by Kent B. True

At least since the time of Heraclitus, change has been a hot topic. Without pausing to think much about that, I am reminded of our old buddy Rick Chromey, who might rightly be called the postmodern minister of the restoration movement. Back in April of 2003, he was busy telling us that we all need to get our twentieth century selves postmodernized - or he was gonna know the reason why! Even now he has not finished lecturing us. So let our humble, yet ignorant, club assemble at his feet once again as we examine . . .

Rick Chromey, "The Changing Church"
The Christian Standard
July 10, 2005

Rick wants us to think about change, and he is full of it - change, that is. This time around he doesn’t mention the words "postmodern" or "emergent" overly often. It spite of that, this is yet another go-round at why we Christian church folk need to get ourselves postmodernized.

Just as old Heraclitus (anybody have a good nick name for him?) is supposed to have said, "You can’t step into the same river twice." If you remember your introductory-level history of philosophy, Heraclitus wasn’t all wrong, but he was only half right. Some things change, others do not. If Rick thought more carefully about this big question, his lecture would be more helpful. Some things in the church have gone the way of "perfect attendance pins" while other things never can.

Rick likes to machine-gun us with questions. He says, in fact, "My mind pulses with them [questions] and I’m allergic to prescriptive answers." (Never mind that Christianity is a prescriptive answer to life’s most important questions.) Everything he says gives the impression that he is allergic to answers - period.

Rick structures his whole lecture around what turn out to be four false choices.

He begins with "FROM ‘CLUB’ TO ‘COMMUNITY’." The problem is, most clubs partake of community, and being a community does not exclude also being a club. He reminds us, true enough, that it has been much easier to communicate verbally with people who share your interests over the internet. This creates, we are told, "immediate community." But even in many of these instant "communities" you have to join with a login name and a password to participate. If you have ever done it you know what I mean. It sounds a little clubbish to me.

Rick’s conclusion for the church about this is, "we need to creatively reclaim community and perhaps rethink ‘membership’." While there is nothing wrong with rethinking membership, what possible relationship does that have to Rick’s question, "What if worship was ‘karaoke’ with spontaneous testimonies?" While I hate to try to answer questions that make no sense, I’m going to take a crack at this one. If worship being "karaoke" means that we sing songs of praise to God using a karaoke machine for accompaniment, I will have to say that if it’s the best you can do, O.K. But I have heard a lot of "spontaneous testimonies" and I will have to say that at least 80% of the time they are just a lot of babble, right along the lines of some recent articles by some professors at some Christian colleges. And couldn’t we at least throw in a saltine and some Seven-Up and call it communion? (See, I’ve got some questions too!)

Another of Rick’s false choices is "rules" vs. "relationships." Here is a news flash: every relationship, including our relationship with God, has rules. Someone who could think that relationships exclude rules has surely never had a real relationship.

When you begin to think that you can do without "rules" you soon begin to say things like this: "Theologians (using deductive reasoning) boxed up God for future dissection and discussion, literally stripping divinity of his mystery and majesty." If this means anything at all, what might that be? Hints of attempts at that evil deductive reasoning can be detected even in Chromey’s writing. Are all attempts to understand God’s self-revelation in words the great horror proclaimed by Chromey? And I would like to know how any human action can "literally" strip God of his majesty. (Does Chromey know what "literally" literally means?)

As hip as it might sound to chant the "no rules" slogan, this is one of those places where Chromeyism unmasks itself. While informing us that relationships are "messy and disorderly" we are also told that, "This chaotic truth is tempered in the church by a spirit-breathed, grace-full fellowship that forgives, risks, and serves." If the church ought to be grace-filled and forgiving, we’ve got a couple of rules right here - and there could be more! (We’re simply aghast at this phalanx of rules.)

The cavalcade of false choices continues with "words" vs. "images." Says Chromey, "Image is everything and metaphor is in." (Well, if it’s "in" then I suppose any meaningful discussion here is over - case closed, match to Rick.)

So we are supposed to move from those horrid words to delightful images. Away with words! They are the chains that bind us to the past. Now I know I am using words here, and for that I am deeply sorry. But then I notice that Rick’s article, too, is written using those pesky words. And he recommends metaphor, but the last time I checked a metaphor was a linguistic device - drat those sneaky words!

When you start down this road, you end up saying things - as Chromey does - like, "What if the Word really became flesh again through video clips and object lessons?" While that sounds just as profound as can be, I am required to point out that neither video clips nor object lessons are flesh, and therefore if the Word did become one of those, He would not be flesh again. But I am sure there is some deductive reasoning lurking behind those statements I just made, and for that I must once again express my deepest regrets.

For our final false dichotomy Rick presents "destination" vs. "journey." While I’m sure everyone reading can anticipate this, I have to say that a journey without a destination is not really a journey, but is instead just aimless wandering. And to reach a destination, one must follow directions, which are horribly close to rules, and . . but let’s not cover that territory again.

If the "emergent culture" really "prefers confusion and doubt" as Chromey tells us, then we aren’t going to be able to accommodate. The Boss of the Christian outfit has made at least one rule very clear: don’t doubt, believe.

Chromey is full of "what if" questions. Since he is asking questions, I would like to ask a question of some of his questions.

Rick - What if we communicated faith as a dusty (even dangerous) journey?

Kent - What if we also communicated the fact that the God of order and unfailing faithfulness is with us every step of that journey?

Rick - What if we operated like Southwest Airlines (You’re now free to spiritually to move about the kingdom")?

Kent - What if we told people they need to get into the kingdom before they can move within it?

Rick - What if we turned television’s Amazing Race into Amazing Grace?

Kent - Does everything have to be about television, and just what would this mean anyway?

Rick - What if "church"seemed more like postcards than subscription notices?

Kent - What if Rick’s question made even the slightest bit of sense?

Enough question-dueling for now. In his grand finale Rick makes this profound statement: "Authentic emergent ministry will be creatively contextualized to geography, social need, and cultural bridges." That sounds far too much like the pointless babble Scott Adams parodies in the mouth of Dilbert’s boss, which means it is time for this to end.