Solomon's Porch Video

Here's a video sure to spark discussion on emerging church and truth issues, among other things.  It's about Solomon's Porch: A Holistic, Missional, Christian Community, where Doug Pagitt (blog) is Pastor. 

Do everyone a favor and do more than just react.  Please try to be generous in your comments.  You will likely disagree with some things.

(HT: Tony Jones)

Comments

[Cyle Clayton]

Of course I don't agree with the idea that the Bible is changing, and that community is more important than absolute truth. I absolutely agree with the whole idea that faith should be active, but I base that on "faith without works, is dead." I guess I have just always been involved in churches that were involved in being the church and not just assembling. It sounds like the same anti-establishment stuff that's been talked about since the late 50's in this country.

[Jeremy]

It's pretty clear to me that we have a group of people here that have utterly missed the central mission of Jesus.

And that is being gracious.

[Christian]

I met Doug at last years NPC and had several good discussions. He is a challenging intellect who is trying to follow Jesus. I know some of the things in the video (I watched it this morning over at theoblogy) will cause traditionalist to react. But unless I missed a comment I don't think any of them denied truth exist or that it is found in the person of Christ. The one girl mentions truth being fluid and the second woman that it will always be personally interpreted...Two comments that if you really think about them can be true.

For exapmle: Truth, found in the living and active word of God is alive and therefore fluid. Fluid in it's many applications. Maybe it changes in the way that we can apply the Gospel to a changing world. It layers on as cultures and people change and activley discerns. I think it is more complex than most traditionalist make it out to be.

I am sure there are some at Solomon's Porch who really think truth itself changes and can't be known or "hoped for" but I think over all they are a contextualized postmodern culture interacting with the TRUTH of Jesus and trying to apply it differently than they hear the mainstream christian right applying it and interpreting it.

They are just as skocked to hear Christian's interpret biblically supporting earthly kingdoms in their wars as many might be to hear them interpret Jesus words to be peacemakers and therefore become pacifist. It's all about communal interpretations.

We enter a Galatian world all over again and yes each community will have a contextual interpretation. Wether your at Piper's church or Padgit's Church there is a communal agreement on what interpretations you hold true, even though Solomon won't write theirs down! No one can escape the lense see though dimly.

[Peter R.]

Pagitt is a brilliant guy, and I think his beliefs about things like truth and Scripture and the Kingdom are far more sophisticated than the ability of some of us to understand them.

I think the comment that one of the women made about the need for real community as an alternative to the isolation that a lot of us live in was right on. And I agree with the guy who said that it's impossible to understand Jesus and be unconcerned for the poor.

As someone who spent some time in an emerging church that was heavily influenced by Solomon's Porch, I was brought back to many of the reasons I moved on. My sense is that they're reacting against things in the traditional American church that should be condemned: lack of concern for the poor, emphasis on doctrinal precision at the expense of grace and freedom in Christ, reading cultural values into Scripture so that the two are no longer separable, being shills for the Republican party, etc. But in reacting against these things, some EC-ers (I put Pagitt in this category) both oversell their prevalence and/or make the exact same mistake in the other direction. Examples: for all the talk about the traditional church neglecting the poor, regular church attendance is the most reliable predictor of charitable giving (to both Christian and secular organizations) in the U.S. Could we do better? Absolutely, but it's not as if we're doing nothing. Also, for all the talk about welcoming different views and not being tied to a particular political stance, my own views on things like theology of scripture to politics were clearly unwelcome in the EC I attended.

I ended up leaving because I found the EC I was in to be just as dogmatic as any other church I'd attended, just about different priorities, which I didn't share.

[Christian]

I agree with Peter. Sometimes there is just a reverse dogmatism and legalism wrapped in a different package.

I have heard examples of some communities being so convicted of eating meat that they become leaglistic against those who eat meat. ETC..

We all become the older brother and get lost in our self-righteousness. (Luke 15)

We all need the Gospel to prevail in our hearts daily.

[Pete Williamson]

Man, I've got more questions than comments, but here goes. I'm encouraged that they seem to have a pretty warm and honest community and I applaud their passion for living out the faith.

That said, what are they using for a foundation for this community? Truth? seems pretty hard to do when truth is understood as "fluid" - whatever that means. Certainly, it's not tradition. Jesus? I'm assuming that he factors into this, but he seems to be as fluid as Truth. The one fixed point throughout the whole video seems to be the autonomous individual - whose primary passion is to create a space where they can pursue with complete liberty their own particular construct of spirituality.

I'm sure that a lot of good is coming out of this group, but is that enough? Where does the cross fit into this? Where does the glory of God come in? Is there more going on here than just the novelty of a different format?

Maybe I'm expecting too much from an eleven-minute video.

[Steve McCoy]

Pete, all great questions. I had the same issues. I thought it would be good for all of us to see the church for what they say, and not the emerging church stereotyping and rumor we typically get.

[jason smith]

I was just looking at your list of comments and thought about your recent post about Darrin Patrick. Isn't he causing just about as much controversy as solomon's porch? I wonder what an 11 minute video from The Journey would look like? (At the Bottleworks?)

[Mike Edwards]

One of my biggest questions arose when one girl said that the bible is changing and that belief, truth, heart, spirit and other "big intangible nouns" are fluid and personal. What does that leave to base anything upon? How does that create any moral outrage for anything?

Interestingly, they seem to have a high value for service and redemption (FANTASTIC) however, how could they as a community assert that these things are true as a value, if truth is fluid. That would leave serving your neighbor and the poor as possibly useless at some point.

I applaud their desire to be authentic in Christian community, share a voice in shaping that community and in serving the world they live in. Where I cannot identify is obviously in the fact that it tends toward a religion or community based on Jesus but not centered on Him as unchanging Truth.

[Tom Hackelman]

Perhaps one of the things that makes us most uncomfortable, that challenges us the most is a Bible in the context of the society in which it is found. I love the concept of open conversation -- wrestling with the scriptures. I sometimes wonder if we have missed something in not exploring this further. Obviously you "lose control" of the environment to a degree, but consider the depth of conversation. This is how the early church dealt with the scriptures. They didn't have the physical text, but rather oral tradition of sharing the message. Sure, some comments and thoughts will seem outlandish or perhaps fly in the face of what we hold to in our faith, but that's what wrestling with the scripture is all about. It's about making it real. It's about making it bleed. It's about becoming honest with ourselves in the face of the life-changing Word of God.

[Rich]

Steve, good comments in this thread! I wonder, in response your last comment, would you say that at least SOME of this video helps support the stereotypes? As I was watching I was thinking at times "They are playing right into the harshest critics hands!"

I liked how the one gal made Jesus more of a liberal than conservative. I think it's safe to argue he doesn't really fit into our understanding of either.

I also wonder if the idea of community isn't trumping Jesus. It almost feels like he is used to get TO community and is not necessarily the reason we can live in community. I know that's all semantics but...

Interesting stuff...

[Steve McCoy]

Rich, totally agree on the comments. I really appreciate what you all are saying, and the questions you are all asking. Right there with you.

And yeah, this does support the stereotypes a bit. But I'm glad in that we can now talk about this particular church because of what they actually say and do and not by people jumping down their throats over a label. We also need to realize that it's one church and that it doesn't make all emerging/Emergent churches like this. And obviously an 11 minute video doesn't explain everything.

[Jeremy]

I always get worried when the "world" esteems our presentation of our religion - such as in the comments from humanists, secularists, etc. at http://www.current.tv/watch/21674856.

One comment even esteems them for not watering down their presentation. Ironic considering this is nothing more than watered-down Christianity. Its just watered down for another audience.

[ted]

I just finished reading "listening to the Emergent Beliefs" and Padgitt goes into this same type of stuff. I will not detail it all here but but he does flirt with the idea of casting out "timeless" truth and letting our theology constantly evolve. Needless to say Driscoll's response is priceless and spot on. As much as I love the missional cultural engagement of Solomon's Porch how is it different than the liberal mainlines and their social gospel? It just leaves out the denomination(s) and the formal liturgy.

[Rick]

I really appreciate the community idea and I strongly recommend the missional approach, but Rich is right in his comment, "I also wonder if the idea of community isn't trumping Jesus".
Perhaps this church is a better reflection of what is happening in the more Emergent churches, rather than overall emerging churches. I don't think you would see much of this mindset in the more mainstream emerging churches such as at Dan Kimball's Vintage.

[Chris Walls]

The question I had is how defensive they would be if they were attacked in their beliefs like they attacked traditionalists? Several comments about the church that made me cringe. I sat there thinking, well what you are saying about A particular church that you dealt with maybe true, but you are lumping too many churches into the same category and calling them all bad. Almost like if we were to take a snapshot of Solomons Porch and say, well they are emergent and so ALL emergent churches are like them and so we need to brush them aside. You can't do that!

[Matthew]

First, I am really appreciative of how gracious everyone has been in this discussion. I don't sense a lot of the hostility that can enter into a discussion like this and that makes this more fruitful for everyone.

I cannot argue with their comments concerning the poor and oppressed, nor would I want to. If you think you know the heart of Jesus, but do little mourning over people who suffer in this life "you haven't read the gospels" as the man in the video put it. I think it is a caricature to assume that more mainstream Christians and/or conservative Christians do not have this concern as well. One of the things I think we can learn from a community like Solomon's Porch is that care for the poor is more than just a donation. It involves rubbing elbows with real people, becoming acquainted with real problems, assisting them to find real solutions and in the process seizing every opportunity to share the gospel of Christ.

My concern is that we are too quick to fall into one of two camps. For all of their talk about not wanting to label, my experience has been similar to Peter R.'s. In my interactions I have experienced a different type of dogmatism that in some ways may be more insidious because it is not explicit. In my interactions with emergent Christians there has been a lot of patronizing "head patting" as if I just was not capable of truly understanding their ideas. On the flip side, most conservatives are so quick to throw them all off the bus we miss the opportunity to hear and learn. While I do not agree with a lot of what is said, they do have insights and interpretations that have been helpful to me.

There is a lot more that could be said...but in the end I would encourage everyone on all sides and those who find no side to be willing to listen, particularly when it is gracious criticism.

[Hunter Beaumont]

For those familiar with the "bounded set" vs. "centered set" schema: In some ways, this is an understandable reaction against a tightly bounded church that never made room for people to explore and ask questions (Pagitt: "the way we had done Christianity all our lives"). But, when you start saying things like, "there's no statement of belief," it makes you wonder if the church is even centered on anything distinctly Christian.

Somehow we need a body of doctrine that centers the church while still creating room for people who aren't sure if they believe that yet.

[Darren Larson]

I told my wife to watch this video yesterday because I wanted to hear her reaction. I would guess that she has a little less emergent baggage than the typical person who reads Steve's blog! I thought her response what the best I've read or heard about this video. I thought I'd share it below...

"Cool video - interesting. I really liked the comments (on Steve's blog) too. I wasn't too terribly turned off by anything that was said, but it certainly wouldn't be a good fit for me. I have a hunch that people opposed to Christianity might feel the freedom to check it out at a place like this and be introduced to Christ. There did seem to be an overemphasis on community - like that was their end goal: faith in COMMUNITY rather than FAITH in community. What struck me the most was the beauty of the people and the fact that they are searching for Christ. Hopefully they find Him and embrace Him rather than just embracing the search itself."

Not only very perceptive, but also super gracious and unifying for the sake of Christ. My wife rules.

[JACK]

Steve:

Thanks for posting this video. I agree, it is helpful to be concrete. And, as someone who has only been exposed to EC through the web primarily and not the activities of the actual churches, this was helpful.

More and more I have seen a real tension between two positions. For some, doctrine rules supreme. It is all about proper beliefs (and in liturgical churches, also often manifests itself in issues about the nature of liturgy). And there's something good in that, because there's a recognition of the objectivity of truth. But it often has a disconnect with Jesus. It's a better scheme -- a Christian-themed one -- but it isn't about a Person. And sometimes non-essentials and cultural practices get elevated to the level of dogma. Plus the other aspect is that there's often a lack of the existential. There's all this mountain of theology, but it has no relationship to the lived experience of the person. It doesn't bear on the fullness of their life.

I see a great deal of reaction to that (and rightly so) in this video. The room for questioning. For if we don't question (on some level), we don't make something our own. The need for community. Which is fundamental to a recognition of the fact that we are a people, a body. Communion isn't this warm fuzzy thing only, or some intellectual theological insight, but something at the core of who we have become in Christ.

So I appreciate the fact that these people seem to be very focused on working on the existential aspect. But I cannot help but see some potential problems that come from pushing the tradition too far away rather than embracing yet examining it. To ask a question, truly, is to desire an answer and to pre-suppose that one exists. I'd like to say that that is true for them, but I wonder if for some questioning is not that but deconstruction. Second, I cannot help but ask who is Jesus for them. From many of the comments, he doesn't sound like Lord. Is he the reason they are a community? I don't know, but it seems like questions worth them asking themselves. Because I do worry that they recognize the need to focus on their experience of faith, that it must be rooted in their being, and not just their head. But I do wonder how the Incarnation fits into their experience. In other words, I see comments that suggest people have become aware of some of their fundamental needs and desires as a human, but have not reached a recognition that they (individual or collectively) on their own are unable to answer them. That they are depednent on something outside of them, just as is so fundamentally revealed by an awareness that I am not the one who gives me (or maintains my) life. That leaves me in a position of expectation regarding my needs. I must await an Other. And the fact is something, Someone, has come, the Incarnation, and it is a question of recognizing that in Christ those needs are met.

That's what I wonder about. Do they see that or is it a bit more at the level still of man trying to solve his human needs, which will fall short.

[JACK]

BTW, the tension I refer to "seeing" isn't one specific to EC, but amongst Christians generally.

[Peter R.]

Regardless of whatever else we might criticize Solomon's Porch for, you have to admit that using couches for sanctuary seating is totally sweet. :)

[ryan]

Jack says,"For some, doctrine rules supreme. It is all about proper beliefs (and in liturgical churches, also often manifests itself in issues about the nature of liturgy)."

I think this sentiment is popular in theological conversations, but I just would like to know who these "some" are? Really lets be honest who are we talking about here? I would like to know who it is that is involved in these conversations that only care about right doctrine. Even those who have a very high value of doctrine and may not be as socially active as some of those in emergent, still have a concern for the poor and living out their faith. I would really like to know who these people are.

[JACK]

Ryan,

I probably wasn't as clear as I should be.

First, if you thought I was talking about anyone on this thread, no I wasn't. Let me clear that up right away. I was trying to talk about a trend I have seen among Christians (including myself!) that I know.

Second, I most certainly didn't mean to suggest some some sort of "right doctrine vs. concern for the poor" dichotomy. Not at all what I am talking about. In fact, although I am fully in favor of charitable works, I must say that, in practice, they aren't always done out of any sense of us being Christians. After all, secular humanists can feed the poor, too. (Even the Pope commented on this in his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est.)

What I was commenting on was the nature of being Christian. What does it mean? It's a question that we all have to grapple with. I don't have time to try and work out those details in greater detail at the moment, but my comment of it being "for some about the doctrine" was only to suggest that some people make the mistake of not recognizing that theology is something that flows from Christianity. Meaning Christianity is ultimately the fact of the Incarnation. Of a Person. And that being Christian is the result of an event, the encounter with this Person.

I'm not sure if I can quickly clarify what I meant at this time, but I hope maybe the above might be a helpful start in re-evaluating what I wrote.

I have no issue with valuing doctrine nor do I think that valuing doctrine means no concern for the poor. I'm Catholic after all ;-). It would be quite an odd thing for me to think.

[jack]

Jack thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to distort or warp your words, and if I did am sorry. I can see your point and do agree with it. I guess I am always just left wondering how do we advance the kingdom and proclaim good news if we do not see "the good news" as important and do not care who the king of the kingdom is. Some of the stuff I heard from the Solomon's porch video made me really sad, because I could tell these people are really searching for truth, and wanting to love their neighbor. Yet they are dismissive to important doctrines that shape our lives and ministry. I agree with Ted and what he wrote in a previous comment. Much of this is just mainline liberalism from years past, but dressed with a missional outfit. And I do not say this just to be a critic and dismiss them, but truly out of a sadness that would want them to see that they can know truth and his name is Jesus, who does not evolve, but rather who is, who was, and is to come.

[JACK]

ryan/jack:

No issue. It was a good provocation to help me try and be clearer about what I meant.

Your concern parallels some what I was trying to express in the last half of my original post.

I have always found it interesting that the commission at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew is paired with the promise of His Presence.

This is a bit of a tangent, as it is not inherently provoked by anything in this thread or video, but I do wonder if sometimes our problem is that we approach mission and evangelization with a practical disbelief in this idea. Meaning, we are all quite moved by the method of Christ, by how the apostles encountered Him and how they became a community and how they lived in those early years. And as much as I think we do appreciate that and value it, is there sometimes not a hint of disbelief that we can have the same experience? In that, the encounter with Jesus of St. Andrew for example (St. John 1:35-42) is something that is amazing and incredible, but alas, I live today and us humans of today cannot have that experience. As if Christ proposed one method by which to draw people to Himself during his ministry, but proposes another for all the rest of us poor lucks who didn't live then. It's something that's just percolating in my head, barely formed, but I do wonder if perhaps this is true in how we approach things at times, and as such shapes (in some ways for the worse) what we think mission and evangelism is.

[Tom]

Interesting stuff. Reminds me of something Peter Rollins said in How (Not) to Speak of God: "The only religious knowledge worth anything is love."

[michael]

Overall I really enjoyed that video. I've never had the experience of attended an actual "emerging" church (locally all that means is that the pastor shops at urban outfitters and there are tons of candles) and really enjoyed this brief look into solomon's porch.

The only things that left me feeling uneasy was the one girl who claimed that the bible was "fluid". I wonder if this comes from any formal education or training in theology/biblical studies/philosophy or if it is just some idea she came up with on her own.
I also thought it was interesting that they do communion in a way where people have the option to go in the corner by themself and take it. I'm a practicing Anglican and the communal aspect of taking communion with others is so integral to the meaning of the practice.

But besides that, the church looks really interesting and besides anything else seems to be a place where people are genuinely striving to figure out what it means to follow Jesus. Wonderful. Thanks for posting the video.

[Jason]

I don't believe anyone's commented about this yet. But of the numerous folks who speak on this video, I wonder how many would be in SP leadership? If Doug's the only one, then many of the comments, whether orthodox or not in your/my mind, are simply opinions. And I'd wager that a large percentage of folks in all of our churches would share those same opinions, though you and I may never celebrate them as doctrine.

[rob]

Steve, any idea where the video was moved?
Seems a global warming awareness video is at that address now. Thanks

Rob

[Steve McCoy]

Rob, the video is back up.

[John Rosser]

The idea that the Bible is not constant and is always changing goes against the teachings of Scripture itself. It is the very standard of truth which is absolute and given by revelation of God. This video is a sad example of how postmodernism and relativism is infecting the church today. The primary purpose that Jesus calls us to is not to save the environment, but to preach the gospel message that whoever repents and believes will be saved and whoever does not believe will perish in their sins. The gospel is an offense and is disturbing to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved it is the power. We are called to share this message which will disturb some. Better to be disturbed in this life and find eternal life than to be asleep in Zion and end up in hell.