Emergent Convention: God is Always Found in the Most God-Forsaken Places
May 26, 2004
I know I said I was done, but I listened to Alan Roxburgh’s seminar, “God is Always Found in the Most God-Forsaken Places” today on CD. It was absolutely amazing - the last 6 minutes was worth the $8 it cost. I have just typed out some of his words - beautiful beautiful stuff.
[Alan Roxburgh's words...]
If we want to discern the emergent work of God, we’ve got to ask, “Where are the most God-forsaken places today? Let me suggest to you, one of the most God-forsaken place for us, is the local congregation. Why? They don’t get it. They don’t understand any of this stuff. They are so steeped in a commercialized Gospel. They are so busy trying to make life work and trying to keep up and catch up, that they don’t get it. Here’s what I want to say to you. That is exactly the place where God’s future is going to emerge. Many of us who buy the emergence narrative want to give up on these places. That’s why with so many young leaders today, church planting is the thing. You know why church planting is really the thing? Because they don’t want to bother with that stuff. Because you can’t change it.
The Spirit of God is amongst the people of God. Which means God’s future is amongst God’s people. And I mean that literally, because here’s the next thing: The answer to the question “What is the emerging form of the church today in North America in this complex culture that we live in?” - I want to say to you the answer is right there in the suburbs, inner cities and in all those dumb, stupid congregations that don’t get it.
That’s where it is. In the most God-forsaken places in our culture today. That’s where God’s future is present.
That is a radically alternative narrative because God’s future is not found in the new and the next. God’s future is not found in the great high priests of the church who say, “This is how you do it.” God’s future is found in the ordinary men and women who don’t know how to do it.
God’s future is not found in leaders who have the plan and the strategy, the top-down, “aren’t you lucky you’ve got me, I’ve got my M.Div., D.Min., I’ve got a wonderful plan for your life, let’s go.” It’s not where God’s future is found. God’s future is found in the very opposite of that.
God’s future is found in the temporality, materiality, locality, specificity, of particular people in particular places. In other words, there is no big answer out there that big people bring, even at these conferences. There is a confused people, and in the midst of those confused people, is God’s Spirit and God’s future, waiting to emerge.
Therefore, being a leader is not having an answer. Being a leader is being one who is shaped and formed in practices of cultivating environments that call forth that people and that future. And the way in which that future gets cultivated and formed, is by re-entering the memory of the story. But, the gift of our moments is that we have a chance of re-entering that story from below, and outside, and no longer from dominion and power and control.
Tags: Blogging, Emergent, Emergent-Convention, emerging-church
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
May 26th, 2004 at 8:01 pm
Adam-
I was fortunate to attend Alan’s seminar and you’re absolutely right- beautiful… and hopeful. Since I was young I’ve had this preoccupation with being “successful” and making a difference. I thought I could do that if I got higher and higher education and worked really hard. But, as Alan says, God’s future is not found there with those who are first. God’s future is with those who are last, and that give me hope.
Great blog, I’ll stop by more often. :)
May 26th, 2004 at 10:35 pm
Adam: Thank you for posting these comments. I have been in such pain tonight, and this is exactly what I needed to read. I keep hoping that the “new thing” that will come out of all these conferences, books, etc., will spring forth from the very people who presently claim God’s name in the West. I did not attend Roxburgh’s seminar - these comments give me hope.
May 27th, 2004 at 3:16 pm
“I want to say to you the answer is right there in the suburbs, inner cities and in all those dumb, stupid congregations that don‚Äôt get it.”
This kind of arrogance and condemnation is “beautiful beatiful stuff” Adam? The main problem with the pomergent crowd is that there seems to be absolutely no recognition that God is working in those “dumb, stupid congregations” RIGHT NOW! And what some of them don’t get is how exactly a bunch of pomo Christians who have pretty much sold out to the culture are supposed to save the church. If that makes them stupid….
May 27th, 2004 at 3:23 pm
Cleave…thanks for this witness. Al was at my house last Tuesday night. We were drinking a California Chardonnay on the back patio in the twilight and musing about just these things. Al is a great gift to the church; he is aware of the massive changes the Spirit is brokering, the pain by felt by us who love Jesus and wring our hands about the church not getting it, the pain of congregations that know something’s wrong but don’t know what to do about it, and yet…he believes deeply that the church is where God is at work…if we have eyes to see. My recent blogs about emerging leadership come out of these conversations with Alan and our longing to partner with visionaries (and cultivate the skills and habits and convictions necessary for this difficult kind of leadership) who are restless enough to seek God radically…and that means in and through the existing church for the church is the root (radix) through which the New Empire of God is emerging, or better, from whom the witness to this emergence in the world must come.
May 27th, 2004 at 4:15 pm
Isaiah 46
8″Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
11calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
12″Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
you who are far from righteousness:
13I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.”
Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
Ah the suffering saints ,sipping chardonnay while discussing GOD’S future(?) and His new empire (???). Sounds like a scene from a Danielle Steele novel. This is beyond arrogance. So, what are we to do with the dumb and stupid who just don’t get it? I pray the LORD will be merciful until you do.
May 27th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
This could be a good conversation if we don’t blow our tops. I think Anonymous is reading way too much into that single line that offends him or her and thereby missing what is the “beautiful beautiful stuff” of what Roxburgh is trying to communicate to some of us.
I wasn’t there and don’t have the CD but have read other notes, and as a pomo/emergent church planter whatever ya wanna call me I personally have a heart for both sides of the camp to be working together for the sake of the gospel rather than fighting it out. (see Jason Clarks recent post http://emergent.typepad.com/jasonclark/2004/05/die_heretic.html ) Trying to ignore the accusation in the last part of Anonymous’ comment only to say if that’s the main point then my comment is a waste of time. Dialogue is sometimes hard to come by.
Back to the point…the New and the Next is the easier thing sometimes. Start over and maybe everyone will agree with your new point of view. Roxburgh’s message is steering us away from the temptation to think like that. Having read his books and articles, underneath what we read in this excerpt is a huge heart for the church, the body of Christ as local expressions of the Kingdom of God…where God IS already at work in his people. Emerging church whatever you wanna call it is an expression of the larger whole. I’d (like to) think if Anonymous sat down 5 minutes with this guy they’d realize they’re on the same side fighting the same fight.
That doesnt say it all but a bit of what’s on my heart and mind…
May 27th, 2004 at 5:56 pm
I do not doubt that Alan Roxburgh is trying to spread the Kingdom - I simply question if describing his fellow believers as dumb & stupid simply because they do not necessarily agree with him on all maters ecclesiastical might not be divisive and down-right wrong. Just because a local congregation doesn’t “buy the emergence narrative” and don’t “get” what the pomergent people are trying to do does not mean that 1) God is not working in them powerfully as they are 2) they are not seeking God, radically or otherwise. I’m sure that Mr. Roxburgh and I would agree on a great many things, but for him to call the local church the most God-forsaken place in his mind is certainly a problematic statement at best. Can you & he not see God working in these modern congregations? Can you not see that such modern leaders do not act as if they know it all and are not trying to compel a top-down leadership in every situation? The tone of Mr. Roxburgh’s speech clearly indicates he believes the modern church is deeply flawed and that he believes God is working there only minimally, if at all.
He also accuses such churches of communicating a “commercialized Gospel” - leaving aside arguments about the validity of such a statement, did not my comment about a sell-out pomergent church rankle you? I used that term very intentionally to illustrate how Mr. Roxburgh’s language is insulting to those who are still moderns. The pomergent crowd seems so anxious to turn their back on the extant church, that they are dooming themselves to all manner of errors - I think I saw earlier in this blog where someone at the convention questioned the necessity of the Trinity! If this is the direction the pomergent community is moving, then I am certainly happy to be one of those who does not get it.
May 27th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
I think all of you who are ripping Roxburgh apart for his one line, need to actually listen to the CDs and listen to the tongue-in-cheek was he says this line. In a way, he is poking fun at the attitude that many “pomergent”s have - that our local/traditional congregations are dumb & stupid. And what Roxburgh is saying is that “No! They are in fact the places where God’s future is going to come out of - in the present.”
I’m sorry you have misread what he was saying - and in fact he’s saying that we need to NOT give up on the local congregation(s) - we need to seek to remain faithful to local church, because that is where the future of God is.
May 28th, 2004 at 10:01 am
I wasn’t ripping Mr. Roxburgh specifically. I just find it interesting how those who are considered to be ec “leadership” appear to be no different then the modernist “visionaries” they critique. The other flaw of all things emergent, is the tossing out of terminology like “God’s future” and ” new empire of God” without explaining what they mean by such jargon. Just what the Church needs, more “christianese” to go along with the gobbledygook that is already in use in most of the western evangelical world.
I do agree with anonymous,in that the ec’s discarding of foundational truth is most problematic. After reading your post on Mr. Mclaren’s 8 points, I believe that the emergent movement is close to apostasy, if not already there.
May 28th, 2004 at 10:24 am
I was not ripping Mr. Roxburgh apart for his one line, though that was the most convenient example of what appears to be a consistent thread in the pomergent community. I realize that Mr. Roxburgh is saying that the pomergents should not give up on the local congregation - that is very clear in the 2nd paragraph. What is equally clear, tongue-in-cheek or not, is that his statements deride & insult the local church. From what you have posted of his thinking, it is clear that to some extent (I suspect to a great extent, actually) he agrees with the pomergent critique of the modern church and does think it is dumb & stupid. You’ll notice that he does not attempt to correct such thinking, only to suggest that the pomergent crowd should not count the local church out yet since someday they will come around. Mr. Roxburgh is not affirming the current mission & ministry of the modern church, he is stating that God will eventually show up there in a fashion the pomergents can identify. Does the modern church have problems? Absolutely! No one here would deny that there aren’t things that need to be addressed or corrected, but flawed does not mean forsaken. Yes, the future of God is in the local church, but so is God’s PRESENT - a key fact that you and Mr. Roxburgh appeared to have missed.
And I must say after reading back over your posts from the convention and the comments sections, you seem quite ready to abandon the foundational truths of Christianity. It would appear that the pomergent crowd are significantly engaged in some kind of cult of personality that no one (at least not that you recorded in your blog) attempted to argue with the idea that “the message has to change.” I do not mean this as a personal attack - I am really quite concerned that you and others would seem so willing to accept such an idea seemingly without reservation.
May 28th, 2004 at 10:19 pm
i think posting anonymously is akin to sucker punching or sniper shooting.
we’ll hear you better if you’re brave enough to own your comments.
and rejecting foundationalism is essentially the point of the post-modern discussion. we do so intentionally and with our hearts and faith intact.
May 28th, 2004 at 10:37 pm
Jen beat me to commenting that while this blog does *allow* for anonymous comments, I think I agree that we will be able to hear you better without hiding. There is more that I want to say here, but I must be off to play the game “Rambo” with jr & sr high school students…
May 29th, 2004 at 2:57 am
A few things:
*Chris P., first of all, they aren’t McLaren’s points, he was relating them to us from a book by Bosch entitled “Transforming Mission.” I’d challenge you to point out just where from that list are we headed “down the slippery slope to apostasy…”? I think those are 8 very good recommendations when seeking to dialogue with others…
*Anonymous, and although I have only listened to a CD from Roxburgh, I am confident that he loves and cares for the local church - and does not mean to insult. Just like I’ve never met you (hell, I don’t even know your name), and I shouldn’t make sweeping judgments about what you believe, you can’t make a judgment about Roxburgh when you didn’t even “hear” the inflection in his voice when he made that statement…
*Anonymous, I always get a smile on my face when people use the phrase “foundational truths” or “essentials of the faith” - because, NO ONE knows what they are. I doubt you’ll find two people who completely, 100% agree on what the foundational/essential tents of our faith really are. So, I would guess that it’s more the fact that I’m questioning your foundational truths of Christianity, as opposed to any high and mighty, God-ordained foundational/essential truths of the faith.
May 30th, 2004 at 9:19 am
Jen -
I do not think my identity should have anything to do with whether or not you hear me. Who I am is not relative to the validity of my posts. Perhaps an anonymous posting is simply a better way to focus on the issue without letting preconceptions of who an individual is cloud the discussion.
I well understand that postmodernism rejects foundationalism, but like any “ism” there is a difference between the idea and the ideology it produces. I am not a foundationalist, as I am not a fundamentalist, but that does not mean that our faith does not need a foundation, that it does not start from somewhere. And there is a distinct danger in rejecting these foundations, particularly when your faith is a received faith - it came from people who believed in and developed these foundations.
May 30th, 2004 at 9:29 am
Adam -
I realize that I do not have much of Mr. Roxburgh’s material to discuss, which is why I did a search for him online. Unfortunately, I did not find much so all I can comment on is what you posted. Perhaps I am overly critical of Mr. Roxburgh, but I am simply using him as a platform to address what seem to me to be larger problems in the pomergent movement as a whole.
√Önd actually, yes, many thousands of people would agree on precisely what the foundational truths are. Members of the Orthodox Church spring instantly to mind, as do many members of my own denomination who would seem to be in complete agreement. The fact that Protestantism is a highly splintered organism does not mean that there is not a core of truths that are in fact TRUE. These may have been distorted by various denominational battles or other disputes, but that does not mean that they do not exist. I will point out that your dodge of questioning “my foundational truths” is precisely the kind of pomo relativism that will be the undoing of Christianity. It is what is eating out the core of Christiainity in Europe, it is what is eroding the mainline denominations in the US today.
June 1st, 2004 at 2:26 pm
If Mr. McLaren agrees with the 8 points of Bosch,then they are his points also. As far as dialogue,what’s the point of my sitting down with a hindu,a muslim ,a tibetan monk or whatever? If I do sit with them to talk I will only speak of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. There is no middle ground. Only GOD can save people. They are not going to convince me their way has validity and I am not going to convince them to join the Body of Christ. When are the hyper-arminianists going to come to the understanding that,no one’s salvation especially their own depends on them, or their actions? There is no such thing as a pre-christian. As their is no universal salvation for all, even if you don’t accept it now. The modern evangelical churches portray a God who exists for “me” and my material comfort. The pomergents portray an impotent oaf,who just can’t get anything done without our doing it, and who exists for “us” and our enjoyment of the “kingdom” even though we can’t define, or know a thing about him. Sounds like the same thing to me, as neither are the GOD revealed in Christ and the Scriptures. Take a browse around the Christian book stores and you’ll find Sweet’s and Mclaren’s and a host of other post-modern tomes being hawked right next to Joyce Meyer’s latest
meanderings. Money talks in the kingdom of this world,thus I reject both sides of this debate.
June 30th, 2004 at 1:29 am
Anonymous and Chris P. You both are so right. To remove our “foundation” is to remove God/Christ from the church (on whom the church IS built). Just as a falling foundation weakens a building causing it to eventually become ruins, so does the “church” when people try to “bring about a new empire” (hello? Do you not know God IS the Alpha and Omega–Nothing about “NEW” in there). If anything the OLD “empire” what a word– I prefer Kingdom is to COME. SO many of these people are trying to “bring others to Christ”…The ONLY way we come to God/Christ is BY God/Christ himself.
Which leads me to Jen Lemen “i think posting anonymously is akin to sucker punching or sniper shooting.
we’ll hear you better if you’re brave enough to own your comments.
and rejecting foundationalism is essentially the point of the post-modern discussion. we do so intentionally and with our hearts and faith intact.”
The only way to “hear” him better is to pull your heads out of that sinking sand (foundation reference).
You think he is “Anonymous” for not putting a name with his post as I am doing, yet you know me no better than him for having done so.
The Pharisees (sp) were big on “names” also. The wanted Christ to “name himself” (ie announce that yes he IS the King of Kings.. The Messiah)..why?? so they could persecute him all the more, and put him to a quicker death for blasphemy.
I think this Roxburgh is truly the one who doesn’t “get it”. God/Christ is not “for us”, we are not saved by bringing God to our table. We are saved — and thus if he must insist– enter into his “new” Kingdom, by coming to HIS table.
It is such a “beautiful, beautiful stuff” that I felt it need be repeated-
Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Notice verse 5 - according to the PURPOSE OF HIS WILL, to the praise of HIS GLORIOUS GRACE, with which HE has blessed US IN THE BELOVED.
Like Kennedy said, “Ask not what God can do for you, but what You can DO FOR GOD”.
Church is not for us (as in the modern terminology of “me”) it is FOR GOD. A place where we PRAISE GOD for all that he already has done (ie paying our adoption fees in Blood).
As for those who vie for space on the Christian’s Store Bookshelf–False prophets can be very “beautiful, beautiful stuff”–especially if the words are to make US feel good, instead of leading us to worship/praise GOD.
June 30th, 2004 at 1:33 am
OOps– God’s child and a little blond…My name is Gerri T. (for Jen Lemen)
June 30th, 2004 at 11:28 am
well, god bless you god’s child/gerri t and all the anonymous posters. you have a lot to say here. do you blog? just a personal opinion, but when my commenters are making a career out of dissenting, i like to acknowledge the disagreement and invite my readers to examine those particular thoughts in greater detail in the dissenter’s own space which i happily link to. might just be me.
all that aside, it makes sense that we would be in this spot–foundations or no foundations, we fundamentally disagree. you (whoever you are) might think this is the difference between heaven and hell for me, or orthodoxy and apostasy. my lack of concern about all of the above might just gross you out. understandable.
i wonder if it’s possible for there to be any compassion or love between us being so fundamentally opposed. can we feel with actual heartfelt true emotion waves of kindness for each other when we are at odds? and can this love be translated in a way that leaves both sides feeling like peers, equals? the kind of love that wouldn’t make a dinner party awkward?
this is always the question for me.
i disagree with people a lot, but i am everyday trying to cultivate an appreciation for people who experience god quite differently than i do–including the foundationalists, the fundamentalists, the emerging church gurus and all the others in the mix of the conversation.
this might hit you wrong, but it’s not my intent. if you are experiencing god in your current framework, and find yourself in the throes of the spirit’s work, then i rejoice with you…truly…whatever that may be. let’s talk about that. the rest of this will pass.
i will now go rant on my own blog in order to not hog any more of adam’s comment space. :)
February 15th, 2005 at 4:31 am
I am wondering why Brian McLaren has endorsed the back cover of a book, The Seeker’s Way by Dave Fleming, which suggests that Christianity is limited in what it can do for human beings and that all religious traditions lead to God. And I am also wondering why he is also on the back cover of Tony Campolo’s book, Speaking My Mind, in which Campolo suggests that mystical experiences [contemplative prayer]can unite Christianity and Islam? If Brian McLaren is an evangelical Christian, then perhaps the rumor I heard is true - that leaders like McLaren are wanting to change the meaning of the term “evangelical.” If what he endorses is so - that biblical Christianity is too limiting, then God the Father made a big mistake in sending His Son, Jesus Christ, to die - it would have been unnecessary if there were any other access or door to God.