<Theofragen>

As I continue to reflect on my conversations with fellow 'Emergers' at the Central Jersey Cohort meeting last week, I sense a need to expand my vision a bit further. I had some good conversations with Brian and Jarred from Koinos Community Church and Brad and Todd from the Well regarding the challenges and joys of planting an emerging church. I really like what Todd had to say on his blog. He writes from a pastor's perspective and offers those of us who wish to contribute something meaningful to the emergent conversation a caveat: "We've [pastors] found that sometimes its really healthy to reconstruct some of your [academics]deconstruction." Is that all that we've been offering...deconstruction? Todd tempers this criticism by acknowledging the benefit of sound theological reflection bolstering ministerial praxis. Yet, as I ponder the direction that Emergent is heading I think that Todd's comment is strikingly apropos.

During the past months I have listened carefully to my professors talk about the recent presidential election. Following the results, some of those profs look as if they had just been gut-kicked. They are incredulous that, despite all of their academic articles and speeches, despite all of the interviews and social action, the people ignored their 'enlightened' opinions and voted Bush into office for a second term. This observation is not about politics, per se; rather, it serves as an interesting example of what has been taking place in academic circles for hundreds of years. There seems to be a disconnect between what scholars tell people they ought to care about, and what the majority actually do care about. Too long have scholars engaged in theological and philosophical dialogue obvlious to the fact that there is a larger world outside the hallowed corridors of Princeton, Harvard and Yale. My critique of this modus operandi is that it produces a one-sided discussion. Dialogue demands more than scholarly pontification and passive obedience. This being said, I would like to offer a futher suggestion about the shape of the Emergent conversation: I think pastors should set the tone of our dialogue!

This conversation ought to be shaped and molded by those who are 'in the trenches' not by those of us enjoying the cushy-asylum that is the academy. It seems that the theologians and biblical scholars who wish to contribute to the discussion ought to shape their criticism and suggestions to fit the pastors' needs in the churches, because that is were all of our pallid ruminations take on variegated vibrancy in the 'real world'. I do not wish to see the Emergent conversation morph into a false-dichotomy between the 'intelligencia' and the hoi poloi. And sadly, I see some of this taking place. When we bifurcate between churches that are emergent in style and churches that are emergent theologically, we lose some of the theological fecundity that can emerge from ecclesiastical praxis. I echo the frustration of Steve in a post not long ago, in which he sees two facets of Emergent: 1) the "Emergent Conversation" ( which runs the risk of being a glorified book-club for the academics) and 2) the "Emergent Churches" (which run a similar risk of being little more than evangelical churches with candles). We are not too far into this discussion to modify our trajectory. In the next Central Jersey Cohort, I would like to do more listening than speaking. I would like to listen carefully for the melody exuding from the pastors and find a way to harmonize with that melody theologically. If all that academics are offering the emergent conversation is decontruction, we ought to shut-up! Better, we can find a way to meld sound theological reflection and philosophical inquiry into the lived experience of emerging pastors. Then, perhaps, the blurred lines of Emergent may become more lucid.

P.S. My buddy, Mark, has just posted a critique of preaching in the emergent church. I am sure he would appreciate your feedback as he attempts to amalgamate academic criticism with lived church experience.

Should pastors set the tone for Emergent?

5 Comments: