Conferences are the bane of my existence.
I'm currently at a tedious (but kinda sorta good) conference in Abbotsford; a "conference on the ministry" to be precise. I'm not sure what 'the' ministry is, but I will let you as soon as I find out.
This conference has been focusing quite a bit on the 'emerging church'. However, the fine folks leading the conference seminars seem a little unsure of what they mean when they say 'emerging' (don't we all!) - here are some of the many terms I've heard thrown around (I suppose interchangeably): emerging, emergent, Emergent, the emergency church (ha!), the 'new paradigm church' (ick), the 'wireless church' vs. the 'hard copy church' (and my favourites) 'them', 'they', and 'that'. The last three I find particularly interesting, because it assumes that there is a centre to the emerging church that can be identified as a 'they' or a 'them', which is just plain wrong. I have found myself really disappointed with the seminars, as the facilitators have been focusing so much on the 'effects' and the 'form' of the emerging church - and on its similarities and/or differences with the denomination I am associated with - rather than on the real material and theological questions that the emerging dialogue is attempting to address: such as localised incarnational mission, ecclesial praxis as (or, that should be) an expression of the missio Dei, discipleship in the context of mission, the role of community in spiritual formation, church leadership structures that empower mission and participation in community, etc etc!
One highlight however, was hearing Ian Green (an apostolic church planter type from Wales), who is currently engaged in some very exciting church planting and leadership development in Northern and Eastern Europe, speak plainly and forcefully (yet without the laid-on guilt) about the priority of the gospel and developing leaders for mission NOT church programs.
Why don't we have a stronger emphasis on leadership development in our churches? I suppose there are many reasons, but some that stand out to me are: insecurities in current church leaders (what if those I am training are actually better than me?), fear of change, a poor Kingdom theology (most pastors are into Empire building, not Kingdom building), current leaders are actually not leaders themselves and are therefore incapable of training others, job security and a need to maintain the status quo, and the list could go on. The point is, Jesus invested in His 12 disciples (and others, presumably) to carry on the work of the Kingdom. Current church leadership should be focused on doing the same thing: perpetually passing on the baton, leading people into mission, sending and releasing rather than holding onto and drawing in. The goal of every church leader therefore, is to make herself or himself totally obsolete.
What is my understanding of the emerging church? Simply this: "The church missionaly engaged with local emerging culture." All good theology, for example, is a re-thinking of theology in the light of a constantly changing world - it is the process of articulating and thinking about the Gospel, which is always contextualised by one's historical and cultural locatedness. Shouldn't our understanding of mission and missional praxis (and appropriate forms of ecclesial praxis in the light of our missional calling) be approached in exactly the same way? The Holy Spirit has empowered us to "be His witnesses" and that must be lived out "among" and "in the midst of" the local community and culture of which we are a part. Mission is a relational process. The Father sends the Son who sends the Spirit who empowers and sends the Church. But this is not "in abstract", it is in the context of relationship, (the Son does the will of the Father because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father; we are compelled "by the love of God" and etc.,) and furthermore, there is no such thing as a grand mission strategy that can apply in any and all contexts - except that strategy which is motivated by love and committed to demonstrating that love through real personal engagement with those in the local community.
By definition the church is always 'emerging' into the coming Kingdom, and by definition the church has 'emerged' in the resurrected Christ and in His Kingdom come. And since our culture is dynamic, the missio Dei expressed through the local church, must also translate as a commitment to the present local realities of the community in which the church is located.
So, again, I say that the emerging church is simply any church (regardless of its form) that is missionally engaged with its local emerging culture. 'Local' because there is no other place for the church to express its mission but amongst the people with whom God has called it to love. 'Emerging' because culture is never static. 'Culture' because the practices, artifacts, and relational dynamics of the community in which the local church is placed, is the very thing the gospel must address. Since culture is the by-product of persons living out their lives together (both spatially and relationally), then the word 'culture' is a way of saying 'persons', 'living', 'together', and the 'stuff' (both good and bad) that generates. Finally, by 'church' I mean primarily 'the church local' not the 'church catholic' (though that is obviously important too - but for reasons other than what I am trying to articulate here). Perhaps in a follow-up post I might talk about the catholic church and its role in the Kingdom of God. But for now, think local!
So, as you have probably gathered by now, I much prefer the term "the church in emerging culture" to simply "the emerging church". And I leave you with a little soundbite I heard today: "Churches that disengage from their communities do not love God."
This conference has been focusing quite a bit on the 'emerging church'. However, the fine folks leading the conference seminars seem a little unsure of what they mean when they say 'emerging' (don't we all!) - here are some of the many terms I've heard thrown around (I suppose interchangeably): emerging, emergent, Emergent, the emergency church (ha!), the 'new paradigm church' (ick), the 'wireless church' vs. the 'hard copy church' (and my favourites) 'them', 'they', and 'that'. The last three I find particularly interesting, because it assumes that there is a centre to the emerging church that can be identified as a 'they' or a 'them', which is just plain wrong. I have found myself really disappointed with the seminars, as the facilitators have been focusing so much on the 'effects' and the 'form' of the emerging church - and on its similarities and/or differences with the denomination I am associated with - rather than on the real material and theological questions that the emerging dialogue is attempting to address: such as localised incarnational mission, ecclesial praxis as (or, that should be) an expression of the missio Dei, discipleship in the context of mission, the role of community in spiritual formation, church leadership structures that empower mission and participation in community, etc etc!
One highlight however, was hearing Ian Green (an apostolic church planter type from Wales), who is currently engaged in some very exciting church planting and leadership development in Northern and Eastern Europe, speak plainly and forcefully (yet without the laid-on guilt) about the priority of the gospel and developing leaders for mission NOT church programs.
Why don't we have a stronger emphasis on leadership development in our churches? I suppose there are many reasons, but some that stand out to me are: insecurities in current church leaders (what if those I am training are actually better than me?), fear of change, a poor Kingdom theology (most pastors are into Empire building, not Kingdom building), current leaders are actually not leaders themselves and are therefore incapable of training others, job security and a need to maintain the status quo, and the list could go on. The point is, Jesus invested in His 12 disciples (and others, presumably) to carry on the work of the Kingdom. Current church leadership should be focused on doing the same thing: perpetually passing on the baton, leading people into mission, sending and releasing rather than holding onto and drawing in. The goal of every church leader therefore, is to make herself or himself totally obsolete.
What is my understanding of the emerging church? Simply this: "The church missionaly engaged with local emerging culture." All good theology, for example, is a re-thinking of theology in the light of a constantly changing world - it is the process of articulating and thinking about the Gospel, which is always contextualised by one's historical and cultural locatedness. Shouldn't our understanding of mission and missional praxis (and appropriate forms of ecclesial praxis in the light of our missional calling) be approached in exactly the same way? The Holy Spirit has empowered us to "be His witnesses" and that must be lived out "among" and "in the midst of" the local community and culture of which we are a part. Mission is a relational process. The Father sends the Son who sends the Spirit who empowers and sends the Church. But this is not "in abstract", it is in the context of relationship, (the Son does the will of the Father because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father; we are compelled "by the love of God" and etc.,) and furthermore, there is no such thing as a grand mission strategy that can apply in any and all contexts - except that strategy which is motivated by love and committed to demonstrating that love through real personal engagement with those in the local community.
By definition the church is always 'emerging' into the coming Kingdom, and by definition the church has 'emerged' in the resurrected Christ and in His Kingdom come. And since our culture is dynamic, the missio Dei expressed through the local church, must also translate as a commitment to the present local realities of the community in which the church is located.
So, again, I say that the emerging church is simply any church (regardless of its form) that is missionally engaged with its local emerging culture. 'Local' because there is no other place for the church to express its mission but amongst the people with whom God has called it to love. 'Emerging' because culture is never static. 'Culture' because the practices, artifacts, and relational dynamics of the community in which the local church is placed, is the very thing the gospel must address. Since culture is the by-product of persons living out their lives together (both spatially and relationally), then the word 'culture' is a way of saying 'persons', 'living', 'together', and the 'stuff' (both good and bad) that generates. Finally, by 'church' I mean primarily 'the church local' not the 'church catholic' (though that is obviously important too - but for reasons other than what I am trying to articulate here). Perhaps in a follow-up post I might talk about the catholic church and its role in the Kingdom of God. But for now, think local!
So, as you have probably gathered by now, I much prefer the term "the church in emerging culture" to simply "the emerging church". And I leave you with a little soundbite I heard today: "Churches that disengage from their communities do not love God."
posted by Timbo at 3:34 pm
3 Comments:
Good point. I probably should have been "churches that are un-engaged..."
Can't quite echo the strength of your title, but Christian conferences are entirely weird. I write this with that strong post-conference question that normally evolves from the exhaustion - "what was all that about?"
One thing (not the thing) I love to leave a conference with is the sense of having shared time and experience with a bunch of Christ-centred world changers. At the risk of ex-communication, I don't have that sense right now. As I worryingly analyse why that is, I think it has a load to do with my strong dislike of denominations - they're just so incomplete in representing Jesus and the Kingdom. I feel restricted, incomplete and unbalanced. A night's sleep is probably wise before I continue any of that thought.
of course one of the best things about the conference was hanging out with timmy, but we can do that nearer home!
Post a Comment
<< Home