Tuesday, May 1, 2007

The Backward Church

The Future Church: Ministry in a Post-Seeker Age
By Jim L. Wilson
Serendipity House

Jim Wilson attempts to define the "Future Church," in this book as more innovative than the contemporary church. It seeks to "be relevant to the post-seeker age as the contemporary church was to the seeker era." These definitions are, at best, question begging. What is "post-seeker," after all, and how did we get there? When, exactly, did we leave the "seeker-sensitive" era? Why is the future church better than the contemporary church? What exactly is the contemporary church and why is it inferior to the future church besides it being less "relevant?" Wilson doesn’t bother going into such details. It leaves the reader scratching his head and only assures confusion and even suspicion. This is because its title is a false start. We still don’t know what the future looks like, no matter what "futurists" say. The American Heritage dictionary defines future as the "indefinite time yet to come," indefinite meaning uncertain or unclear. It is unfortunate for Wilson that the forward to his book sheds no light on this problem but further muddies it. Sally Morgenthaler, in the forward, writes: "The Future Church is already here, in seminal form, but here." The qualifier "seminal" feels awkward and uninspired in the context of her piece. She writes things like "what will be in five or ten years is uncertain but we will be well to take notice. " Well, why gush that "the future church" is here in the first place? It’s like Paul Revere making his midnight crossing saying, "The British are coming, the British are coming!" followed by "well, they are coming in theory" and then "well, I am not sure they are coming but we would be wise to take heed because they might come." Worse for her readers, Morgenthaler furthers her argument for the future church with ham-handed prose. She writes: "The new church is here, it came imperceptibly, like a waft of first spring musk at the tired edge of winter; barely distinguishable, yet blowing into the subconscious a sense of much longed for visitation." You can see creative writing professors everywhere sinking in their chairs. (It is odd that a movement that boasts "futurists" and "seers" would feature such dreadful writers.) Ultimately, Jim Wilson fails to convince the reader that such a future church exists or that it even matters. Instead he allows assertion, contradictory information, and lazy research to punctuate his arguments.

Wilson opens his second chapter with some seriously confused assertions: "conventional wisdom says one religion is as good as another." If conventional wisdom actually does say that (although that point is arguable), since when have Christians been encouraged to trust the philosophical smog of our culture? If a writer or thinker equates Christianity with, say, Islam, by saying it is "as good," shouldn’t it be expected of Christians to explain the differences? No such explanation is given here. And here’s how Wilson completes the sub-heading: "Gurus, mystics, and psychics are as legitimate as priests, rabbis, and ministers in today’s super-charged spiritual environment." What? No they are not. Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew, hosted a radio program that for years featured religious leaders. He gave countless airtime and had vigorous discussions with Christian ministers but rarely if ever featured psychics or "mystics" on his show. Though I am not a fan of Larry King, his show has featured Christians such as Rick Warren and James Dobson in serious discussions. He has had psychics like Sylvia Browne on his show, but didn’t seem to take her claims all that seriously. Not even the most cynical atheist gives psychics the same benefit of credibility as ministers and rabbis. Christopher Hitchens’s recent book "god is not Great" and Richard Dawkins’s "The God Illusion" excoriate Christianity for sure, but they don’t devote much space to psychics, "gurus," or tea leaf readers. Spiritual hacks such as these are ignored and even laughed at. They are not considered "legitimate." You would think that this movement of futurists in tune with our culture would at least find the time to get in touch with what is actually going on in the culture.

By way of example of a future church, Erwin McManus gets top billing. But why is Erwin McManus’s Mosaic church considered a future church? Well, for one reason, because Erwin said it was. For readers who have been following the recent controversy regarding his church, Erwin’s word just isn’t good enough. Wilson also offers this tour of Mosaic: "hanging from the ceiling was one of those Saturday Night Fever film reflector balls …most of the 300-plus in attendance sat on the chairs on the dance floor…Mosaic services are definitely in the 21st century. The music ranges from Santana smooth to urban alternative…worship leaders weave drama, dance, and MTV-style video clips into the texture of the service." Walking through this "future church" with Jim Wilson feels like a time warp. Just reading it makes me want to break out my polyester jumpsuit with matching platform shoes. Saturday Night Fever, after all, was released in 1977. Carlos Santana is a 70’s era dinosaur who experienced a brief career resurgence in the mid-nineties. And non-Christians who experience a service with "MTV-style video clips" find it unpleasant and dated. Describing a service where people sit on a dance floor isn’t futurist. It’s logistics. And just repeating the word "future" or writing "21st century" when mentioning Mosaic does not make it so.

Wilson does himself no favors by quoting George Barna to bolster his argument. Barna shows research that contradicts the idea that a church like Mosaic could call itself futurist, let alone contemporary. Certainly Mosaic would not resonate with the unchurched. Barna explains that the unchurched view "the ideal church size to be between one hundred to two hundred people; that they prefer traditional hymns with contemporary instruments and arrangements; that they don’t expect the church to put on a show for them." By those criteria, Mosaic church has gone 0 for 3. They struck out with the unchurched but they will continue to get fawning coverage from this self-congratulating club of futurists. Why let facts get in the way of the legend?

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another well written review Ruben.---Jake

Anonymous said...

I linked here off of another person's blog in my search for the truth about Erwin McManus.

I can't say I'm surprised at all. When I first heard him speak and read his books, I was very much taken in by his eloquence and his delivery. He's an excellent communicator who can draw you in within a few minutes. He was almost "too good to be true."

It's sad b/c so many are drawn to him if any of what is being said is true. I know after watching my parents being sucked into a cult in my early teens, it sort of screwed up my idea about church, religion and God even to this day.

Anonymous said...

just like anonymous, i too was led here after i googled erwin's name.

i started to read his 'uprising' book this morning, and 20 or so pages into it, it began to grate on me. it smelled fishy, like something rotten!

i just read all of your posts, ruben, and you have confirmed my initial suspicion.
and i am grieving for the damage that has been inflicted on you and people you know.

your in christ in louisiana, the other LA

Anonymous said...

In verbally defaming a ministry you risk speaking against an area in which the Holy Spirit is at work. I know that you do not respect Mosaic, but I would ask that you consider the possibility that the Holy Spirit is at work within the Mosaic community. You may not agree with methods, ideologies or formats, but as you trash this community, you speak against the very Spirit of God at work.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought,
I don't recall Ruben trashing the Mosaic community. He seems eloquent in bringing up tough issues and yes he doesn't care for Erwin's writings. But Erwin's writings are poor and should be reviewed. And I don't remember the holy spirit being brought up at Mosaic when I attended, but I'm sure the spirt could be found. And I'm not convinced that the spirit is a big fan of the emergent way.
A second thought

Anonymous said...

I read this blog, and my pastor did a service series on McManus's book The Barbarian Way. For some reason it didn't resonate with me very well and has made me critical of McManus in the emerging church movement. I agree that there is a lot of hype and not enough substance there.

However, your blog seems a bit presumptuous. How do you know that unchurched people find MTV style videos outdated or that they like hymns and congregation sizes of 200 or less? I see churches like Fellowship and Saddleback thriving with thousands of members and satellite locations. I think it is only fair to ask from where did you draw your conclusions to argue this book? Or are these just your own opinions?

Mr. Aguilar said...

"How do you know that unchurched people find MTV style videos outdated or that they like hymns and congregation sizes of 200 or less? I see churches like Fellowship and Saddleback thriving with thousands of members and satellite locations."

Anonymous, I only posted the very research the author printed in his book. I found it weird that the research he found contradicted his own thesis: the conclusion from the research is that non-Christians found that churches putting on a show like this was unpleasant and dated. In addition, I dont deny that Saddleback is bringing in thousands. I am not so sure, however, that most of those people filing in are non-Christians. Thanks for your inquiry.

Anonymous said...

I just came upon this article and realize it's been up for a while, but I must comment.

Barna's research indicating that the un-churched expect church to be between 100- 200 people, use traditional hymns and what not is a moot point. That's why they are un-churched... because they don't like it. So bringing them into a different environment that is more "Mtv style" is drawing them in... not making them feel like they are in a church that they avoided their whole lives. They are the UN-Churched for a reason... so try changing up your methods to that they will become the church.