It usually begins like this: There has to be a better way.
This urge to seek greener pastures, higher callings, a New World seems to be an irrepressible facet of human nature.
The whole of human history is shot through with conquests of this sort. Some are resplendent successes, some are abysmal failures. But the need to improve upon, innovate or reform is an indispensable tool of human progress.
I just wonder to what degree, though, Christians ought to promote this kind of thinking when it comes inventing/finding a better way to do Christianity. My concern is that the desire to innovate often disguises what may, perhaps, be a false underlying assumption; ie. I am my own authority.
Full disclosure: I admit to being frustrated with aspiring pastors who are forever striking out on their own and planting new churches. It's just that Southern California is chock-full of these kinds of churches and since this is where I live, I want to know why.
That question motivated me to buy and read a book written by local pastor, Jim Belcher: "Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional."
To be honest, my lingering impression could be titled, "Deep Disappointment: A 31,000th Way To Re-Invent Christianity."
This is not to disparage the author, Jim Belcher, whom I found to be genial, smart and best of all, a baseball fan. We had a great chat and he made me feel comfortable enough to share my reservations with him.
My disappointment has to do with how Jim's solution to the problems between Traditional and Emergent churches was to, predictably, start a new church.
To his credit, he did align himself with an established denomination. And frankly, I appreciate his blend of Christianity: "a church that sings hymns, recites set prayers, has Communion every week and is intergenerational and gospel centered." (p. 31) I just think churches like that already exist. Especially here in Orange County which is like a mecca for experimental Christianity.
When I asked Jim why a "third way," he chuckled: "It's not a new way," he said. "It's actually an old way. We stand in the Great Tradition that stretches back to the 4th and 5th century."
"OK," I said. "But how is that any different than lots of denominations and non-denominations that claim the same thing? I mean, I grew up in a church that claimed it had recaptured the 'New Testament pattern.'"
I will be honest and say that I found Jim's answer unsatisfactory. He talked a lot about "interpreting [Scripture and tradition] within the context" of the modern world and "living within the Biblical story" and his church being a "new way for what's out there."
And maybe that answer suffices for Jim's target audience. Fair enough. I'm not his target audience–I'm just a disappointed reader. With a lot of baggage. Heh.
What I do recognize is that Jim's ministry has borne good fruit, his book is a bestseller (for its genre) and he's making a positive impact on Orange County. I guess I just wonder: is his particular vision sustainable? I mean, what happens after the innovator/establisher-of-a-new-way-that's-not-new retires?
I suppose it's somewhat unfair to try and deconstruct Jim's vision simply by reading his book. Perhaps if I attended and experienced his church, the reality of what he's trying to accomplish would resonate with me. In a book that reads like an intensely researched thesis paper, it's almost impossible to grasp the fullness of what Jim proposes.
Still, I do commend Jim for organizing a worship service that centers on Communion. That's a rare find these days, especially in evangelical circles where Communion has been downgraded to an almost randomly scheduled, optional practice.
Ultimately, I'm glad I read the book. It offers valuable insight into defining what is/is not the emerging church and where it's going/not-going and how the traditional church can respond/not-respond by becoming a third-way/not-third-way.
Ouch.
Now my brain hurts. Thanks, Jim.
Oh, well. LET'S GO, DODGERS!
