I have decided I'd rather be Emergematic. Emergematic has a sense of hope attached to it. It is ready to wear, quick to move, and self activating. Pentemergent sounds bottled up, filled with struggling emotions, and frustrated. At least that's how the words sound to me.I also do not hold to a strict view of Tongues as the initial physical evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, so that makes me more Charismatic than Pentecostal anyway. I tend to be laid back, and don't need to shout during a church service to feel like God arrived, so that makes me more Charismatic as well.
I would like to be easily comfortable with my Charismania elements in Emergent settings. I can not say that I am uncomfortable, but then I am not fully confortable either. Fully comfortable would make me Emergematic, but I think there just might be a touch of Pent-in-my-Emergent.
Whay might I and some others of us feel that way?
12 comments:
I still have a lot to learn about the Emerging church movement, and missional living, but I totally feel ya.
I think our theology must be very similar (I hold the same views about the Baptism of the HS and tongues).
Honestly, I think the tension you refer to is good. I don't think comfort is something we should strive for. If we get comfortable, we aren't being challenged to think, to seek, and to question, which I believe are actions the church should be participating in more, rather than pounding the "answers" into people.
It's funny because I've learned relatively recently that Judaism really promotes questioning and "seeking" in that way.
Sometimes it's the journey that's more important than the destination. It allows God to continually shape us and move us.
Emergematic sounds like a kitchen appliance on infomertials.
Marieke,
You're so smart. I love your answer here, and your happiness with tension.
B-Man!
Yeah we're talkin' Ronco Emergematic!
To me, emergent seems like more from the mind while charismatic more from the heart. Because of this there is a possible personality clash. Even still, both are very open minded/hearted and free spirited which is why the emergent are accused as being wishy washy and charismatic being flaky. Neither accusation is true(hopefully). Both are led by the Holy Spirit into truth.
I agree with marieke that tension is good. It just sometimes gives me a headache. (pentamergent moment)
:)
Nice balance of thought Carl. Good observations on the potential weaknesses of both systems, and the points of tension.
"Emergematic"?
Sounds like a new model of clothes washer. Is that Kenmore or Whirlpool? :-)
A lot of what you've experienced in the Pentecostal subculture is foreign to me, so I have a hard time understanding the tension you feel. In my own background (independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ) there's a tension between traditionalism and evangelicalism. My own traditionalism became legalism, and in recent days I have begun discovering a new tension between my missional views and evangelicalism.
I guess I'll have to blog on this later....
Phil, this could be the very device we've been looking for to enable traditional churches to painlessly enter into the emergent/missional paradigm. What a great invention. ;)
Hey Adam,
I think every tradition will have its own tensions as it merges with the strange mix Emergent is, but that is the beauty of the conversation, we are openly discussing issues of significance. For you it will another issue than it is for us "got my Pantycostals all in a bunch" people.
Hey Webb,
I have my R&D guys working on the prototype of the Emergematic 1000 now.
S'funny. Thinking on someone else I know who I've just heard is leaving their current church to join with Four-Square (looking for ordination... and they're coming from a background of 'ministry to/about Pagans'..... if there's not enough hints in there for those who might be familiar with those I've come into contact with then I'm not sure how else to hint. :D)..... the concept of 'the body of Christ' being contained in the different communities of followers sprang to mind. I know we human beings like our labels and little boxes to put people into. But I'm wondering just how useful they really are when talking about someone who is truly trying to follow Christ ('as seen in scripture, coming to a bible near you' :D). I'm wondering if, what can be found in each and every denomination is a Christian approach for specific circumstances, but not an all encompassing Christian/scriptural approach.... a bit like focusing on one particular section of Pauls letters where he is speaking to a specific group/issue within a community. It certainly seems to make sense from the perspective of making ones church focus easy... 'just adopt the attitudes espoused in this particular frame of reference.' Somehow I can't help feeling that there isn't a denomination that encapsulates Christ and Christianity, and consequently using denominational terms of reference simply won't do. It's a bit like me choosing to use the term 'shaman' to describe my Pagan path. It conjures up specifics that aren't necessarily relevant or descriptive of what I do and who I am. It serves a purpose to put people in the right city block. But doesn't provide an address. Consequently whenever I use the term I find myself adding lots of qualifying statements.
Is the need to add qualifying statements such a bad thing? Certainly not when entering into dialogue about our beliefs...... and again I'm left with that underlying reminder that each and every one of us holds what is ultimately a very unique approach to faith and belief.
Just some mumblings and musings there. :D
BB
Mike
Someone who ministers to Pagans is looking to get in to the Square? whoa. weird. ;-)
Post a Comment