Amy, I'd be curious to hear your critiques of the video--yes, I did watch all 11 minutes. It looks like it's more of a "commercial" for the church and its exploration to reach its local culture than anything...

My concerns, and then my affirmations:

Here's my main concern: where is God in this? Are they there to glorify Him? Praise Him? Be in relationship with Him? Love Him? God was absent from that video, which is why I contrasted it with some fantastic biographies of great Christians from the past where God was the center of all--and He was the center as those great men were changing their societies, helping orphans, ending slavery, etc. But God was the center.

Where was God in that video? It's still possible He may be a focus in their real-life community, but this video is what they purposely created to project the image of who they are to the world. This is what's important to them, and this is the image that came across (regardless of how they are in reality):

This community is centered on itself. The focus of their discussion was on their relationships with each other. Jesus was mentioned, but as an example--not as anyone to worship and center your life around. Instead of God, the focus of the video was on the group. They want religion "their way." They want to pick their options, they want to say whatever they wish, they don't want any constraints on their thinking about God. I don't mean "they don't want anyone to prevent their questions." I encourage questions, and I have no problem with that! Instead, I mean they don't want the constraints of solid answers because they want to be free to create their own individualistic beliefs. Instead of being outwardly focused on the truth about God, they're inwardly focused on their needs and desires. Perhaps not singularly inwardly focused, but certainly inwardly focused on their community, not God.

That overshadows everything else for me by far. By comparison, I have only a tiny concern about their characterization of conservatives (the usual picture painted by the EC). It seems ridiculous to say conservatives today wouldn't have helped the poor and downtrodden when every study shows that conservatives are more likely to give time and money to help people than liberals (who want to help people, but through the government instead of personally)--even when one doesn't count tithes given to churches. This is only the most recent study (written by an Independent who said he was surprised by the results). It's simply unfair of them to use this incorrect stereotype to attract people. (I almost even hate to bring that up since it's so much less of a concern than what I said above.)

As far as positives, I think it's great for people to feel free to discuss questions and doubts about God and struggle through them together. I think community is vital to Christians and should be developed as much as possible--in light of their reconciled relationships with God. I also think it's great for artistic personalities to have a place to use their gifts in the church. All of those things I can affirm.

Your concerns are valid. I don't feel compelled to defend this community nor the emergent community, but if the video was the most accurate picture of the community, that would make sense. My sense is that the video is their attempt to bridge church and the secularist, and perhaps (whether it's right or wrong) their strategy is to talk up the community and perhaps to the 'detriment' of talking about God. Their website centers itself more on God.

I think the emergent movement has it's finger on something that various church traditions have not quite captured--and that is to do community well. many churches have tried to do small group well but not quite figured out how to develop an attractive, witnessing community. Your observations are valid, but I'm not sure it should be that 'negative' of a thing. (I know many would disagree) Is this narcissism? probably! Are there ways that this can be corrected and done well? probably! Are people coming to faith and growing as disciples? probably.

My life/ministry "soaks" itself in this generation, and for me what's helpful is more to get the ideas and values rather than how they end up doing it. My two cents: Emergent church needs the non-emergent church and vice-versa.

EE, thanks for your point about the website. I agree that we all need to work harder at developing community, and that the Emergent church is a good reminder of that.

I just want to see disciples who are God-oriented even more than they are community-oriented.

Just a clarification, after looking into this some more...

This doesn't appear to be a video created by Solomon's Porch, but by one of the members. I did mention before that I can only comment on the image given by the video, and that their actual community may be different.

However, I need to add to that now the fact that this video isn't any sort of official representation of the church. The creator may or may not have captured its essence, and it's possible this reflects what's important to the creator of the video rather than what's important to the church.

Their view of conservatives is of little consequence. That they have no statement of faith and hold beliefs which are fluid will be of major consequence to their identification as a "Christian" community.

Agreed. In fact, if you look here at the site where the video is posted and read the comments, you'll find a lot of positive reactions that reflect the problem. For example:

Reminds me of the UCC (united church of christ)I was a member of as a kid, and the UU (unitarian universalist) church we attended briefly for a number of years before just adhering to our secular humanist and agnostic tendencies.

Would Solomon's Porch fall under the heading of a UU banner or is it more traditional missonary chistianity, because their rhetoric sure sounds like a Unitarian Universalist meeting hall to me. UU folk were some of the most sensible Christians and Humanists I've ever had the pleasure of congregating with when I was still practicing any sort of organized religion.

I agree with Amy. I was particularly concerned when they were talking about grace, but only in the context of people helping each other, without mentioning God or Jesus at all. And this was a clip from their church service, not an interview with a church member. Admitedly, we didn't hear the whole service, but, again, this is how they choose to portray themselves.

They also tend to contradict themselves, which I suppose is what happens when everything is up for grabs. Apparently, "Christianity is always hyphenated," but, at the same time, "it's just not useful anymore" to use the terms "Conservative-Christian" and "Liberal-Christian." So which is it? My guess is that it's okay for Christianity to always be hyphenated--unless the word on the other side of the hyphen is "Conservative."

I resonate personally with Amy's previous concerns, not by ideology or thought, but by personal experience of how the emphasis on community can lead to a focus on humanity instead of Christ. I don't think that makes it any different than any other local body of Christ, seeing as any body can easily slide into subtle focus on human forms of anything very easily.

What is "neat" is that they put themselves "out there" for open critique of such kind. It's part of their emphasis on dialogue as well and open questions. If you truly allow for questions you must allow yourself to be questioned. That's attractive if it is melded with true humility. You can invite questions in order to "defend" and be intelligent enough to silence the other's critiques, or truly and humbly recieve the questions and critique to be sharpened. What they seem to do is, again, very "neat" (you can see I'm very intellectually inclined by vocabulary) in that there is a genuine desire to seek to follow Christ.

That is attractive, and possibly one of the things that EE says emergent has a finger on better than other traditions.

After having dipped a toe into this emergent phenomenon, I can say that I'm bored by it already. They have a focus on community -- good. The rest of it seems to be little more than rehashed gnosticism, from what I can tell. "Fluid" truth, profanities (from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks), critiques but no answers, a lack of adhering to Christ, and a confusion of politics for theology. It is the perfect example of a postmodern faith -- i.e. the center has dissolved and nothing is left but the trappings of faith; the cross on the wall; a smattering of religious language; but the substance has been diluted into nothingness. It is worth noting the way that Christ responded to the main political issue of his day, the Roman occupation of Israel. To think that He would have done anything different as regards pollution or the environment (which is hardly in any danger) is not only a fevered wish, it is at odds with the nature of Christ. I don't mean to be overly sensational here, but the actualities of history and the definitive nature of God and holy living seem to be real stumbling blocks to these folks. Again, it smells just like gnosticism reheated, personally.

I think this video does a great job of capturing Solomon's Porch. I have met Doug a couple of times, and know a number of people who are friends with him and who attend his church. I understand why they are doing what they are doing, especially where they are located, but I don't agree with their theology. As others have picked up, this video shows who they are. It is remarkably attractive to the type of people they are trying to draw into their church. The medium is exactly the type and form to fit their idea of themselves. In essence, it is a commercial albeit a really long one. As someone else picked up on, it seems to be the bridging stage between the Unitarians and Christianity.

Another thing I picked up on was a sense of arrogance and superiority from some of those interviewed. While they'd all clearly contend that isn't "them" I see it nonetheless.

Unfortunately it eventually devolves into the blind leading the blind eventually if stretched to it's final conclusion.

The part that is the most frustrating (to me) about all of this is that Doug Pagitt is very engaging, smart and charismatic. Instead of fully leveraging those gifts, he allows his people to wander in the wilderness. I think the social gospel they are preaching has it place, but not as the exclusive presentation of the Gospel. There is so much more to God's Glory that seems to get discarded.

Big Chris

I haven't read anyone address what I found to be one of the most concerning statements (at the end of the clip):

PAGITT: "I have no agenda to go around and convince people of things that they don�t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind and loving thing you can do� is go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope producing for people who already are disturbed and hope there�s another option."

I don't see how this squares with the apostolic teaching on leadership and preaching. I actually think "convincing people of things they don't want to be convinced of" is a good description of biblical preaching and evangelism. When Paul says: "Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20)" he is talking about disturbing people with the fearful truth that their sin separates them from God and makes them His enemies. What does the word "implore" mean if it does not mean tearfully, earnestly trying to convince someone who is not and does not want to be reconciled to God to BE RECONCILED!

Paul tells Timothy, "Preach the word, in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching". Why does he say this? Because a time is coming (boy are we in the middle of it right now, huh?) when "people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Tim. 4:3-4)." What Paul is saying is that many people will not want to be convinced by what is true and life-giving. They will want to settle for sermons (or conversations) about mudpies. "Don't let them! For their own good!" Paul says.

In the video, the strawman preacher is cast as the one who is consumed with arguing about insignificant non-essentials (rather than doing something good in the world as one young woman states). He is one who, by exercising authority, is destined to abuse it and hurt people. He is a noisy gong and clanging symbol, heralding propositional truths without love.

I would say, "Did you catch what Paul said about how to preach the word?"

"...with complete patience and teaching." There are many other scriptures that underscore this. Preaching must "not [be] domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:3)."

As an aside, I wonder how this ends up looking in practice at Solomon's Porch. The few clips in the video of Doug "speaking" sounded more exhortational and leader-like than the other congregational sharing.

I pray that God, the divine "disturber of those who don't want to be disturbed," in His grace fill pastors and elders with His Holy Spirit as they study, pray, prepare and preach. May there be a demonstration of power and His Spirit when the word is preached, that the unconvinced would turn and sing a new song.

I for one am eternally grateful that God disturbed me through a faithful man named Russ when I was in the fourth grade.

Kenny Clark

Thank you, Kenny.