Mar 22 2007
the meeting house
by Andy Doman
At the Xenos Summer Institute in 2005, Bruxy Cavey gave two break-out session teachings. I attended his teachings and was extremely impressed with his insight, and Jesus-centered teachings. The description he gave of The Meeting House seemed impressive. He called it “a church for people who aren’t into church.” I made it a point to check out Cavey’s church, The Meeting House, never being as excited to see a new church before.
I noticed a favorite indie pop group of mine, The Pipettes, were touring on this side of the Atlantic for the first time. The tour was extremely limited and the only city in the area they were playing was Toronto. Michael Toth suggested going to Toronto to see the concert. I agreed, and also suggested we attend a meeting at The Meeting House the following day. I recruited Craig Smith for the trip, selling him on the experience of going to The Meeting House, also keeping in mind that traveling expenses would decrease. Although he had little exposure to The Pipettes, he was in a privileged position as a holder of a high-demand sold out ticket. Many people approached us asking for tickets as we waited outside to get in. So, Michael Toth, Craig Smith, and I were set to go on a spiritual journey to Toronto.
I contacted The Meeting House through their website prior to our arrival and asked which meeting I should attend. The pastor of the Downtown Toronto location, Paul Morris, suggested the 10am meeting, which was held in a large movie theater.
Morris also invited us to eat lunch with him after the meeting. We entered the extremely large downtown movie theater with stadium-style seating that was like Cinemark® on steroids. The movie theater had snack bars that served beer in addition to Pizza Hut®, Taco Bell®, and Burger King®, which were opening as we were leaving. We parked in a parking garage and received a parking coin we would later get validated to park for free.
The meeting began with a 5-piece band playing Contemporary Christian Music including a drummer, bassist, guitarist, and two singers. It was unusual because although every person in the room was standing, very few were singing or moving. The crowd was simply staring at the band, making me wonder what the purpose of standing was.
After the music and a prayer by the guitarist, a series of video clips about sex were shown and parts of the songs “Let’s Get It On” by Marvin Gaye and “Let’s Talk about Sex” by Salt-N-Pepa were played. Some of the video clips played were quite funny, especially the “Use Condoms” video, which can be found on YouTube. The pastor of the Downtown Toronto site, Paul Morris, gave a short introduction and the teaching began with a video of Bruxy Cavey introducing the guest speaker for the week, Eric Sandras. Sandras holds a PhD in Human Sexuality and is a pastor in California. Cavey gives the teaching at one site in suburban Oakville and the video of his teaching is shown at the other sites. The video was not quite as impersonal as I imagined it would be, probably because the movie screen was so large that it felt as if the teacher were near. It was impossible to ask questions to the speaker, however, because he was not present. The teaching was a sound, biblical presentation of sex. There was also a question and answer period in which people asked about homosexuality and other controversial issues.
Prior to our arrival we arranged to have lunch with Paul and some of his friends. We ate lunch at a downtown restaurant and had constant discussion about various topics such as serving the poor, the inner city, American politics, methods of Xenos and the Meeting House, the situation in Toronto, and various other topics. The people were a blast to talk with and we all had a great time.
Overall, The Meeting House seems like a place that is on a good track. The people we talked to seemed capable and willing to minister. The main teaching by Eric Sandras seemed to lack a discernable gospel message, however, which made me wonder if the main theater meetings are geared toward members and people that are already Christians. They have high transfer growth, and the teaching seemed to speak to those people, but they do have “Purge Sundays,” which are a mini-series of teachings that project a solid Christian life and encourage people who do not wish to participate to leave. This is one of the ways The Meeting House combats superficial Christianity. The teachings seem to be soundly Biblical and according to Morris, Xenos in Columbus and The Meeting House exchange ideas and talk often.
I am not sure how much I like the teachings on video at all of the sites. It seems take the opportunity away for others to teach. They can spread to different areas of Greater Toronto faster, however, because of the lack of need for teachers and have more convenient locations. Home churches at The Meeting House are a place to discuss the teaching from the main Sunday meeting. I did not visit one of these meetings, so I am not sure if a person who did not attend the main meeting would feel alienated or how dependent the home churches are on Cavey’s main teachings. I know one thing for sure, though. The Meeting House is like Xenos in the sense that they hold conservative theology presented with liberal, nontraditional means like no other church I have seen.
i too saw and liked what i heard of bruxy at xsi. he was also finalizing his book “the end of religion”, which had me interested. i have not read or purchased the book but i here bruxy is making an american version. i was fellowshipping with jake last night and he exposed me to this fact as well as another. that this american version had a forward by BRIAN MCLAREN the emegent church guy. what the f#%$ is bruxy doin???? maybe this is insight on why “The main teaching by Eric Sandras seemed to lack a discernable gospel message…”
“Overall, The Meeting House seems like a place that is on a good track.” well andy it appears that seem to be getting off track.
I listened to Sandras’ Sex teaching off the meeting house website. I found it to be fluffy and lack any real bite.
Although Bruxy is a good, quirky teacher, I always thought it was weird that the meeting house held those video conference teachings, too. The lynchpin verses of the New Testament tell us to go make disciples, teach them to obey all that I have commanded you…
It seems like a huge church reliant on few leaders will eventually collapse under the weight of people just along for the ride. Without any push for people to make the Rom 12 decision to teach and lead, they can sit back and watch an awesome video presentation with other awesome people and play church thinking they’re awesome.
It would be cool to see the Meeting House pushing more people to lead, then again I could be totally wrong, they could be.
Indeed, Wonder is right. I bought the Canadian version of Cavey’s book when it first came out last year, and it was a great read. It sort of rehashes a lot of the topics he covered at the XSI about Christ. But if you look on his myspace sight (http://www.myspace.com/bruxycavey), it clearly shows the American version of the book due out this Sept. has a forward by Brian McLaren. On the site, Cavey also notes that he’s “currently digging “The Secret Message of Jesus” by McLaren”, which from the reviews I read about it, is nothing more than McLaren interpreting the life and ministry of Jesus with his usual brand of small nuggets of truth mixed with postmodern, “unable to know real truth because of our culturally biased worldview” ideas. I have to wonder what Cavey’s reaction to the emergent church is, and what he thinks about what D.A. Carson says about McLaren.
Well this also then explains why Dennis (McCallum) was very cool (attitudinally) about Bruxy’s scene when I last spoke to him about it. Den said they weren’t “doing the job” because (after investigation) it turns out that The Meeting House is almost exclusively TRANSFER GROWTH.
So typically Emergent - all in the name of being more “culturally relevant”, they’re only watering down the gospel and making a “Really Great Show” (in the words of the immortal Ed Sullivan), but not making any new “Disciples of the nations…”
I love what you guys are saying, and I’m all about it.
I simply want to say as a brother in Christ this makes me sad. As senior pastor of The Meeting House this blog has been shared with our leadership. Let me assure you that we will continue to do our very best to serve Christ with all that we have as we seek to mature as a community. We take seriously the thoughts of our brothers and sisters at Zenos. I must be honest though that my heart is sad to see family members chooses to publically criticize with so little true knowledge or relationship another part of the body of Christ. I pray today that God would help us all grow in his grace as we seek to work together in unity.
I am wondering Tim:
1.) How are you serving Christ?
2.) How are you seeking to mature as a community?
3.) Can you share your true knowledge of another part of the BOC?
4.) How do you go about Making disciples?
I confess I am truly ignorant of other fellowships and intrigued
by this conversation. Thanks for your insight.
Hi Gang ~
Thanks for posting your conversations. Better than being critical in a corner speaking in hushed tones. Sorry to “eves-drop” - someone directed us to this thread.
There is lots to say in response, but this probably isn’t the place for an essay, so I’ll just mention a few quick points:
1. Sorry I wasn’t speaking the Sunday you visited. We had a guest from the States, which is rare for us. You can listen online through our web site (or look up The Meeting House or Bruxy Cavey in iTunes to hear our podcast) if you want to hear me or one of our other pastors teaching.
2. Thank you for the kind comments about my contribution to the summer institute.
3. I think we in Canada have missed the whole “Emerging Church” debate. It isn’t language we use to describe ourselves (or any other church, for that matter). It just isn’t part of our language. (And, by the way, neither is “postmodern”. We just don’t rally around or fight against labels like that to find our identity.) It is frustrating for us because we wonder if we have to adopt an American term of categorization and debate, deciding which side we are on and then joining in with argument against the other side just in order to be understood south of the border. I confess that we sometimes wonder why our American brothers and sisters seem to tend to polerize themselves into “us” and “them” setups on various issues so quickly. It feels like the debates often take the shape of trying to decide who is a real Christian and who is the heretic rather than being a debate among brothers and sisters who want to believe the best in each other (until proven different). In the meantime, you could listen to a two-part podcast we recorded on our reaction to the rumours we hear south of the border about “The Emerging Church”. We have a podcast for our church leaders called “The Roundtable”. Look it up in iTunes, give a listen, and you’ll hear that we just don’t perceive ourselves as “emerging” or “emergent” or whatever term is creating all the fuss. But you will also hear that our disposition tends to be, “Is there anything we can learn from them, even if we disagree from them?” rather than, “Since we disagree with them, they must be on a slippery slope straight to hell.”
4. I didn’t realize the name Brian McLaren was such a sensitive point. We met at a couple of events where we were both speaking and he seems like a genuine brother who is working hard at following Jesus. I didn’t sense any hint of rebellion or delight in causing trouble. We may not agree about every point of theology, but my guess is that would be true of any two of us. Brian likes my book and I appreciate him endorsing it. I guess a “thumbs up” by him will be translated into a “thumbs down” in certain church circles, like Xenos. But please don’t jump to conclusions based on guilty-by-association. Jesus had problems with his reputation for the same reasons.
5. Yes, I like Brian’s book, The Secret Message of Jesus. It is my first Brian McLaren book which I read because it is along the same lines as The End of Religion. Again, I found points in his book that I would disagree with absolutely, but it would not occur to me to make that my main reaction. I took away a lot of good from his book and would recommend it to anyone who wants to drill deeper into the message and mission of Jesus. I’m afraid I’ve missed the scandal that reading and enjoying a Brian McLaren book provides. I think it is healthy to read books that represent divergent points of view and learning what we can. I think The Secret Message of Jesus has lots of good things to say and I’m not sure why that is so threatening.
6. About The Meeting House, we are a Home Church based community who also meet on Sundays for shared teaching. Just because the teaching happens via video at many of our sites is not a concern for us since real church happens for us when we meet face-to-face in homes to discuss, fellowhsip, pray, and apply what we are learning. Home Church is, for us, where we put all our eggs - discipleship and service to the community. Each Home Church is commissioned to take on a benevolence focus, often serving in partnership with other compassion ministries in the city. Our way of doing church has some overlap with Xenos, but is also different. It feels foreign to me to automatically see the differences as deficiencies, either way.
7. (I’ll make this my last point - since “7” seems like a good pastoral note to end on…) I wonder if part of the misunderstandings between our churches is actually a cultural “miss”. Our churches come from different cultures, so there is a thousand different ways we say things and do things. I don’t just mean Canadian vs. American, but also Anabaptist vs. Evangelical. (We come from an Anabaptist more than Evangelical background.) For now, I just want to say, thank you for your concern for our church in general, myself in particular, and for book. I guess I would just ask that your concerns take the form of questions rather than conclusions based on appearance, and that they motivate you to pray for us. We would love to have the prayers of our Xenos brothers and sisters. You should know that we pray for you all regularly. We are very accessible, easy to contact, so feel free to write us with any questions.
Wishing you all increasing Faith, Hope, & Love,
Bruxy Cavey
Oh hi guys,
I guess we stirred up a little controversy, and unfortunately I’m on my to Florida, but I certainly wanted to reassure our brothers from The Meeting House that we still have a great interest in both your ministry and fruit.
Earlier I (rather incautiously) said, “they’re not getting the job done,” in reference to the Transfer Growth issue. I don’t mean to devalue the powerful and significant role of your ministry with such words, because I think it’s rather normal in a healthy church situation to have an 80/20 mix, and most churches with a higher percentage of secular influx find it difficult to maintain sanctification in the fellowship.
I apologize for those words said so publicly and harshly. I was wrong, and I wronged you with them. It’s because you do have a thriving and spiritual ministry that we do in fact enjoy both your sermons and your ministry efforts. Especially of interest is the Teleporting, because we’ve considered such things as well.
On the McLaren issue, however, Mr. Cavey, I would strongly urge you to read his “Uncommon Orthodoxy” or whatever it’s called. And I’m fully aware that McLaren is very likely a brother-in-Christ with honorable intentions. However, his doctrine is distinctly NeoOrthodox with variations.
Perhaps what makes McLaren seem appealing to you, Bruxy, is his disdain for regimented / stale orthodoxy and the “traditions of men,” which we all know are the disposable “wineskins.” His language is intriguing, and he would probably sound to you like a kindred spirit. However, his doctrine is unstable and confused, at best. I think you may wish to look at our growing collection of Emergent research at http://neonets.org/pmwiki/fields/biblenet/index.php/EmergentChurch/EmergentChurch . Notes from the D.A. Carson conference, in which Carson decisively deals with it, are found at http://neonets.org/pmwiki/fields/biblenet/index.php/EmergentChurch/Carson2007-Keith
I’m afraid that having McLaren endorse your book will become a decisive anti-endorsement. You should really do a little more research on this issue — you’ll not be disappointed.
As for “labels”, well, how else do we ultimately categorize the vast field(s) of theological issues we have to wrestle with? I don’t mean to stereotype, but it’s true that general and significant issues do fall under the category of sub-orthodox Christianity. McLaren’s theology, unfortunately, needs some serious fine-tuning. In the final analysis, the Emergents aren’t reaching the lost … they’re reaching disenfranchised Christians. But it’s unclear what they’re doing with them after that.
And also, as for my comments about Dennis, I can’t say for certain what his attitude is, as I indicated in my posting — it was more of a subjective tone I picked up, which I’ll happily clarify later.
Your brother and admirer in Christ,
Keith McCallum
Sr. Pastor, NEO Xenos
Thanks for this kind-hearted dialogue Keith. I look forward to more in person some day.
My challenge now is that the book is off to the publishers and Brian McLaren’s endorsement/foreword is part of it. NavPress is a Christian publisher that I have great respect for and I have checked with them about McLaren’s theology and they saw no problems with his endorsement for The End of Religion. I am caught, because I trust NavPress and the Navigators organization as much as I trust Xenos.
I suppose this means that we at The Meeting House are going to be pulled into the “Emerging Church” debate whether we like it or not. This is new to us, but I suppose we better get used to it. Ah, well, we can’t choose all of our battles. Thank you for providing research on the subject to get us started. In the meantime, thank you also for your grace as we join in late to this conversation in progress.
Peace to you, Bruxy
Exactly Joe, I visited The Meeting House to view practices of another church and I wrote about a blog, opening up the unusual practices as a subject for conversation, which it obviously has done more than I would have imagined. It is definitely good to be in dialogue about the activites of other churches, because we all deal with the consequences of churches.
But I have to go as I am here chilling in Daytona Beach!
Whoa! Go out of state for a few days, and look what happens!
As a fellow Meeting House visitor with Andy and resident transfer-growth Xenoid, now that I’m catching up on my Internet backlog, a response is overdue.
First, I did want to say the Meeting House visit, especially the lunch visit with Paul Morris and the other folks was one of the most wonderful highlights of the trip. I’m mighty grateful to Andy for coordinating and for Paul treating us like kings. I had a fantastic “universal/global Church” experience in our conversations.
I wish there were churches like that at various times in my life when I was thirsting for meaningful fellowship in a dynamic Body of Christ. There are lots of saved people out there who aren’t able to serve or make much of an impact for Christ in large part because they’re holed up in spiritually dying churches. The Meeting House is such a young fellowship — man, there’s SUCH amazing potential there to ready troops to save the lost.
Bruxy, if you’re still tuning in, I also have some responses to “emergent”/”postmodern”/etc.:
First off, let me acknowledge I’m no exhaustive authority on Canada and that most of my understanding of Canada and cultural/philosophical attitudes has come from a couple of Canadian friends. (Hmm, and maybe the local rebroadcast of CBC’s “As It Happens.”) One was from Edmonton, the other Toronto, they were fellow faculty members at an art school where I taught and with whom I became friends — one I’d consider a very close friendship.
More often without giving any explicit name to it, I have to say a postmodern worldview ran deeper in them than most friends (or radio!) that I’ve encountered. And maybe the term “postmodern” has become outdated and fallen out of use, but, for the record, at least in 1980s academia, it was apparently ALL the rage amongst Canadian scholars. My closer of the two Canadian faculty friends wore postmodernism — BY NAME, I should note! — like a badge of honor. It was the axis of her graduate writing and artwork, and I’d go so far as to say it was central to her identity. She most certainly “rallied around it,” at least 20 years ago. Canada is a bit more European-y and more philosophically progressive than the USA. From what I can tell, postmodernism has run so deep so long there, if Canadians aren’t really using the word anymore, I can only imagine that it’s akin to talking fish not needing a word for water because their environment is all-encompassing and taken for granted.
When Francis Schaeffer was writing critically about postmodernism in the 1960s, I don’t believe postmodernism even had its name yet. Following in the footsteps of the great Saint Francis, call the trends nothing in particular if you want, but there ARE history-changing philosophies that have evolved and permeated Western culture that make teaching, evangelizing, and living out biblical Christianity something that requires more discernment than ever in history. Beware the prowling, destructive lion…! And considering the spiritual warfare we’re involved in, Christianity is SO much about “taking sides” and working together as believers to separate God’s truth from the World’s deception. I often recall C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” about how neutrality is not an option that we have.
On the surface, the whole “Emergent” scene is offering everything I was STARVING for at those times when I was trying to find meaningful fellowship in a culturally relevant church. Knowing how deep one has to dig to get to the more heretical aspects of Emergent, I really wonder if I would have recognized any danger anywhere in it. Bruxy, if you haven’t already, I would encourage you to dig deep enough until it’s 100% clear what Xenos finds objectionable and why, and then form your position.
I’m really proud of what you Meeting House guys are doing up there. I would also say that I think you may be at a pivotal crossroads for the future of your church. It sounds like you guys may be in conversation with some heavy-hitter Xenos leaders, but if you think it might in any way be constructive, I’d be more than happy to carry on any discussions with you guys myself as well.
- Michael
Well, someone called my attention to this thread, and I must say I’m not real happy seeing my name mentioned as having some view or other.
To set the record straight, I respect and enjoy Meeting House and count Paul and Bruxy as friends. Our impression the last time there, listening to Bruxy teach is that he is NOT postmodern or emergent. He argued that we all have our own stories, but that the Bible is THE STORY and we need to submit out story to it — a position directly opposite to that taken by postmodern Christians today.
Now, I was not happy to see that McLaren is on the cover of Bruxy’s book because the emergent movement is headed directly away from biblical orthodoxy. I should make clear that I know most of these leaders personally (not McLaren) have attended their conferences, visited their churches, had lengthy arguments with them in public debate, blogs, email, and by phone.
McLaren is at this print doubting the reality of hell, saying universalism is okay for Christians, denying the need for penal substitution at the cross and suggesting that would be child abuse, and declaring all language to be indefinite and incapable of transmitting objective truth, and all “truth” to be discursive (which undermines the usefulness of Scripture, and flies in the face of what Jesus and Paul taught). So, I believe McLaren is a bad player, and I’m not surprised to see the top evangelical thinkers here and abroad finally critiquing his stuff.
One of their own, Mark Driscoll, has broken with them over their increasingly extreme theology. He was one of the original leaders of the movement gathered by Leadership Network. He participated in their leadership councils for a decade and knows exactly what they think. He mentions the following serious problems in his critique:
1. Scripture. This includes the divine inspiration, perfection,
and authority of Scripture.
2. Jesus Christ. This includes his deity and sovereignty over
human history as Lord.
3. Gender. This includes whether or not people are created with
inherent gender differences, whether or not those gender roles
have any implications for the governments of home and
church, and whether or not homosexual practice is sinful.
This also includes whether or not it is appropriate to use
gender specific names for God, such as Father, like Jesus did.
4. Sin. The primary issue here is whether or not human beings
are conceived as sinners or are essentially morally neutral and
are internally corrupted solely by external forces.
5. Salvation. The issue is whether Jesus Christ is necessary for
salvation and whether or not salvation exists for people in
other religions who do not worship Jesus Christ.
6. The Cross. The issue here is the doctrine of penal
substitution and whether or not Jesus died in our place for our
sins or if He went to the cross solely as an example for us to
follow when we suffer.
7. Hell. The issue is whether or not anyone will experience
conscious eternal torment, or if unbelievers will simply cease
to exist (annihilationism) or eventually be saved and taken to
heaven (universalism).
8. Authority. This issue is perhaps the most difficult of all.
Much of this conversation is happening online with blogs and
chat rooms. However, as the conversation becomes a conflict,
the inherent flaw of postmodernism is becoming a practical
obstacle to unity because there is no source of authority to
determine what constitutes orthodox or heretical doctrine.
With the authority of Scripture open for debate and even
long-established Church councils open for discussion (e.g. the
Council of Carthage that denounced Pelagius as a heretic for
denying human sinfulness), the conversation continues while
the original purpose of getting on mission may be overlooked
because there is little agreement on the message or the
mission of the Church.
I think there is a range of views represented within the group calling themselves emergent. You can see this range if you read the book, “Listening to the beliefs of emerging churches” (Zondervan) which ranges from Driscoll at the conservative end to Paggit and Ward at the liberal end. In between, you see Kimball and Burke, who are not that bad, whereas Paggit sounds like a non-believer. Driscoll’s views are no more liberal (probably more conservative) than ours. McLaren is at the liberal end of this continuum, in my opinion.
Keith mentioned their problems with evangelism, which are accute. Even one of their own leaders, McKnight, acknowledged that he sees a huge problem here — and it’s not just because they are ineffective at reaching non-Christian postmoderns (which would be a major problem, considering that their literature implies that they are the ones who know how this should be done) but that they are increasingly UNWILLING TO WITNESS AT ALL! This is because they don’t want to be arrogant in asserting that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong. So you just witness with your life, not your words. McLaren is in the vanguard of this view as you can see in his treatment of other religions in “A Generous Orthodoxy.” I can only say, my Bible does not take the same view of other religions that McLaren does. Rather than respecting them and learning from them, refusing to view what we teach as superior, Paul says the gods people worship are in fact demons. 1Cor. 10. New and Old Testament agree on this.
Why Navpress would have no problem with McLaren, or Zondervan, or Baker, is a baffling question. The only answer I can imagine is 1. they have no idea what he teaches, or (more likely) 2. Dollars and cents mean more than being faithful to God’s word.
I think, Bruxy, you should consider removing his endorsement if you issue a new edition of your book. Also, Secret Message was a more innocuous book. You should also read his more inflamatory stuff like Generous Orthodoxy, and you should read some of the careful and fair critiques by many of the leading thinkers in the Christian world today, such as D. A. Carsen, Millard Eriksen (editor of RECLAIMING THE CENTER:
CONFRONTING EVANGELICAL ACCOMMODATION IN POSTMODERN TIMES, which includes a dozen of our best theologians writing essays about why they are so worried about the movement), and many others. Groothius’ book, Truth Decay is good.
Amazingly, it has taken over ten years for the evangelical church to realize what we are dealing with in the emergent movement, and they are still partially asleep on this. But I do believe that finally we will see in the next few years the believing church mobilize against at least the extreme liberal wing of this movement.
Thanks for the great explication Dennis. Very useful. Also, I’m only too happy to have brought your attention to this old (but interesting) post.
You might be interested in Bruxy’s MySpace blog where he lists McLaren as one of his favorite authors in the “favorite books” section (“I’m also currently digging The Secret Message of Jesus”). Perhaps I’ll direct his attention to your post here.
[…] published an article about the Meeting House last year describing their “teleconferencing” strategy. Driscoll’s approach goes […]
[…] published an article about the Meeting House last year describing their “teleconferencing” strategy. Driscoll’s approach goes […]