emerging . . . and what it means to follow

So, I'm loving my new church. These are words I didn't really figure I'd be typing out . . . ever. Here are a few reasons:

1. It is the best example I have ever seen of a church without dogma. As best as I can tell, they seriously, actually, and in action, respect the right of everyone to make choices . . . and they love each other regardless. Example: I am one who does not believe in the atonement . . . which has meant that I have a priori been at odds with every church I have attended for the last 3 years. This church, amazingly, sees that Jesus has a point even if I don't believe in him as the atonement for my sins . . . my beliefs in this regard are a matter of choice based on what I think is true, and they love me regardless, and respect my choices . . .
2. Practically everyone uses curse words with frequency (there are exceptions). I think this is cool because it gives an air of authenticity . . it is a very superficial behavior that for some reason serves as a very significant indicator of their attitude toward conventional Christianity.
3. There are no fully supported ministers. I think our main . . . pastorette? . . . she only gets a minor fraction of her families income . . . otherwise all funds are used on behalf of the community (building, charity, etc.) Also, they rotate preaching/discussion duties. It's a church with no pope. Novel concept, I know.
4. Egalitarianism. As indicated above, the community is mainly led by a woman, and that makes me happy. Patriarchy is crap.
5. Intelligence is actually a virtue . . . and they really mean it. No, really, . . . seriously, they mean it. For real. And no, I'm not kidding.

So, here's my theology behind this, which you've probly heard before. Read the Gospels, and tell me where following Jesus presented a list to the crowds of people up front: "If you're going to follow and listen first you must . . . " I don't see any place where there were preconditions to follow and listen to him.

I mean, where exactly did following gain the implication of mimicking? To follow Jesus is not the same as adopting his actions and practices. I think it is quite safe to say that a majority of the people over the course of his life did not adopt his life-style. And I think it quite valid to seriously question whether they were wrong in not doing so?

Granted Jesus, according to his biographers, ultimately desired disciples . . . but how many chose discipleship without first following him for a while? Take Mathias in acts . . . we have every indication that he had been an active follower for a minimum of a year, possibly as many as 4 years before he was counted as a disciple or an apostle. I doubt he was the only one. I'm quite sure there were many who followed Jesus for intermittent periods. People followed and listened as he (seemingly) aimlessly wandered the Judaean countryside. I imagine many of them did this until for whatever variety of reasons they needed to return home; to work, to family, to life-as-usual. Maybe they weren't true disciples, but perhaps they modified their lives however slightly on account of the time they spent with Jesus.

It certainly doesn't appear that to be around Jesus they first were required to verbally/cognitively required to adopt a certain stance toward him. There was no, "Do you accept Jesus as Messiah, and soon-to-be atoning sacrifice for your sins?"
"Uh, I guess"
"OK, we'll let you listen for now, but rest assured we'll be testing your commitment later on in this trip."
" . . . crap, I just wanted to see if he had anything good to say . . ."
"No, no, that's not an option."

And, what of the masses that appear to have listened to Jesus, and though they probly didn't deny his good points, they certainly don't appear to have abandoned everything and jumped the bandwagon? Can we say they were evil sinners doomed to hell? Suppose they adopted his 60% of his attitude/teachings? Suppose they chose to follow occasionally, but did not see discipleship as a true option for themselves? What of these people?

I don't know if there is a more important question in our modern situation, because I meet these people everyday . . . and wonder frequently if I'm not more like them, than those "disciples". I mean in a practical sense, I see myself intermittently following Jesus, but I don't often catch myself selling my possessions to feed the poor and sleeping at the homeless shelter downtown so as to preach of the Kingdom . . . and frankly I don't see myself changing this anytime soon.

So, am I going to hell? I doubt it, though I'm sure there are plenty of self-righteous pessimists who might disagree; the same pessimists who live lives just as comfortable as mine, but since I'm attempting to reject self-deception they would say my conscience condemns me . . . . blah blah blah.

I think the truth is that there are a precious few disciples of Jesus in our world . . . though there is a countless mass of those who would call themselves such though their lives bear no resemblance to Jesus. This mass has a whole list of criteria by which to measure who is and is not among the chosen disciples, like themselves. Yet these "disciples" own houses with beds, they have retirement plans, and are good upstanding Republicans who are in good standing with America at large; and all these offer solid indications that they are anything but disciples of Jesus . . . that their lives look nothing like his and thus they are only deceiving themselves when they claim to be students of his.

The world sees this quite plainly. The world is not near as idiotic as Christians wish they were. They hate Jesus, because if these are his students, then he was obviously a lot more of an asshole that his biographers let on. They can't be fooled so easily by the stale, hollow, and neurotic justifications we try to throw out to cover the hideous inconsistencies we bear in relation to our "Lord".

Rather than this, I pose we call ourselves what we are: followers. We frequently don't employ Jesus' example ourselves . . . in fact it is far more common to not do as Jesus would than the other way around. But, implicit in this is the simple fact that there is nothing required of us to follow. The follower maintains his autonomy. He goes as far as he is willing, and then returns to what he knows. He listens, accepting some things the teacher says and rejecting others. He observes, taking on some practices and avoiding others.

But, would Jesus have been against this? There are certainly plenty of places where he makes a point to put a decision to the crowds. He doesn't make following him easy. His challenges remain for the intermittent follower just as for the disciple. Must every person be a disciple before they can consider what he has to say? Before they can be challenged by him? Or perhaps the greater question: can any ever be a disciple without first being a follower?

I believe the "emergent" church is really an attempt to create a conducive environment for those who wish to follow Jesus, who (most for quite legitimate personal/experiential reasons) cannot call themselves a disciple, much less a "Christian", but with the hope that the message and life of Jesus can still be a potent (and positive) challenge to secular culture.