 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Emergent SeminariansGod is dead. The Church has failed. Denominations suck. If this is true, why the hell are you in seminary? You may have asked yourself this very question. What are you going to do with an MDiv anyway? Let me tell you a secret, which is kind of weird since this is a public blog. If you are in seminary you must become a part of the emergent conversation!Thats not very postmodern, Jake, you might be thinking. I know. But most of you who identify with postmodern sensibilities are already a part of the emergent conversation, so youll agree with me prima facie. And the rest of you are still clinging to the sticky residue of modernity, and you continue to think in absolutes, so Im giving you one. Be Emergent! Dont worry, I speak modernity fluently, and if this post pisses you off it's a good indication that Im talking to you. Please follow my logic. Thesis: It is essential that seminarians become a part of the emergent conversation. Continue reading... Point 1: The elements of postmodernity that threaten institutional Christianity will become more prominent once you begin your ministry. Rationale: A) Globalization will continue to eat away at the plausibility structures your seminary professors are teaching you to use in defense of your faith and this will put other worldviews into conflict with yours if you let them. This will cause you to react with fundamentalism or withdraw into isolationism. B) Secularization will lead less and less people to come to your church, meaning that you will be criticized by your congregants/parishioners for being ineffective. This will lead you to overwork yourself to make your people happy or they will just fire you. C) Consumerism will continue to erode the fabric of your church to the point that you will need to whore yourself to the masses to market Jesus better or you will stand your ground and they will go somewhere else. Sub-conclusion: You need to put yourself into conversation with people who have already been dealing with the implications of postmodernity for the life of the church Point 2: Seminaries are very, very good at training ministers for a church that is becoming extinct. Rationale: A) You are reading works in Biblical Studies, Church History, Theology, and Practical Theology that are written largely by other seminary professors who are no longer, or have never been, pastors. Ergo, you will need to draw out the implications with people who are a part of the rhythms of the church today. B) Most of you are still learning from people who follow Rogerian psychology in pastoral care, andro/hetero/Euro-centric hermeneutics in biblical studies, CEO-leadership practices in practical theology, and foundationalist epistemologies in theology. C) You are learning how to preach better sermons, teach with greater authority and acumen, and pastor with greater leadership and caring skills but this is all predicated on your ability to draw a crowd. What happens when the people stop coming? Sub-conclusion: You cant go back in time to pastor in the 1950s, so you need to be in conversation with people who are asking questions about what it means to minister in a new kind of church today and tomorrow. Point 3: Unless you develop a network of support for this changing climate, you will not be able to sustain yourself in ministry (i.e. you will burn out). Rationale: A) You cannot expect people in your church to understand what you are going through. You will need conversation partners who know what you are talking about. B) You will need a network of people with whom you dont need to visit in person or pay exorbitant conference fees to converse with. Via blogs, websites, gatherings, cohorts and podcasts emergent folks are able to talk about issues that relate to ministry in our postmodern world. C) Many of us learned in our theological education to be one thing as pastors, and another when we are away from our churches. This bifurcation not only makes you less able to minister to postmoderns who value authenticity, it also will lead you to hate yourself as you try to be the person your church expects you to be. Sub-conclusion: Relationships and conversations are paramount to sustainability in ministry. Emergent provides an umbrella under which you can have such conversations and relationships. Conclusion: With shifting social structures, theological landscapes and ministry practices seminaries are not able to keep pace with these changes. That does not mean that all seminaries are irrelevant. They serve a purpose. But unless you amalgamate your theological training with something more, you will find yourself with a degree in hand and a looming frustration that said degree is worthless. Becoming a part of the emergent conversation in seminary, or undergrad for that matter, puts you ahead of the curve. You wont need to get fired, quit, have an affair, or go insane once you enter into the wild and wooly world of church work. Hopefully;) Peace. posted by Jake at 3/30/2006 10:48:00 AM  
3 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Critical Contextualization (part two) ------------ Critical Contextualization ------------ Who's Feeding the Fishdog? ------------ Hmmmm... ------------ Being and Bearing Witness not Witnessing ------------ People and Programs ------------ Happy Birthday Abby! ------------ Bilinguality ------------ Look no Further ------------ The Incarnational Approach ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
You make some fine points about the postmodern/pluralist world into which we try to make our way after seminary, but fail to make the case that Emergent is doing any better job addressing this world than other movements within the Church. I wonder whether the Emergent Conversation is engaging the postmodern/pluralist West or whether it is merely engaging the "Saddle Creek" American church. Before we mandate that seminarians engage with Emergent, it would be helpful to see widespread fruit from the Conversation.
Also, it would be helpful (from this newly-minted PCUSA pastor's perspective) to know that Emergent is something more than (discredited) Liberal Protestantism with cooler facial hair and saltier vocabulary. Too often, Emergent seems to be formely-conservative or -fundamentalist Christians reading Moltmann, Kung, Bruegemann, Borg, et al. and liking them.
There are some very good points here that resonate in the churches and pastors that I know.
However, there seems to be an assumption that underlies this post: Pastors need to be separate from their churches. They need to have separate sources of theological support and separate "communities". I’m not sure that is a healthy assumption, long term.
Instead, I wonder if pastors need to be part of their faith communities, walking alongside and learning and teaching and living with the other members. Not only is that authentic, but it also recognizes that we have a variety of gifts that all contribute to the body.
So if you are choosing a place to begin ministry, I might suggest a place in which your gifts and ideas and doubts are a welcome part of the mix. If you feel that you have to escape your church to talk authentically about your faith and your theology, you may need to find a different church.
Corey, I think it's too early to ask about fruit from the Emergent Conversation. At this point, it's not a movement; it's a conversation. And while it may be easy to critique the facial hair of some Emergent folks, I want to suggest that it will be more productive to enter into the conversation. Even those of who do not have cool facial hair are interested in a way of following Jesus that transcends both liberal Protestantism and fundamentalist evangelicalism. I'm interested in having that conversation with pastors and lay people and elders and skeptics.
corey,
Thanks for the thoughts!
first of all, I'm not sure all would agree of your assesment of Brueggemann as part of the established liberal tradition or that he has been de facto discredited as your comment seems to suggest.
I know its partly our fault but its time to get past the facial hair, candles, language thing and take us a little more seriously.
My take is that emergent is attempting to move past the conservative-liberal divide that permeated enlightenment Christianity. Moving on to not only different answers but to different questions requires an understanding of the split. This demands at least cursory encounters with classic liberal texts, often for the first time.
However, expressivism, correlation and primal emphasis on a historical-critical method (marks of classic liberal theology) is not where emergent theology is moving.
The postliberal tradition has offered some important resources and has helped us move past the divide but ultimately an emergent type theology will have an unique character that at least for now reflects its post-conservative heritage.
Instead of the authors you mention, I would say emergent conversations revolve more around the missional church conversation which until recently was largely ignored by classic liberalism.
peace
mark