Emergent Convention: Church Planting in the Emerging Context
May 18, 2004
Lots of good stuff from Tim Keel and Doug Pagitt’s Critical Concerns Course today. They allowed for a lot of dialogue, made us all pair up into iBuddies who we met with a few times throughout the afternoon. I met 2 very nice women who were there with their husbands. They are in their mid-20s and are looking at planting a church in Pennsylvania, so I’m hoping to keep in touch with them, as I head out to New Jersey.
Aside from Doug’s beautiful use of the f-bomb (multiple times), the afternoon was filled with a tremendous amount of theology, and a few somewhat heated discussions. Both Tim and Doug said something to this effect: “We’re not just saying that the methods need to change - the message needs to change as well!” I think this is going to be a theme for this week (at least I know that Tim, Doug, Tony Jones, & others) will be talking more and more about this (esp. at Doug & Tony’s “A New Theology for a New World” seminar later this week). After last year’s Emergent convention, and everyone went home and bought all the emergentYS resources and got their blogs, and starting drinking coffee, and listening to Chant and all that (myself included), emergent has all of a sudden gotten “hip” / “cool” / “trendy.” People feel that by adding the candles & coffee, all of a sudden they are an “emerging church.” Yet today was filled with theological conversations. The emerging church movement is NOT simply a movement about changing the form of worship - it is not simply about changing the order of service from linear to organic/fluid (which is what many THINK emergent is about). Forms. Methods. Etc.
But it is clear that this is NOT all that emergent is. Emergent is very much a rethinking of not only church, but theology - the message. The message doesn’t in fact stay the same. And…THAT is what is scary. THAT is what causes people in the seminars (and not just the ones wearing the NPC nametags) to squirm in their seats. When Doug talked about how the doctrine of the Trinity may not necessarily be needed in today’s 21st century, people squirmed. When Tim talked about our clearly UNDERdeveloped theology of salvation (getting individual butts into heaven before earth burns), people were uncomfortable with that (not all, but some). When Doug talks about, as a pastor, being able to truly say, “I truly feel led by the people of our community” - that goes against what we are taught a “pastor” or a “leader” should be about. When Tim talked about how we need to be talking and thinking more about a theology of creation (which deals with ALL of the important theological questions people are asking today: anthropology, nanotechnology, ecology, gender issues, sexual issues) - some people are still thinking, “But isn’t soteriology (theology of salvation) still the MOST important?”
And this is where we are at. We are at the point of discussion, we are at conversation. And we are now not just talking about the way in which we worship - but we are getting theological. We are venturing into the land of theology, and are asking ourselves, “What is *truly* biblical? What is important to Jesus? What is more a product of modernity, or an interpretation by a community of people who lived in a time that is drastically different than the era we are finding ourselves in?” Again, these are not amazingly prophetic utterances - but important questions nonetheless.
I think there are some people interested in the emerging church movement who do not even want to begin to think about the message changing. I’m not exactly sure what the message is changing TO - but I don’t think that change is bad. I don’t think that God necessarily wanted God’s followers in the 1500, 1890s (as Doug likes to mention is the time of the most DRAMATIC changes, 1890-1910) and 2020s to be thinking the exact same things about the world, humanity and about God. Where is this taking us? Where is this leading?
I’m not sure.
Maybe that’s why this year’s theme is The Road Ahead.
Tags: Blogging, Church-Planting, Emergent, Emergent-Convention, emerging-church
Posted in Emergent
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
May 19th, 2004 at 11:28 am
Great stuff Adam, keep it coming. Did you find a wi-fi spot?
May 19th, 2004 at 1:39 pm
I think you guys are missing something here - theology is not just arbitrary stuff we say about God. At its best, theology is the truth about God, regardless of whether or not such a doctrine is “necessary.” God is Trinity and to abandon that idea is to truly remove yourself from any connection to historical Christianity. That does not mean that the debates of the past or that the concepts may need to be reworked in such a way as to make them more intelligible to this generation, but to suggest that adhering to the truth about God’s nature is not “necessary” is very dangerous. And you should be very concerned about what the message is changing to - look at the incredible decline of European Christianity. That alone should raise all kinds of red flags as you discuss these things.
May 19th, 2004 at 2:21 pm
consider me as one who is squirming. i appreciate nathan’s comments.
adam, if you’re correct in your assessment of the emergent church…that they are looking toward the road ahead by doing their theology anew…then i think you’ll be surprised to find that the emergent church will end up in the same place the rest of the Church is (notice captial “C” church=Church universal). the emergent church will be those who have questioned their faith for themselves, and have come to recognize God, as expressed through Word (both Jesus and Bible) as the authority in their lives. perhaps the emergent church is simply a group of believers, who are making their faith their own…but feel it important to say they are new and revolutionary in doing so.
apologies if i have made too simple the emergent church.
apologies if i misunderstand and speak out of ignorance.
May 19th, 2004 at 3:15 pm
Still working on finding wifi…will have to be paying for it until then. But tis okay.
(typing this listening to David Crowder Band lead us in worship. Can you worship while blogging…? We’ll see. Nathan, you said “theology is truth about God.” Isn’t theology the STUDY about God, and no matter what form of study, what ways we come to learn more about interpretation, etc - we are going to be lacking. I think you’d agree with that.
Nathan, my question for you, since you keep mentioning things that are “necessary” — “what is necessary?” What are the things of God that are necessary?
May 19th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
can you contextualize the statement about the trinity not necessarily being needed for the 21st century?
May 19th, 2004 at 4:10 pm
Adam -
I would wholeheartedly agree that our theology, ie, the stuff we know about God, can never be complete. If it could, I don’t think we’d have a God worth worshipping. However, the fact that we have not achieved the fullness of theological knowledge does not mean that we should abandon the hard-won truths that were discovered in the past. I would agree that we do not have a well-rounded theology of salvation and creation in the ways you mention, but again, this does not invalidate the knowledge of the past. In fact, without the theology of the Church historic, I don’t think you’ll be able to get anywhere in developing those areas. If the emergent church seeks to actively to cut itself off from the historical church, then it is an evil endeavor and one destined to fail.
I’ll point out that “necessary” was brought up in your original post in regards to Doug saying the doctrine of the Trinity may not be necessary for the 21st century. Without knowing the context or the precision with which this was originally stated, I think this is a dangerous, heretical statement for a variety of reasons. The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary because it expresses a fundamental truth about the nature of God. In my mind, anything that is fundamental to God’s nature, ie, His love, justice, mercy, etc, are necessary. A brief review of the historical arguments over the doctrine of the Trinity will show the dangers of modalism, subordinationalism, adoptionism, etc. Anything that is true about God is necessary - without it, we actively move away from the-never-to-be-complete-but-getting-closer-all-the-time picture we have of God.
May 20th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
Adam,
Did Doug really use the f-bomb? I heard him use “S” and “A” but not “F”. Did I fall asleep?
Jason (From New Orleans, sat behind you in Critical Concerns with the iBook)
May 21st, 2004 at 2:24 am
Oh yah….he definitely used it multiple times during one of his rants, talking about being all fucked up.
May 22nd, 2004 at 10:29 am
Greetings!
Have been involved with emergent a great deal since it’s inception and was unable to make it to the convention this year. But, here is a simple thought that I have noticed over the past 3-4 years and I think it fits in with much of the discussion that is taking place these days. I believe that many in the emerging church movement are “burnt-out” believers or Jesus followers who have been “burnt” by the church and are looking for ways to salvage and reinvent their faith so that they can keep it and be passionate about it. The difficulty I have noticed is that - most assume carte blanche that when an “emergent” leader gives some commentary on culture & the church they are speaking for the large mass of non-Jesus following people - who are the people we are trying to reach and connect with - when in reality I think they are actually speaking to burnt-out, disillusioned Christian people (mostly ministers or ex-ministers). I think the nature of the questions and thoughts that most true non-believers (whatever we decide that might mean) are actually having are quite different. For example (this will seem so shallow), I think that burnt-out Christians that I know are happy to hear a leader (ala Doug) say that something is fucked up. The non-believers that I know (who have little to know influence from the conservative side of the church) would think that peculiar and going in the opposing direction of where our faith should be taking us. Now, having said that - we should pay attention to the “burnt-out” people because we do not want to continue to perpetuate the same causes that lead people to being burnt out. But, if we are actually going to be inviting people to follow Christ and asking them to step into the rythm of God, there are another set of issues (which I am sure there is crossover) that we need to begin looking at.
May 27th, 2004 at 1:13 pm
Clarification on Trinity statement:
I think I have a better idea of what Doug was meaning when he made a short statement about the Trinity.
I think Doug thinks that the Trinity was a perfect explanation for the nature of God during that time in which it came about. It was a good and right explanation for how they viewed God and how things were.
However, Doug believes that it’s not a necessary explanation of God for us in today’s world because our situation is so different, AND because he thinks we have more useful ways of thinking about God in relationship to God’s self and and creation and humanity.