Theology of the Emerging Church Movement more

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary Theology of the Emerging Church Movement Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for an Independent Study Dr. Roland Kuhl, Supervisor By Ircel Harrison August 26, 2005 Introduction. This writer’s first attempt at doing theology in a postmodern context took place in a Theological Integration Seminar during a Clinical Pastoral Education unit in the summer of 1998. In presenting a paper on “Mystery, Providence, and the Will of God,” I presented the thesis that the reason we ask the question “Why do bad things happen to good people?” is rooted in modernism, a desire to find an answer to everything. I further suggested that the Christian church of today is shaped to a great extent by Enlightenment thinking and that trajectory is informed by individualization, removal of mystery and transcendence, and transformation through knowledge. Over against this is the trajectory of the emerging culture—desire for community, pursuit of the mystical, and transformation through experience.1 I went on to suggest that perhaps rather than trying to explain our relationship with God, we should attempt to nurture it. This provoked a great deal of discussion and even led a peer in the group to bring a paper the next week on “beauty as a theological concept.” Quite honestly, I am not sure that our CPE supervisors were prepared for this! In a small way, this helps the writer to understand a bit of the tension that participants in Emergent experience as they attempt to do theology in the postmodern transition. As they question not only the assumptions underlying theology, but the very nature of truth, they encounter resistance and even hostility. If we believe that Christianity is a living faith, theology will be an ongoing and dynamic enterprise. This means that we must take seriously not only the context of the sources of our faith (Scripture, tradition, church practice) but our present postmodern 1 I am not certain my source for this dichotomy, but I know that I had read Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) by that time. 2 cultural context as well. The scope of this paper does not allow for an exposition of postmodernism and the postmodern transition, but Stanley Grenz and John Franke have identified two key aspects of the postmodern situation: the rejection of modernity and a “chastened rationality” with a resulting “demise of foundationalism.”2 We are involved in a time of discontinuous change. This is the context in which we “do” theology. Theology, by its very nature, is a contextual discipline. Grenz and Franke have provided this “working” definition of the nature, task and purpose of theology: Christian theology is an ongoing, second-order, contextual discipline that engages in critical and constructive reflection of the faith, life, and practices of the Christian community. Its task is the articulation of biblically normed, historically informed, and culturally relevant models of the Christian beliefmosaic for the purpose of assisting the community of Christ’s followers in their vocation to live as the people of God in the particular social-historical context in which they are situated.3 Theology is an ongoing task for the Christian in any era and certainly is an essential activity in the postmodern transition if one wishes to be engaged in effective ministry. Those who identify themselves as part of the “emerging church” provide a living example of people who are attempting to practice theological discussion in a culturally relevant way. This task is not simply an academic one done in isolation (although it involves theologians) but one that speaks to the life and vitality of the church. My Ministry Issue Stated very briefly, this writer works for a middle-level judicatory that is attempting to assist churches and their leaders as they navigate the postmodern 2 Stanley J. Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 18-24. 3 Ibid., 16. 3 transition. The key issue is “What is the appropriate mental model for the Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (TCBF) in this missional context?” In relation to this paper, the writer is examining the theological approach of the group known as Emergent to see how their conversation may inform the identification of such a model. In doing so, we would be wise to consider the stand taken by a number of contemporary Baptist theologians in writing “Re-Envisioning Baptist Identity: A Manifesto for Baptist Communities in North America.” In this statement, the authors clearly state “ideologies and theologies of the right and the left, as different as they may appear, are really siblings under the skin by virtue of their accommodation to modernity and its Enlightenment assumptions. . . . . We embrace neither modern alternative.”4 This writer’s desire is that our organization actively pursue a “third way” that moves beyond the limitations of the modern project and takes seriously the postmodern transition in which we find ourselves. This requires developing a new mental model that takes seriously the context in which we minister. The “emergent” terminology is based on a book by Steven Johnson that explores how a community (of ants, city dwellers, etc.) can be smarter than its constituents: Emergence is what happens when the whole is smarter than the sum of its parts. It’s what happens when you have a system of relatively simple-minded component parts—often there are thousands or millions of them—and they interact in relatively simple ways. And yet somehow out of all this interaction some higher-level structure or intelligence appears, usually without any master planner calling the shots. These kinds of systems tend to evolve from the ground up.5 4 Curtis Freeman, “Can Baptist Theology Be Revisioned?” Perspective in Religious Studies 24 (Fall 1997): 309-310. 5 Steven Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software (Scribner, 2001), quoted in Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 276. 4 In the context of the “emerging church” and the group known as Emergent, the terminology places great value on the synergy that comes from grass-roots conversation and dialogue. Within the “emerging church,” we find a number of resources to aid in this task of doing theology in the postmodern transition. Roland Kuhl has suggested that there are at least three “streams” of theology in the “emerging church” conversation.6 First, there is the radical orthodoxy approach exemplified by the Ekklesia Project, much of which is based on the work of Stanley Hauerwas.7 Second, there is a strongly academic approach represented by the missional church movement that comes out of the Gospel and Our Culture Network8 The third stream is the Emergent, Emergent Village, or “beyond foundationalism” movement that is best represented by Brian McLaren but which has also embraced and been embraced by theologians such as Stanley Grenz, John Franke, and Nancey Murphy.9 There is considerable dialogue and crosspollination between these three streams. All draw on the work of missionary Leslie Newbigin.10 At the same time, we must understand that the “emerging church” is much more than this. Missiologist Alan Roxburgh sees the “emerging church” as a “creative, energetic” expression of the church in the 21st century, but one that includes many 6 7 Dr. Kuhl shared this observation in a personal conversation. See www.ekklesiaproject.org and Stanley Hauerwas, A Better Hope (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2000). 8 See www.missionalchurch.org, www.gocn.org, as well as George R. Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder, eds. The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). 9 See www.emergentvillage.com as well as Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy and Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism. At the forefront of the Emergent conversation in Great Britain is British Baptist Steven Chalke with his book (co-authored with Alan Mann) The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003). 10 Such as The Open Secret (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). 5 practitioners who spurn the label.11 The “emerging church” phenomena and, especially the stream represented by the Emergent or Emergent Village stream, is attracting considerable media and academic attention.12 This paper is based primary on the Emergent stream of this “conversation,” the writer’s participation in the 2005 EmergentYS (Youth Specialties) Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 17-21, 2005, and readings from sources related to this movement in some way. When the term “Emergent” is used in this paper, it will refer to this group. Emergent, through a recent press release from its board of directors, describes itself as a movement of those seeking to understand what the Christian Church should look like in our time. Birthed by church practitioners first as the Young Leaders Network and then as the Terra Nova project, Emergent has grown to embody a large segment of the American Church . . . . Emergent gathers reflective practitioners and engaged scholars for conversation and missional action around the issues of Christian theology, practice, spirituality, justice, and church life. The network, developing in the 1990s, includes a wide range of Christian leaders from progressive evangelical, mainline Protestant, and Roman Catholic backgrounds.13 Emergent as an organization is rapidly changing due to the interest it has generated in this varied and fluid constituency. With the employment of a national coordinator and a new strategy for carrying forward the conversation, Emergent is moving toward a more institutionalized approach. 11 Alan Roxburgh, “Emergent Church: Filled with Creative, Energetic Potential.” Missional Leadership Institute. June 2005. Internet. <http://www.mliweb.net/newsletter_june05.html> 12 See Scott Bader-Saye, “The Emergent Matrix.” Christian Century, 30 November 2004, 20-27; Jason Byasee, “New Kind of Christian.” Christian Century, 30 November 2004, 28-31; and Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique.” ChristianityToday.com. 22 October 2004. Internet. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/12.36.html. > 13 Emergent new release, June 14, 2005. 6 In this paper, the writer will present a brief review of four key topics (or theological issues) discussed at the 2005 EmergentYS Convention, present some observations about how Emergent “does theology,” and suggest some implications from this for the writer’s ministry issue. Topics Discussed at the EmergentYS Convention. The planners for the 2005 EmergentYS Convention pointed out “the ‘emerging church’ is really a discussion.”14 A key part of the 2005 EmergentYS Convention was four “learning communities” designed “to create a decentralized, interactive environment in which people can learn and share.”15 Each learning community involved as many as 200 participants in “interaction, conversation and application through dialogue.”16 In each of these “learning communities,” a theologian and a practitioner led the discussion. The topics for the learning communities were: Church—This discussion will not center around new ways of doing church, but what it means to be Church Humanity—This conversation will led us to new, deeper consideration of our role and call to be human. Scripture—The role of the Bible in the life of Christian faith cannot be overestimated. But the connection of the Bible to life is not easily made. This dialog [sic] will advance our thinking on this important issue. Truth—This time will not be a dry, theoretical discourse on abstract truth, but an engagement with the meaning and function of truth in our world.17 The writer made several inquiries to determine how these topics were chosen by the planning team but was unable to find anyone who could give a good answer. 14 15 “2005 EmergentYS Convention” program booklet, 2. Ibid., 3. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 7 The learning community on “Church” was led by Doug Pagitt (practitioner) and Al Roxburgh (theologian). This session was introduced with the following written statement: Welcome to ‘Ecclesiology . . .!’ Sort of! In this track Doug Pagitt and Al Roxburgh want to introduce the theme of the ‘church’ or—how we talk about, think about and be the church in our Post-most-things North American context. We’re not going to give you a blue print or program for developing an ‘emergent church’ but want to introduce what we [sic] are to us some of our key suspicions about what the function and role of the church might be in the days ahead. We are pretty sure Jesus didn’t intend to found an ecclesia that was a replacement of the Temple theology of Jerusalem. We’re also fairly sure this ecclesia has to do with being a journeying people who, in the power of the Spirit and their life together in specific places, are called to become co-creators of God’s new future. So what does it mean to be such a journeying people in a time when most of our maps don’t seem to be [sic] help us? What kind of practices, habits, attitudes and traditions are important for this journey right now? These are the kinds of questions we hope to pursue in our interactive time together.18 Pagitt encouraged participants to see the church from a missional rather than an attractional perspective. That is, the church is meant to be on mission in the world and to engage the world rather than pull people out of the world. Roxburgh emphasized that the church is the foretaste of where God wants to take all of creation. His primary question to the group was, “What are the new forms needed to accomplish this?” Or put in another way, “What are the skills that take seriously the work of the Spirit of God among the people of God?”19 “Humanity” was the topic of the learning community led by Kara Powell (practitioner) and LeRon Shults (theologian). The leaders provided this statement as an overview of the discussion: 18 19 “Church,” printed handout, 2005 EmergentYS Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. From my notes at the conference on May 18, 2005. 8 Humanity. A pretty short word that encompasses LOTS of who we are. Throughout theological history there have been some very helpful and pretty UN-helpful, ideas about what it means to be human. In this track, we’ll talk about what God thinks of us, and how to better align our thoughts about ourselves with God’s views of us (always a good idea). You’ll get to translate our conversation into ideas and practices for your life and ministry as we discuss questions like: Do you ever feel like the person you offer others isn’t your true self? If humans are the “image of God,” why does life get so messy when we try to live authentically? If you really felt the same way about yourself that God feels about you, how would your life and ministry be different? We’re inviting all humans to contribute to and shape an engaging discussion about what it means to be humans as God intends as we relate to Him, ourselves, and others.20 Although the leaders engaged in some discussion about what it means to seek the face of God, the primary presentation centered on Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image.” They developed this by suggesting that Christ is the perfect image of God and, as believers, we are called to conform to that image. This is the basis of our new humanity. The remainder of the discussion dealt with what this means for the church as community—especially in the ordinances (or sacraments) of baptism and the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper)—and our relations with our neighbor.21 In his Critical Concerns Course earlier in the week, John Franke made this same point by emphasizing that since humanity is “created in the image of God,” humankind should not be seen simply as fallen and finite but social, creative, and relational.22 The learning community on “Scripture” was led by Brian Walsh (theologian) and Brian McLaren (practitioner). In their written introduction, they stated: Brian Walsh and Brian McLaren love Scripture and believe it is an irreplaceable, powerful, and needed resource. Nearly all Christians believe this. Yet we all know there are problems. In some settings, Scripture is marginalized, 20 21 “Humanity,” printed handout, 2005 EmergentYS Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. From my notes at the conference on May 18, 2005. 22 From my notes at the conference on May 17, 2005. 9 critiqued, sometimes at best only tolerated. And even in settings that speak often and loud about the authority of the Bible, only a few verses are read on an average Sunday, overshadowed by entertaining sermons that have only tangential reference to the Bible itself. Equally serious, there is often an unreflective attitude toward the Bible, an attitude that is naive about the complexities of interpretation. Many times, “the authority of the Bible” is a mask for the authority of systematic theologies which may make the Bible say things it doesn’t really say. Meanwhile, there is deep division among Christians about how to apply the Bible to issues like homosexuality, war, and care for the poor. Our conversation will explore ways to grapple with these problems so the Bible can be for us the transforming, challenging, convicting, and encourage [sic] resource it is intended to be.23 Walsh encouraged participants to “overcome the captivity of their imaginations” (based on Walter Bruggeman) in order to let the Bible read them and their culture in a fresh way. McLaren pointed out, “If the Scripture never rebukes or confronts you, you may be misreading scripture!”24 This session (primarily because of Walsh’s agenda) probably dealt more with how the Scriptures may inform the Christian’s approach to social issues than with the role of the Scripture in informing the life of the individual believer and the believer in community (the church). Finally, the session on “Truth” was led by Todd Hunter (practitioner) and John Franke (theologian). They provided the following handout: One of the pressing questions for the gospel in the midst of the postmodern context concerns the idea of truth. Much debate has developed concerning various theories of truth among philosophers, theologians, and practitioners. This view has been especially common among conservative and evangelical Christian thinkers who have commonly tended to assume that postmodern thought is inherently opposed to the quest for truth and even the general notion of truth and therefore to the particular truth claims of the Christian faith. In this seminar, we will explore these concerns and address questions such as: What is truth? Can human beings know truth? What are the consequences of the human 23 24 “Scripture,” printed handout, 2005 EmergentYS Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. From my notes at the conference on May 19, 2005. 10 condition for knowledge? How can we justify our beliefs? What sort of confidence is appropriate for Christians?25 For this writer, this presentation was probably the most helpful and fulfilled its purpose statement. The presenters both framed the discussion clearly within the context of the modern/postmodern transition and attempted to respond to questions with both a cultural and contextual awareness. Hunter explained, “We live in a time between the times.” We are actually a blend of modernity and postmodernity, so our perception of reality is impacted by both. We are caught between two worldviews—one which says that there is absolute truth (modernism) and one that proclaims that truth is relative (postmodernism). How do Christians deal with these perspectives? Franke explained that the quest for truth is impacted both by the hermeneutics of finitude and by the hermeneutics of suspicion. From the Christian perspective, this means that humankind is incapable of finding absolutes due both to its finitude (createdness) and its falleness (sin).26 In “Reformed Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics,” Franke develops this idea further: Postmodern thought raises two related but distinct questions to the modern foundationalist enterprise. First, is such an approach to knowledge possible? And second, is it desirable? These questions are connected with what may be viewed as the two major branches of postmodern hermeneutical philosophy: the hermeneutics of finitude and the hermeneutics of suspicion. . . . In other words, many of the concerns of postmodern theory can be appropriated and fruitfully developed in the context of the Christian doctrines of creation and sin.27 25 26 “Truth,” printed handout, 2005 EmergentYS Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. From my notes at the conference on May 20, 2005. 27 John R. Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 13. 11 Truth in the modern sense is impossible, then, because of humankind’s limited creatureliness and its sinful nature. At the same time, Christians must seek and affirm truth. In their presentation, both Hunter and Franke expressed appreciation for the work of Lesslie Newbigin and cited his observation, “We are participants, both in the biblical story and the cultural story.” If this is the case, we must take seriously the way that postmodern philosophy deals with epistemology and use its categories, where possible, to do Christian theology. How emergent participants “do” theology. Is there an emergent theology? “No,” if the question means that there is a clear, systematic theology that is embraced by all (or at least a majority) of those involved in Emergent. The leaders of Emergent would agree and affirm that no one person speaks for the group and that they have no “statement of faith or belief.”28 Certainly, there is an agreement on some fundamental points, but the topics of discussion are still quite fluid. The most that we can say is that there is an emergent conversation about theology. As Grenz and Franke comment, “A theology that seeks to take seriously postmodern sensitivities views itself as conversation.”29 The leaders of Emergent have emphasized, “As we have always said, we hope to stimulate constructive conversation, which involves point and counterpoint, honest speaking and open-minded listening.”30 This conversation has some common themes or commitments that define the edges of the 28 Tony Jones, “Introduction to Brian McLaren Post,” Emergent, 9 August 2005. Internet. <info@emergentvillage.com> 29 Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 24. 30 Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, and Chris Seay, “Response to Recent Criticisms.” Emergent Village. Internet. http://www.emergent-s.typepad.com/emergentus/2005/06/official_respon.htm. For all practical purposes, these are the “leaders” of Emergent. 12 discussion and may be informative to others who wish to engage in theological conversation in the postmodern transition. This writer has attempted to identify several of these. The list is by no means final or definitive. First, those in Emergent profess to have a high regard for the Scriptures and make every effort to assert that stance often. In a “Response to Recent Criticisms,” the writers clearly state, “We affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ”.31 In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren declares that he has spent a lifetime studying the Bible, and “I believe it is a gift from God, inspired by God, to benefit us in the most important way possible equipping us so that we can benefit others, so that we can play our part in the ongoing mission of God. My regard for the Bible is higher than ever.”32 Also, please note the observation that McLaren and Brian Walsh made in the handout for their “learning community” on Scripture at the EmergentYS Convention. Critics of Emergent argue that leaders of the group laud the Bible, but they are ambiguous about affirming it as “truth.”33 This matter will be addressed further below. Second, those involved in Emergent truly see what they are doing as a conversation and one that could only happen in the 21st century. As Scott Bader-Saye observed, “The Emergent conversation itself happens primarily at the grassroots level through Web sites, Web logs (or “blogs”), regional cohorts and conferences. The 31 32 Tony Jones, et al., “Response to Recent Criticism.” Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodox), 12. 33 D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 143. 13 conversation is amorphous by design, since the goal is to cast the net of renewal as widely as possible.”34 Emergent may well be characterized as a “bull session” that is open to anyone willing to ask questions and be questioned. The participants see theology more as an “art” than a discipline. This is probably one of the reasons that many theologians have attacked them.35 In most cases, the conversation has not been academic in nature, but there are clear efforts to make it more academically credible by bringing theologians like Stanley Grenz, Robert Webber, and John Franke into the discussion. This effort may show some concession to one of their critics who said, “They need to spend more time in careful study of Scripture and theology than they are doing, even if that takes away some of the hours they have devoted to trying to understand the culture in which they find themselves.”36 Third, participants tend to place a stronger emphasis on application than theory. They identify themselves as “local church practitioners.”37 Many of the leaders of the movement are pastors like Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren, so it should not be unusual that they bring a “real world” perspective to the conversation. Although some recent writings clearly perpetuate this approach,38 there has been a clear effort on the part of others to take the discussion in another direction, dealing with key theological issues.39 The Emergent leaders have clearly invited “those in the academy to respond to their 34 Scott Bader-Saye, “The Emergent Matrix.” Christian Century, 30 November 2004, 20. 35 36 D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 155-156. Ibid. 234. 37 Tony Jones, et al. “Response to Recent Criticism.” 38 See Dan Kimball, The Emerging Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003). 39 Although written in a “creative non-fiction” style, McLaren addresses the theological issues of hell, the afterlife, and grace in The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005). 14 peers about our work.”40 At the same time, Emergent leaders would undoubtedly see orthopraxy (right action) as the whole point of orthodoxy (right belief).41 Application and belief go hand in hand but, for the Christian, action is the result of belief. Fourth, the Emergent conversation takes the cultural context seriously. Building on the work of Leslie Newbigin, they realize that the Christian message must be culturally framed in order to be understandable. McLaren has observed that “now every Christian is a missionary and every place is a mission field.”42 Christians can impact their culture only as they exegete, understand, and engage it. Fifth, there seems to be a clear trend in the Emergent conversation to take an interest in historical theology (perhaps more so than in systematic theology). The Emergent leaders have stated “we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history.”43 This is one of the clear themes of McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy. The subtitle says it all—“Why I am a missional + evangelical + post/protestant + liberal/conservative + mystical/poetic + biblical + charismatic/contemplative + fundamentalist/calvinist + anabaptist/anglican + methodist + catholic + green + incarnational + depressed-yet-hopeful + emergent + unfinished Christian.”44 Although the title is a bit playful, McLaren is taking seriously the theological development of the Christian faith down through the ages, acknowledging its sins and seeking to redeem what is worthwhile for this time. 40 41 Tony Jones, et al. “Response to Recent Criticism.” Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 31. 42 Ibid., 109. 43 Tony Jones, et al. “Response to Recent Criticism.” 44 Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy. 15 Sixth, the Emergent conversation is meant to seek a “third way” of doing theology that is neither liberal nor conservative. In fact, the term “generous orthodoxy” was coined by Yale theologian Hans Frei “to describe an understanding of Christianity that contained elements of both liberal and conservative thought.”45 However, it may be safely argued that the Emergent group is more likely to pursue a course that is different from either liberalism or conservative evangelicalism, since both operate out of the modern approach to seeking truth. This takes us to the final point. Seventh, the key question in this conversation is epistemology. What is the basis of our knowledge? How do we perceive and identify truth (and reality)? How do we handle the Bible in light of our approach to truth? Carson states that this is “the fundamental issue in the move from modernism to postmodernism.”46 Although the Emergent leaders have been branded as relativists in matters of truth, they have affirmed [W]e truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters . . .we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who take Hermeneutical positions—we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism.47 One of the key features of the Emergent conversation has been its willingness not only to take the postmodern context seriously, but also to be willing to use the tools of the postmodern philosophers to do theology. Franke’s article on “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Dogmatics”48 is a good example of this. He sees postmodernity not as threat but as a tool. 45 Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 10. 46 47 D. A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 27. Tony Jones, et al. “Response to Recent Criticism.” 48 John R. Franke, “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Theology.” 16 Emergent embraces the idea that both classic Christian liberalism and fundamentalist/conservative Christians adopted the modern project based on individualism and rationality. As Franke notes, “Liberals constructed theology upon the foundation of an unassailable religious experience, whereas conservatives looked to the Bible as the incontrovertible foundation of their theology.”49 They were “working out the theological details of the two sides of the same modernist, foundationalist coin.”50 With the assistance of theologians like Franke, the Emergent group is seeking to pursue a non-foundationalist approach to theology. They do not deny that there is truth, but the path to truth and the way it is communicated must be addressed in a fresh way that is not encumbered by the Enlightenment project. It is not wonder that some find this approach threatening. Perhaps we can take some comfort in McLaren’s comment that we should “try harder to remember that God is God and we are mere creatures, and that our attempts to understand and articulate his message and truth are always approximations.”51 Implications for My Ministry Issue. This writer’s ministry issue is based on the role of his organization in standing beside the local church as it moves through the postmodern transition. The primary link with the Emergent conversation would appear to be the role of the missional community in doing theology in this cultural context. As we attempt to discover new mental models for our work, we are doing theology. The Emergent experience provides some guidelines for such a discussion. 49 50 Ibid., 12. Ibid. 51 Brian McLaren, The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 65. 17 The Emergent group is clearly involved in a conversation about theology. What role does community—and specifically the community of faith--play in this conversation? Grenz and Franke suggest that “community is integral to epistemology.”52 They observed, “Communitarians argue that we can no longer hold to the modern epistemological paradigm that focuses on the self-reflective, autonomous subject, for the knowing process is dependent on a cognitive framework mediated to the individual by the community.”53 Grenz and Franke have identified community as the integrative motif of theology in a postmodern situation.54 In fact, an article written at the time of Grenz’s death observed that he “will no doubt be remembered best as the theologian of community. He regarded ‘lone ranger’ Christianity with grave suspicion and promoted the idea that Christian existence is always existence in Christian community because God is an eternal community of three persons.”55 This seems to impact my ministry issue primarily at the point of involving stakeholders—church leaders, TCBF coordinating council members, and TCBF staff— in a theological conversation about the nature of a paracletic (“standing alongside”) ministry like ours in relation to the local congregation. How do we engage in meaningful dialogue that results in change? What are the “non-negotiables” and how do we go about not only reducing them to a minimum but also clearly articulating what they are? Can we agree on a theologically informed mental model for the work of TCBF that enhances the missional identity of the local church? 52 53 Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 209. Ibid. 54 Ibid., 203ff. 55 Roger E. Olson, “The Groves of Academe: A Pietist with a Ph.D.: Remembering Stanley J. Grenz.” ChristianityToday.com. Internet. <http://www.christianitytoday/bc/2005/003/6.06.html> 18 The ability to answer these questions will be based on several aspects of our conversation. First, we must develop a strong commitment to spiritual and relational vitality in the church and in TCBF. We must enhance the sense of community among our stakeholders. Second, we must clarify our basic, non-negotiable beliefs. We must know those things that we can agree upon and those things in which we may differ without rending our fellowship. Third, we must have a clear understanding of our vision. We must clearly state what we hope to become. Fourth, we must be clear about how we handle the Scripture, hold it in high regard, and seek agreement on its application to the issues with which we are dealing. Fifth, we must take seriously the missional context in which we find ourselves. Emergent has already successfully dealt with some of these. It has been rather successful in building community, casting a vision for the emerging church, developing a way of seeing Scripture as authoritative in the postmodern context, and being missional. The conversation is ongoing about the non-negotiable aspects of Christian theology (and even the topics for discussion). As Emergent moves toward a more formal structure with a Board of Directors, a national coordinator, and a leadership training strategy, we are in a unique position to see what shape the ongoing conversation takes and to learn from it. Will the conversation become more institutionalized and restrictive as Emergent becomes more structured? Can this conversation continue across ecclesial lines without negative consequences to those who want to maintain some denominational or creedal identity?56 56 For one example, see David Roach, “Leaders Call ‘Emergent Church Movement’ a Threat to Gospel.” Baptist Press. 23 March 2005. Internet. <http://www.bpnews.net> 19 Emergent, as an example of the emerging church doing theology, certainly can inform all who take the Christian mission seriously in the postmodern transition. 20 Bibliography Books Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. Chalke, Steve, and Alan Mann. The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003. Grenz, Stanley J.and John R. Franke. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Hauerwas, Stanley. A Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2000. Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003. McLaren, Brian. A Generous Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. ___________. The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. ________. The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Articles Bader-Saye, Scott. “The Emergent Matrix.” Christian Century, 30 November 2004, 20-27. Byasee, Jason. “New Kind of Christian.” Christian Century, 30 November 2004, 2831. Franke, John R. “Reforming Theology: Toward a Postmodern Reformed Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 1-26. Freeman, Curtis. “Can Baptist Theology Be Revisioned?” Perspective in Religious Studies 24 (Fall 1997): 309-310. 21 Electronic Format Crouch, Andy. “The Emergent Mystique.” ChristianityToday.com. 22 October 2004. Internet. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/12.36.html> Jones, Tony. “Introduction to Brian McLaren Post,” Emergent, 9 August 2005. Internet. <info@emergentvillage.com> Jones, Tony, et al. “Response to Recent Criticism.” Emergent Village. Internet. <http://www.emergent-.typepad.com/emergentus/2005/06/official_respon.htm.> McLaren, Brian. “Why I Still Use the Word Postmodern.” Emergent Village. Internet. <http://www.emergentvillage.com/download/resources/mclaren/whyiusepostmo d-ern.pdf.> ________ and Duane Litfin. “Emergent Evangelism: The Place of Absolute Truth in a Postmodern World—Two Views.” ChristianityToday.com. 25 October 2004. Internet. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/011/14.42.html> Olson, Roger E. “The Groves of Academe: A Pietist with a Ph.D.: Remembering Stanley J. Grenz.” ChristianityToday.com. Internet. <http://www.christianitytoday/bc/2005/003/6.06.html> Roach, David. “Leaders Call ‘Emergent Church Movement’ a Threat to Gospel.” Baptist Press. 23 March 2005. Internet. <http://www.bpnews.net> Roxburgh, Alan. “Emergent Church: Filled with Creative, Energetic Potential.” Missional Leadership Institute. June 2005. Internet. <http://www.mliweb.net/newsletter_june05.html> 22