What are the Benefits of Being Independent?

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Well, I wouldn't reduce it down to semantics as I think there are more substantive differences that that. But I understand (and tolerate) your point of view. That's pretty big of me if you ask me. haha.

People get all nervous and morose about pomo. But I like what Bono says, "It's a beautiful day! Don't let it get away!" . When I hear that song I take it as a challenge to the church.

Oh, well, thank you kind sir, for your forbearance!!

I do understand that there are bigger differences, but I also think that we get put off by wording or labeling at times, maybe the gap is bigger than it needs to be in some instances.

Not the vast majority of them, of course, but occasionally!

[A_PoMo]

LOL! F'sho sister!

[chseeads]

I didn't read all the way through the thread, but I don't know what you people are talking about that say you have more fellowship in an org.

You have fellowship when you get your hindend out and fellowship with somebody. Being in an org doesn't mean fellowship magically appears out of thin air.

There's plenty of people in orgs that don't fellowship with anybody.

If you're independent and don't act like you have a stick up your behind because of it, you can fellowship with whoever you want to, whether the other parties are in an org or not.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Yeah, alot of emerging church folk get all elitist "up in here" too often. It's a pretty stupid stance to take since the whole pomo scene is so new and evolving so rapidly that there really isn't anything to get all snooty about. The ironic thing is that some emergent types get all twisted in a knot over how 'yeserday' modernity is yet the churches that seem to be having the most success in the emerging church genre are decidedly modern in many ways. The biggest difference to this point is one of style and some ecclesiastical issues in how they're organized. Other than that they do many of the same things. I think prob the biggest difference is perhaps on emphasis with churches trying to truly be missional in their community as well on a more artistic, creative, participatory form of worship. But to get all arrogant about an era that doesn't even have a name yet is pretty dumb, imo. All we can really say about it is that it's after modernity, post-modern. It'll be awhile before we can categorize it any meaningful way. But to be fair, I run into alot of opinionated and arrogant people on the other side of the fence who are quick to castigate all things pomo and emerging which can be just as frustrating. I guess that's why I appreciate my pastor. He sees the growing hole in his church demographic between the ages of 18-34 and he realizes he doesn't know what to do and is willing to give a newbie like me a shot at it since I have a passion about it and feel called to it and I'm willing to lay my neck on the line to see if we can't do something positive. I respect that kind of honesty and that kind of humility in a leader. Not all that common in middle aged Pentecostal preachers ( of which I am almost one myself. haha). Fortunately for the emerging movement not all of their spokesmen are stuck up. I've spent a little time with Brian McLaren and although I disagree with some of his theology I must say he's a sweet soul. I've spent a little more time with Dan Kimball and he's a really nice guy, very humble and kind. It's worth noting too that there are variations w/in the whole emergent scene, i.e. libs and cons. Unfortunately if you say "emergent' too often you get lumped automatically in w/the liberal wing. This is only fair in the sense that they're the ones organizing and have their websites, etc... But there are conservatives (theologically) in the group too (Kimball, Driscoll) that are very uncomfortable w/the liberal theology of the other group and while they like the overall goal (keeping the church relevant in a new age) they aren't comfortable w/changing to the orthodoxy.

Pomo,

Another head's up for you, Dan Kimball is going to be on "Conversing with the Scholars" program via PalTalk March 20. In case your interesting...

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/cws/futureguests and Mark Driscoll a week later.

[A_PoMo]

Thanks. I'll check that out. Kimball is very thoughtful.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

I left the UPC church and started going to the indep church just this past December, so that's where I'm coming from.
I love the idea of being indep, I love the NT feel- there was just something about the organizational mess that didn't feel right. Being hit up for money, the arrogance of SOME of those in the ministry, the artificial/ non-organic feel to things, it seemed out of order, and of course there were the traditions that were sacred cows, even when Scripture shot down those traditions.
Now, I'm not saying all independents are perfect, and as for indeps I've fellowshipped only with indeps in Maine and New Brunswick so my experience is limited. But because we're not an org, you can't make generalizations about us, one indep church can be vastly different than another. You can have ex-upci.net and other websites like that that claim the UPC is spiritually abusive and cultish (which I think is going far) but you wouldn't have ex-indep's or something like that. We're simple, we're indep, we're part of the Body, we're not the whole thing, we're scattered, small-scale, hopefully humble, doing the best with what we have, what we know and where we are.

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

What are some of the benefits of churches/ministers being independent of a larger religious organization?

Do those benefits outweigh the drawbacks of going it alone?

Thinking of going it alone, AE...?!

[Whole Hearted]

Just got back for a wonderful meeting at an ind. church.

Hears elder Booker and McMullen and Brother Ben Weeks.

Great church and great services and we did have to listen to a thing about any org.