn't so offensive to me, but the lack of any real tension in any character (admittedly over the ten minutes I watched) was mostly, well, boring. Unfortunately I missed the pot selling daughter and the (fill-in-the-blank) son. My guess is that it won't be on long more because it isn't very good than for the fact that it is offensive.
I didn't comment on the Prayer Party (and maybe I'm in a bad mood) but I thought it was a terrible piece. They basically showed emergents as people who sing off key rock and roll in their church, wear sweat shirts to church, bring their dogs to church, and use a tire instead of advent wreath just to be different. Everyone who worshipped was in some type of ecstatic display. They interviewed McLaren at his church but didn't show any of his church which would have looked less rebellious and given more balance to the piece. The problem is they are continuing to give the impression that if you want to reach 20 somethings you have to wear sweatshirts and play loud rock and roll. This isn't even close if you ask me. What an easy issue to get at some easy depth and they show someone bringing a dog to church.
Didn't catch the Nightline. As for "Book of Daniel:" the commercials were well-written.
I was one of the 'ecstatic' worshippers in the piece (the one singing off key and doing air guitar). Unfortunately, ecstatic worshipers make good TV, so that seems to be all they showed of the Bluer gathering.
Yeah, the piece was really fluffy and doesn't even come close to showing any of the depth of the emerging church. Then again, what can we really expect from Nightline? The producer has a certain view of Christianity and to her rock and roll, casual dress, and dogs in church is rebellious and new (the dog in church was new to me).
I'm not sure your tire/wreath comment stands up. The pastor's kitsch comment was a bit weird, but the use of a tire to cause people to really think about advent is a good thing to do. As Spirit Garage is Lutheran I imagine most of their congregation grew up with the advent wreath yet few could tell you why they use it.
It's sad that Nightline didn't get it and chose to focus on the young person issue and the rock and roll, but in the end I think it will cause people to look into the EC and find out what it's really all about... and that's not a bad thing.
In the end, I think they came looking for a story and found it.
I think Brian's bad-mood analysis of the Nightline piece raises a good question (sorry, couldn't think of another way to phrase it): If you had 10 minutes to show the world what the emerging church is and/or how it is "different", what would you show/say/do?
One problem is that emerging churches have done an exceptional job not saying, "Here's how we are different from 'regular' churches." To do so, they would almost have to "bad mouth" those churches and thankfully they refuse to do it. So a camera crew simply sees the cosmetic.
Maybe it is a glorious thing that the faith cannot be summed up in ten minutes. If I had to sum up my faith in ten minutes, I would say, "I am a follower of Jesus Christ, the Living God, who is moving through my community and I am simply trying to follow and to love and to help as he shows me. Honestly I do not always understand why he leads me where he does and asks me to love those who others condemn. But I follow because it is the only way out that I see from my own consuming self-involvement."
Brian said:
One problem is that emerging churches have done an exceptional job not saying, "Here's how we are different from 'regular' churches." To do so, they would almost have to "bad mouth" those churches and thankfully they refuse to do it. So a camera crew simply sees the cosmetic.
I'm not trying to argue any point, but I'm not sure I agree with this. And maybe I am confusing the emerging church with something else; And... maybe the 'leaders' or 'spokespersons' of the emerging church have done a good job of this, but...
Man, I tend to think a lot of us (myself as much as anyone) have tried to show the emerging church as different from the "regular" church. In fact, I have probably made reference to the fact that I think it is better than the "regular" church. If not in words, at least by implication. So I apologize for my own naivete and insensitivity anyway (and wrongness).
Don't we, any time we say "advertise" our churches as "this is not your granfather's church"; or when we put pics of blue jeans and electric guitars on promos and such... isn't that insinuating we are "different"? And if not different from "regular" church, then different from what? I know we (or at least I) can defend it by saying we're just trying to let people know what to expect... and I guess I struggle to see the difference.
And I guess I'm not so sure it's wrong to say a church is different - though I think it would be wrong to say, or even imply, that it is "better." And that's why I apologized, because I think myself and some others have seriously implied the emerging church IS better becasue it focuses on different "things."
At any rate, some people say I am too hard on the church (emerging or otherwise); but I think we are often so quick to pass judgement on others (t.v. shows, nightline producers, even), but we dislike when people are critical of "us". And I'm not picking on you, Brian, but all of us... if we shouldn't be bad-mouthing the church (evangelical, traditional, charismatic, liberal, conservative, etc., etc.) we shouldn't be badmouthing the world either, should we? Especially in its efforts to try to understand us.
Sorry if this sounds like a rant. It's not, really. I think I just sorta felt my finger pointing at myself.
Don't we, any time we say "advertise" our churches as "this is not your granfather's church"; or when we put pics of blue jeans and electric guitars on promos and such... isn't that insinuating we are "different"?
None of those differentiate you from any mega church youth group or seeker sensitive church. The rock and roll, blue jeans revolution already happened over 10 years ago!
Movements like the Vineyard pioneered a lot of it- bringing guitars and drums into worship and wearing shorts to church.
The emerging church is different and should never try to down play that. If we weren't different what would the point be?
The hard part for outsiders to see is that the difference is more than skin deep. To see that you actually have to live with the people for a while, something mainstream media hasn't grasped.
I'd love to see Nightline send an 'embedded reporter' to live with an emerging church for a week - to experience life in a faith community. That is a report I would want to watch.
Different isn't necessarily better - something all EC folks need to remember (myself especially).
Saying things like "this isn't your parents church" is so seeker sensitive movement ;-)
Yeah, I guess I see the blue jeans thing as not so different, but just a flavor.
I was recently asked by an elder of an area church how to reach 20 somethings. I hesitated. It occurred to me that they would have to change so much about their church and it would sound more like bad-mouthing. They would have been open to stuff like clothes and music, but let me try off the top of my head to articulate some other changes in no particular order.
1. Open to discussions that border on heresy. My experience has been when this discussions are allowed, they almost always land of the side of Christ and the faith is deepened.
2. Allowing groups to form without official permission.
3. Set aside the litmus test of Republican conservatism for commitment to Christ and the church. This doesn't mean the church becomes liberal. It means that 20 somethings, though often conservative, see politics as shallow and meaningless.
These three are for the most part at the very core of most traditional churches that I know. If the church is a wineskin, you can't patch these changes in. It would require a new skin.
I admit Dan that I too am guilty of bad-mouthing, though I think there is a concerted effort by many of the emergent leaders to start talking about what we are rather than how we are different. But I do find that the emergent people really want to have a conversation, where it is more likely a traditional leader that will want to simply lay down the rule.
I was fascinated to see Doug Pagitt announce that he had set up a debate with a man who had written an article critical of the emergent church.
Nick,
Yeah, I agree. I was afraid I was crossing my SS and EC wires. Excuse me for being an old fogy. Should I have said candles and creeds instead of jeans and guitars? :) (just kidding)
I agree, that is not what it's about either. And I guess maybe that's what earlier posts have been saying -- that the EC is different, but not becasue of 'form' only (I'm not sure the seeker sensitives were entirely either).
But... I don't know why Nightline would WANT to send someone "in" for an extended time... if were' only going to be critical. I would like to commend them for at least trying to do something.
And I agree too, Brian, we need to start/continue talking more about what we 'are', rahter than just what we are against or what we don't like.
peace (and thanks for joining the conversation Nick)
I finally watched the piece. Given everything y'all had said about it my expectations were pretty low, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that as bad as I thought it was going to be. You guys are right that it focused too much on surfacey stuff that really isn't that revolutionary (it kind of seemed like the reporter must have grown up in a very traditional liturgical church tradition), though I thought McLaren's comments were pretty good, and a generally agreed with the explanations that the other various pastors gave for their stylistic innovations. While my own journey has taken me beyond mere the stylistic changes of the emerging church, it's a good reminder to me that it's where I began the journey, and some of the convictions I had about those stylistic issues still haven't changed. While the theological shift in my thinking is far more important, rethinking what we do in our worship gatherings is still important too.
Nick, I really appreciate you conversing with us. Just to note, it wasn't that I minded ecstatic worship, it's just that I think they paint churches like Bluer as charismatic church lite, which I don't think it probably is. And I would like to know more about the advent tire. With the short clip they showed, I honestly have no idea why the tire. And out of context, it can easily appear as a "I hate tradition" thing rather than a meaningful thing.
Again thanks for helping us on this!
Dan H-
Growing up Lutheran (and being an altar boy) I lit a lot of candles and read a lot of creeds without connecting it with much of anything. Then I left the church for 7 years. I came back to following God in the way of Jesus through working for Billy Graham and finally through encountering a real and vibrant faith I could actually live out (through a faith community called Bluer). I light a lot of candles and read creeds from time to time -- they are now meaningful to me.
RE: Nightline
I'm not sure they were trying to be critical. They merely didn't understand what they were reporting on. They saw it as a small rebel movement... and that's what they reported. They saw it as a young person movement... and
that's what they reported.
I doubt they'd want to send an embedded reporter as well. They have a check box next to emerging church on their shows list and probably feel they have covered the issue, when they've only scratched the surface.
RE: The Wreath
I grew up in the Lutheran Church (ELCA). I was taught all about the
symbolism of the advent wreath and candles and their ritual lighting, but I honestly couldn't recite it today. If I went to a Lutheran church, I'd see the wreath and notice it, but not engage with why it's there. But if I saw a tire instead, it would force me to ask "why not a tire?"
The wreath itself is just a symbol of a deeper spiritual truth... can a tire not symbolize the same thing? Can it symbolize it better to this generation than a wreath? Why is it considered odd to ask these sorts of questions?
I don't know why Spirit Garage chose a tire, but I am sure they were very intentional about it.
More
on the advent wreath
Regardig the Nightline piece - just to clarify - I wasn't saying they were being critical of the emerging church, I was saying some of "us" were being wrongly critical of Nightline. I think I misplaced an apostrophe in.
Oh, the tire was at Spirit Garage not at Bluer. I don't have a problem with the tire, but I believe that "most people" think 20 somethings would use a tire just to be shocking and irreverent. I personally assume it was in place to have deep meaning. My wish for Nightline is they would have said, "It isn't to be shocking so much as to show the true meaning, which is..."
I'm not sure if Dan thought I was being "wrongly critical of Nightline," and I don't think Nightline is here to advance my agenda, but I thought they totally missed the point of the Emerging Church and at least wish, they would have shown the truly interesting side of those churches.
Post a Comment
<< Home