http://www.indy.com/posts/5115 en-us Jet After suffering from the scrupulosity form of obsessive-compulsive disorder for most of my childhood, it became clear that the way I understood God was gong to have to change. Or else I would have slowly lost my will to live. Adios Catholicism. I started down the path of a Christianity which was centered around MY beliefs in my late 20's. Read all of Bishop Spong's books. But when you start to cut and paste the Bible, it loses all of its meaning. Biblical scholarship created so much doubt in my mind. I just can't buy it all. And in further research, I have come to think that Jesus never physically existed. If you look at the culture at that period of time, you'll find that there were several sects which believed the same "Jesus story," but their gods had names like Mithras and Apollo. I tried Buddhism, but I am a failure at meditation. And really--it's a philosophy, not a religion. I have great reverence for the Four Noble Truths, though, and it has helped me navigate life more fully than the Golden Rule. Buddhism makes you take responsibility for your pain. If more people would accept this concept and quit blaming each other for their suffering, this world would improve immensely. I explored paganism. It's just too hard to swallow. I love nature, and all of the moments of transcendence I've experienced have been in the company of wildflowers, crashing waves and glacier-covered mountains. So I am slowly beginning to accept the fact that I am an atheist. But I firmly believe you can be a spiritual person and be an atheist or agnostic. The spirit is present regardless of belief. I don't need a 2000-year-old book to make me feel good. I don't need to hop around singing about God's glory to feel worthy of life. (And rock and roll is about rebellion, you idiots. Quite ruining it with that trash you call Christian rock. You are making the rest of us nauseous. Seriously, play some Little Richard raunchiness and get over it.) So I believe this article chronicles the beginning of the end. A religion cannot survive without a body. And if the arms and legs are running in opposite directions, well, you follow. Christianity is not about individuals. It's about community. You can't have it both ways. Blessed be. Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:35:22 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20887 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20887 Marley I like JL Kato's question. I think it's a good one to think about. Also just wanted to add some more words that aren't my own, but Donald Miller's, "There are many problems with trying to market the gospel of Jesus, not the least of which is that, in itself, it is not a cool or fashionable idea. It isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be revolutionary. It's for people who are tired of trying to be cool, tired of trying to get the world to redeem them." I don't necessarily think any of these churches are claiming to reinvent Christianity, but they are trying to make people aware that Christ's ideas are relevant to today's culture too. I think being relevant is good, but there's also a fine line between trying to be relevant and trying to be cool. Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:05:02 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20824 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20824 serigraph73 2 words: King James Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:08:54 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20818 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20818 JL Kato If God never changes, then why is the Old Testament God and the New Testament God so different? Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:52:25 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20817 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20817 anomymousjohnny You can't change the way you worship or mold your Christian ways to fit your lifestyle and make you feel comfortable - you can't change what the scripture says to be more "cool" and "relaxed" - God is the same always and forever - never changing - If you really wanted to experience God - or live like a Christian - then actually listen to what he says in the Bible - and don't try to change it - If you truly do that - then you'll realize you don't want to change it - Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:48:49 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20816 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_20816 Kyle_Schlenz I think the confusion comes because of a semantic issue between "the emerging church" movement and the "Emergent Church." The Emergent Church is a new denomination of sorts spearheaded by Brian McLaren. The emerging church movement is a looser term. It generally includes new groups like the Emergent Church, but also includes the growing population of house churches and start-ups like the Mosaic who are seeking reach out intentionally to their surrounding community. See the Wikipedia article on "emerging church" for an excellent explanation. For my own part, I am excited about Christians who are thinking outside of the box of the 1900's paradigm. However, it's not really about doing something "new" or abandoning the Bible. It's actually about going back 2,000 years and asking the question "do our current church practices make sense with the vision outlined in the New Testament?". Personally, I think most modern churches are bloated with unnecessary doctrines and practices and could use a good streamlining back to "love God" and "love others." This doesn't change who we believe Jesus is or our reverence for Scripture. Taking a low view of Scripture wouldn't be new anyway. The Gnostics were doing that 2,000 years ago. Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:19:27 -0400 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_17276 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_17276 AndrewC Matt, You did a great job with the article. I just don't think these churches are truly "emergent". At any rate, I bet no one in leadership from any of these congregations, perhaps with the exception of The Dwelling Place, will say here that evolution is a legitimate explanation of human origins. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a group holds to biblical inerrancy, they basically always reject the consensus of modern biology, that is, that the earth is billions of years old and that homosapiens evolved from increasingly complex organisms. Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:11:13 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15705 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15705 Matt Gonzales Being a non-churchgoer myself, I sought out help from folks in the religious community in my quest to identify youth-oriented Christian churches that have "emerging" qualities. I was surprised when most of the ones I encountered turned out to be rather conservative in terms of their interpretation of the Bible. Having said that, it's using a bit too broad a brush to say that none of them accept the contributions of modern science, to say the least. However, when it comes to elephant-in-the-room issues like homosexuality, most of them unapologetically side with the traditional conservative Christian view that it's a sin. However, contrary to many traditional churches, none of them seem to make it an agenda to condemn that particular sin more harshly than other sins. But to be fair, I didn't discuss this issue explicitly with everyone I interviewed. Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:59:34 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15701 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15701 AndrewC You don't need to attend a service to critique a congregation's approach to scripture when it posts it in plain words on its website. Mike is right: we're not "emerging" from anything if fundamentalist theology remains intact. Modern scholarship is devastating to premises such as "the Bible is inerrant and/or infallible." For anyone interested in creating something a bit more intimate and intellectually progressive (for example, accepting of the contributions of modern science) check out the Alternative Church. We aren't funded by any parent organizations or mega-churches. We will reflect who we are, but we will build upon some common propositions that can be viewed on both our web-sites (myspace and facebook). Our fundamentals are quite different from the churches discussed in the Indy.com article. So if that sounds appealing to you, check us out. www.myspace.com/alternativechurch Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:52:55 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15699 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15699 rictor The redhead with the orange cat is cute...wait...what's this thread about again? Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:06:25 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15201 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15201 bmkulenkamp Thanks for the great article! I really enjoyed reading about different churches that I had no idea were out there. I am a member of Common Ground Christian Church, which was mentioned in the comments section. I guess it wasn't mentioned in the article because Intake has already done one in the past, and also because it really isn't a baby church anymore. As a 20-something I am glad that there are churches out there trying new things. This has been going on on campuses for a long time, but it's great to see it branch out to the suburbs. After leaving college, I struggled with finding a church where I felt I could relate to the message and to also find others to fellowship with that were around my same age. Most churches in the Indy area are either too big or too "old school", and I found it hard to connect and to fellowship. I found that Common Ground allowed me to do just those two things. It isn't for everyone, that is why there are so many churches out there (and so many different religions)! You have to find what you are comfortable with. There isn't anyone that should tell you one way or the other is right or wrong. It is just that CG was the right choice for me. I'm glad the article sparked discussion and allowed for others to know that there are different places out there, in case they are looking for just that. Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:02:09 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15198 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15198 gcw I find myself in agreement with Mike's comments above and would add in response to Craydavi that after reading the Bible, my view of McLaren changed. I find it highly ironic that any of you would go so far as to slam Mike for making statements about faith communities he's never attended and people he's never met when it's obvious you've thrown the baby out with the bath. As usual, you're making church about you. Here's a news flash: We are the church and we're here for the world. Oh, well. Never mind. Go your own silly way. I'm less than impressed. Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:39:30 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15197 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15197 Markus I'm an atheist in the target age group, but I can tell you right now that dogmatic acceptance of Bible is something I can never adopt. It's still just religion. Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:47:05 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15191 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15191 astory Hey Mike. That is a great question about revolution? A bit of an overused word in culture today anyways. As it pertains to a movement of people following Christ that question intrigues me... but maybe we can get a drink and chat about that on another day. However, give Matt props. He did a fab job in research. You might want to follow his lead before making statements about faith communities you've never attended and people you've never met. Just a thought. I'm not in the James Dobson club, personally puke in my throat when I hear Rush talk about his version of Christianity, and have never read any of the Left Behind series. There are many women that carry a great deal of influence in decisions made at IMC. And there are a good many Jesus followers that don't fit in the box you're describing too. For real. Not trying to be trendy, emergent, postmodern..blah blah. Just trying to be who God made me to be, trying to follow Jesus, trying to love God and love others the very best I can with God's Spirit in me every single day. Put whatever label on that you feel led to I guess. Most importantly, all I know is what my life was like before following Jesus Christ and what has happened with it since. Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:21:00 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15184 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15184 nolesrock i'm an occasional attendee of the dwelling place and i have nothing but good things to say about shane fuller and my other co-dwellers, if you will...but like kasey, i don't think shane thinks too highly of labels like "emergent" or "post-modern" i like the blend of traditional, more liturgical elements with a contemporary, casual feel...i sometimes play drums for the music portion of the service, but sometimes we just sing a few hymns with piano or acoustic guitar accompaniment we recite the nicene creed but i haven't heard much in the way of fundamental theology...and as for the spawning church, college park, i'm not sure they have too much to do with this 2-year-old congregation the thing i like most is that we share meals together at least twice a month and communion is a regular sacrament...plus shane and cary are very approachable, friendly and down-to-earth...not a preachy bone in either of their bodies plus, i love that we support Outreach, Inc. and have been actively involved in helping Indy's homeless youth Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:49:32 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15182 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15182 kaseyn1 This is Kasey, the Teaching Pastor at Mosaic Church. I will gladly respond to Mike's comments, particularly about Mosaic. For starters, yes, I grew up at Post Road Christian Church and then I served on staff there for six years. Post Road did NOT however plant Mosaic. Mosaic is a vision that God gave me and a small group of friends a couple of years ago to try things a bit differently than we were used to, and we approached Post Road about leaving to start a new church. The leadership at Post Road was very gracious as we left that church and did give us some financial support to help us get started (as did several other churches and individuals). I perceived from your post that the idea of new churches being spun out of existing churches is a negative thing. I don't think that any church planters background in an existing church is a negative thing though, as a matter of fact, it is highly unlikely that someone without a church background of some sort would ever plant a new church. We are an autonomous, self-governing church (no denominational structure or leadership of another church has 'authority' over us). That said, the leadership of Post Road fully released us to develop our own belief statements, mission, vision, values, where we would be located, etc. Secondly, though this article may refer to the emergent movement, and though I have read McLaren and many others, we have never claimed to be a part of it. As a matter of fact, we reject the labels of emergent, postmodern, whatever denomination, fundamental, evangelical or whatever...we are simply followers of Christ on a journey together. So as to not write a book, I cannot fully or adequately respond to each point in this post, but here are a couple more thoughts. Our stance on the Bible: Yes, we believe the Bible is true as it was originally revealed by God to its human authors. We were deliberate in the language of that statement because we are not afraid to admit that through history some errors have been made in translations from time to time. As followers of Christ though, we make no apologies for believing the Bible to be true as it was originally revealed by God. As to women in leadership or male dominated structures. We do not currently have an eldership, we have been functioning with a leadership team for a couple of years (since we began praying and planning). Our leadership team has, from the beginning, been made up equally of men and women (currently 6 married couples). As we mature as a church and eventually have an eldership, we are considering, praying, and discussing what role women may have in an eldership. And I completley agree that we shouldn't buy into all of the hype, we are not revolutionary, nor are we changing the face of the church. As I said at the beginning, we are simply followers of Christ on a journey together, and we have found a place and a way of joining together on that journey that works for us. Mike, you clearly have some knowledge of churches and church movements around Indy with your comments about us, Commom Ground, and others. And I appreciate your willingness to raise what some might perceive to be difficult questions. Thinking through the issues helps make us all better. Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:17:25 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15148 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15148 craydavi I think Mike has made a great point in his comment here! Anybody from these churches want to respond? I actually agree with Mike that some of the so-called "emergent" or "organic" churches are just what he has described. But I do know that after reading the McLaren books my view of the Bible and church and fundamentalist doctrine has TOTALLY changed! Can you believe that some within the emergent community are even having dialogue about the value and validity of different metaphors for the atonement of Christ! I don't think you'll find that going very far in the "counterfeit" emergent churches. Seems to me the real radical changes are taking place in homes, coffee shops, and book stores. I, for one, am very tired of the institutional church and the political games they play. Too bad some may be trying to capitalize on true emergent conversation and theological deconstruction just to keep younger generations in their own folds. If anything, I would say a lot of what I have observed in the few emergent communities I've participated in and read about is some of the same old "liberal" thinking and social gospel approaches I used to fear. Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:19:39 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15145 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15145 Mike_Oles_3 Don't believe the hype 'cause this aint no revolution. It is more like a mutation. Like the way a strain of bacteria becomes drug resistant. Peel away the cool logos, funky setting, good music, and hip pastors and all you got is same fundamentalist theology that sucks. Profiled are four churches (Mosaic, The Crux, The Dwelling Place, and Indy MetroChurch.) Like the unmentioned but wildly popular Common Ground, all of them have roots in large, conservative, evangelical churches. With the exception of the Dwelling Place, all four still seemingly share their parent churches' extremely conservative theology. It's like moving out of your parents' basement only to bring their James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh and Left Behind books with you. These church's for the most part were created to reach out to the God-challenged young adults. We (I was born in 1977) don't like going to church. It's boring, our parents are still in charge, and it is not socially relevant and/or politically conservative. So give them some ironic art and some good indie rock, the thinking goes, and maybe they'll show up. It worked to some extent. If Post Road Christian Church can't get the younger folks to attend worship, let's give them Mosaic. Fundamentalist theology. But, the hitch is that the theology is still fundamentalist. For instance, Post Road Christian church spun off and financially supported Mosiac. Here is both congregation's take on the bible: Mosiac: We believe that the Bible (both the Old and New Testament) is the Word of God, and is therefore completely true as it was originally revealed by God to its human authors. 2 Timothy 3:15-16, 2 Peter 1:20-21 Post Road: The Bible is the inspired word of God, without error and relevant for today. It serves as a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. (See also 2 Timothy 3:16.) People are free to believe what they want. But when basic scholarship proves that the bible is not "without error" or "completely true as it was revealed to its human authors," how is this revolutionary? It's simply bad theology. All of these other "revolutionary" churches also do not allow women to be pastors from what I can tell. All of these churches governing boards (or elders) also seem to be all male or dominated by men. So at the end of the day, you have churches who still use the bible in a fundamentalist way and you still have a church that won't give women the same power as men. While these churches are a phenomenon, please spare us the hyperbole that they are "revolutionary" or "changing the face of the church." Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:58:27 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15143 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15143 churchdoc Great work, Matt. Thanks for the overview of what's happening in Indy. Bob Anderson Executive Presbyter Whitewater Valley Presbytery Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:14:33 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15119 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15119 ronlewhorn Great article matt. I love the Crux. It's been hard transistioning and finding a new church having grown up in and attended the same church for 22 years. This place is so welcoming and un-intimidating! Daren is an amazing speaker and Ryan is a worship leader that can hold his own with professional musicians. thanks. Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:59:01 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15044 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_15044 craydavi Very good article! As a former conservative Evangelical pastor snd Biblical literalist with a charismatic twist, I am very excited for the emerging conversations about God, Jesus, church, the Bible, culture, history, and social justice. I was first introduced to post modern philosophy and its impact on younger generations of American Christians in Indiana Wesleyan's new ministry leadership master's program. The classes about contemporary theological trends and Bible interpretation helped me see a much broader view of historic Christianity and the cultural influences that permeate a very syncrestic church. One of the best things emergents have going is the "safe" environments they create for critical thinking and deconstructivist theology. After reading Brian McLaren's book "Everything Must Change" I am ready to shift not only from my ultra conservatiive theology but even my political moorings. Hey, I might even vote for Barak Obama! Now I know I'll be on my way to hell according to some of my evangelical Republican friends. Politics is jsut another real life arena with real life consequences that the emerging conversation is affecting. The good news is that emergents seem more concerned with their neighbors around the world and the quality of life for future generations on this planet than merely saving some ethereal mystical segment of an individual called the soul. Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:45:09 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_14939 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_14939 nicoleyonkman Thanks Indy.com for doing this story. I have gotten to know Sarah Notten in the Emergent Cohort and have visited most of the churches mentioned in the article. As a college and grad student I have done research on the impact on postmodernism on religious practice and have been waiting to see what would happen. I believe emergent Christianity is the response to a church structure that no longer makes sense for many followers of Jesus. I am a pastor of a new church start, but I also grew up in an unchurched home where my parents had a negative view of the church due to their childhood and young adult experience during the 1960's. I find myself having some of the same frustrations with institutional church as unchurched people. The world is changing so fast and the snail's pace of church change just isn't going to cut it. Although I love the church, I love Jesus more and wonder what the future will be. Nicole Yonkman Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:10:40 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_14907 http://www.indy.com/posts/5115#comment_14907