navigating emerging church theology

[David Hahn]

The following conversation comes from Lars:

Where does 'emerging' falls between relativism and fundamentalism? Can one be a missionary to post-moderns with a modern evangelical theology?

[Lars Hammar]

I'll tell you where I'm coming from with this question. I see different responses to the post-modernism phenomenon, and they tend to fall into a few (very over-generalized) categories.

1. Modern evangelicalism with candles: These look and feel in form very much like something post-modern - the atmosphere, the style of music etc. But, underneath it all they still have a theology and polity that's very modern evangelical: you still have to accept Jesus, women can't be elders etc.

2. Enlightened evangelicalism (my words): These are like the Ecclesia Church in Houston. They are Baptist by background, but they have a strong social consciousness and are very open to discussion of Biblical truth and society and culture.

3. Completely indigenous: we have a place like that here in Tucson that worships at Our Saviour's (my church). It's called The Village. They don't really have a denominational background, their pastors come from different backgrounds, and their theology is not dogmatic. There's little in the way of a statement of fath, though they use the Apostle's Creed in their worship.

4. Mainline with candles (my words again). This is classic social-gospel liberalism with candles and couches. Underneath the new forms is the Christian Century and probably a book or two from Martin Marty, Barbara Brown Taylor, and John Shelby Spong. In a sense, it's still modern underneath, just liberal modern.

5. Mars Hill and the Acts 29 network. These are hard-core fundamentalists with a hip form, who allow alcohol and rip on fundamentalists (even though to the rest of the world they are). Growing, but not very open to debate. There's no conversation here, and, for example, women's roles are very 1500.

So what is really emerging theology? How would one even begin to describe it?

[Russ]

I think your observation that oftentimes the label of "emerging" describes an aesthetic more than anything else is a good one, Lars. I remember sitting in on a workshop Dave led down at the Episcopal Diocesan Convention several months back, and it was essentially a room full of priests and youth leaders that were hoping Dave would tell them some magical combination of Powerpoint, iPods, votives, icons, lattes, and bean bag chairs that would get people under 40 flocking to church. Needless to say, Dave didn't produce such a recipe for them.

I'm still pretty new at this emerging thing, but it seems to me that it places a premium on people and authenticity.

If we are to define fundamentalism as valuing ideas and beliefs over people (which I think is a pretty good definition -- I stole it from my friend Tamie), then my hope is that this abbey we have emerging here will value our relationships with each other more than we care whether the other folks are liberal or conservative, Obama or Clinton, Star Wars or Star Trek, PC or Mac, Tevas or Chacos.

If you've got a group of people that love candles and couches, so be it, but I think it has more to do with being daring enough and trusting firmly enough in your community to let it grow naturally. It seems as though each emerging community would then draw on whatever sources they deem appropriate. For my part, I do certainly let a lot of postmodern thinking inform my theology and approach to life, but I also try to get wisdom from liturgy and from the prayer book. I try to listen to the advice of friends and family members, and I try to occasionally find some place peaceful and listen to the wind between my ears. I doubt I'm doing a very good job of pinning the emerging stuff down anywhere along a spectrum of relativist to fundamentalist, but I don't think we need to develop our own set of canons quite yet.

[David Hahn]

i tend to share similar sentiments with russ. first i guess, what goes through me, is why is it important to pin this down theologically? to try to locate it somewhere? what i admire about this emerging thing, at least as far as i understand it is what is best known, to quote miroslav volf, as "differentiated unity." i suppose we could talk all day about what differences we share and seek to locate ourselves in the true jesus church, but what is that? volf speaks about it as the place where jesus is lord and savior. this, he says, was the earliest confession, i.e. agreement, about being church in relationship to god and it's around this that great diversity will exist, both in our very practice and in our articulating an understanding of it. now, i suppose we also could engage around what exactly we mean by lord and savior, which itself will lead us to differing definitions.

underlying all of this one of my principles of being held versus holding. what i mean is that through this very practice of trying to articulate the unlimited, as limited ourselves, it speaks of a yearning to embrace that which all along already embraces us. for me the incarnation develops this tension of holding all of humanity simultaneously to our, fractured to say the least, attempts at holding god, whatever form may come in. ya know, i can't in the least relate to the fundy stuff, and feel extremely alientated by those who espouse it, and even some what, to be honest, intimidated by its aggression. however, i will still acknowledge that they are a part of the true jesus church that has a claim even on me. for me, rollins helps to finely discern this distinction very well.

also, i'm more inclined, when categorizing the emerging stuff, to do it within the framework of the missional church rather than within the emerging church itself. to understand the missional church stuff, i then believe that the emerging conversation, church, movement, whatever you want to call it, is a subset or particular expression, of this broader understanding for what this is all about. it is in many ways a highly nuanced expression, but nontheless, an expression, subset if you will, of the missional church. the essence of course for the missional church begins with god, not the church itself, or even its doctrine within the church. it all begins within the very nature of god, the community of god, living an inter-dependent life with itslelf. that's why rublev's icon matters so much to me. the question isn't what place we can make space for us in god, but rather, what space god makes in godself for us.

[Lars Hammar]

I think both of you have articulated something I was feeling but not naming well: the difference between emerging as an aesthetic and emerging as a way of being. After reading my grocery list it seemed obvious that what I was pointing out was, in large part, the dichotomy of appearing be one thing (indigenous, post-modern, whatever), while under the surface really being another (traditional, fundamentalist etc.). I'm all for understanding where we come from, and using the best in our traditions. But there's a real difference, isn't there, between being a new movement that springs from a tradition, and being simply the same old schtick in new clothes?