Church Posters
Today I've been thinking about the sarcasticly critical emerging church motivational posters that have been circulating the web and generating much debate (view them all here or read about them in their original context here, here, here, and here). I was introduced to them through this post by Tall Skinny Kiwi. You can also read about some reactions to the posters here and here. The fact that the posters were made signals a significant split between those who are sympathetic to emerging church ideas and those who are not, and that made me curious: why is there such a great divide? And why is there such a wide range of reactions just among the sympathetic?
I had mixed feelings myself, while viewing the posters and reading all of the comments, so I decided to look at each of the posters and jot down a few notes about what I thought. My notes turned into a spreadsheet (too much cubicle dwelling!), which you can download here, and then became this blog post. I don't claim to speak for the emerging church on this one, but I'm sympathetic to its most basic ideas, and I found that each of the posters impacted me in one of five distinct ways....
First, there is a very small group of the posters (3 actually) that I found to be quite funny, because they point out comical and mostly harmless aspects of the emerging church culture that we should all be able to have a good laugh about. In the same vein, these posters can be modified easily to point back at the conservative, anti-emergent culture (that produced the original posters) and we can all laugh at each other together.
Another small group of posters (3) seemed to indicate a difference in comfort zones between emergent-friendly and not-emergent-friendly folks. I am much more comfortable finding common ground than defining differences (Apologetics). Perhaps that's why these posters originated on the other side of the conversation. I'm also more comfortable when I don't have to perfect some kind of "normal Christian act" (Authenticity). And I have a more complex appreciation of history and social constructs to give much credence to the difference between "high" and "low" brow. What ever it is that the Pyromaniacs people are criticizing here--I embrace it. I could probably make up some modified versions of these posters that would poke back at the original creators, but I'm not sure how to do that without risking offense, so I'll skip it.
A third and largest group of posters (8) depict criticisms that can and should be applied to all Christians, whether emergent-friendly or not. Some, like this one
can be applied universally without modification, while others need only minor changes to work for less emergent-style thinkers. Here's one example:
I take these criticisms to heart and try to allow them to inform my growth as a Christian.
The rest of the posters really made me wrestle with my ideas of faith, grace, and church, and for me, these were the posters that were the most informative, thought provoking, and difficult to deal with. Eventually, I classified these remaining examples into two more categories: those that I believe signal how the emerging church is a reaction to the mainstream church culture, and those that boil down to the deepest held and most closely guarded values and insecurities of many anti-emergent people.
There are four posters that, to me, mark how the emergent church is reacting to, and trying to invert, the old mainstream SOP. They show how the conservative elements don't like where the emerging church is, and by reversing the logic you can pretty much see how the emerging church doesn't like where the mainstream church has been.
Finally, there are three posters that reveal the how prickly the non-emergent folk can get when you tread on their most cherished ideal and value, i.e. "the (hard) truth." I'll admit that I'm a believer in truth. I'm not sure if I understand what truth means for me and others around me all the time, and I'm certainly not as ready as the Pyromaniacs might be to box up truth in an all inclusive user-friendly package. That's why I'm going to pray about the ideas contained in these last three posters.
Still, I think I know what truth is. I may be too simple for some of you expert Christian people out there, but my understanding is that while I'm here on earth, living according to the common mission that all people share, there's only one truth that I need to know or should know--that being Christ crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). One more poster should serve as a critique AND motivation for every one on both sides of this conversation.
Thoughts???
There are many things to critique in the emerging/emergent world and in the "traditional" church world, as both worlds have the same sin problem. The major discussion should not be on the outward manifestation of the sin problem (in the form of dualing posters), but rather on what and who is the solution to sin. Tatoo or no tatoo, the discussion needs to point back (like you said) to the person of the God/man, Jesus Christ and what he's done, and what he's doing. Nice post.
Great, interesting post.
I confess that I didn't look up 1 Cor 2:2 before posting, but I think I'd add to the truth that you cite (Christ crucified), Christ resurrected. I always have issues with the crucifixion being given attention without the resurrection. The resurrection is essential for the story of God's redemption in my mind. I suspect that you don't disagree, but just had to say that for myself.
I guess as I write this, I'm realizing how bad I am at boiling things down because I'm thinking of other stuff like Christ incarnate, Christ lived, etc., that I would like to add to the list, but I'll just end for now...