<Theofragen>

Since an earlier post, I have received some intriguing comments from friends and strangers regarding my contention that seminarians ought to engage the emergent conversation. I was especially excited to receive a comment from my former PTS colleague, Corey.

I would like to briefly clarify something that I feel is fundamental to Emergent, a point that David reiterated, and that I may have failed to express before. "Emergent," in my opinion, is mainly about relationships, community and dialogue. I like to speak/write about the "emergent conversation" because this emphasizes what I believe the relationships are about: dialogue. People are involved in this conversation at different levels. For some, I guess it is about "facial hair" and "saltier language." (I'm assuming that Corey, good-natured as he is, was being comical here. I've had facial hair for eight years now). A woman hailing from a liberal-mainline denomination once told me, "Emergent is for evangelicals who discovered they could drink beer." In a way, she is right. For some the conversation is centered upon external accoutrements and clergy ethics. This is an important part of the conversation, and one that is not only shared by evangelicals, but mainliners as well. Many people need a place where they can be themselves because they find themselves in situations that prevent them from doing so.

A second facet of this conversation regards ecclesiology; especially liturgy. Emergent leaders have been teased incessantly about candles, incense and chanting in worship. This also is an important issue for many because it provides a helpful venue for many who do not have the freedom to experiment with their church's liturgy. Such individuals need a forum by which they may engage in deconstructing some static practices while reconstructing new ones. Some don't like this part of the emergent conversation but I feel it is precious to many and should be affirmed.

A third aspect of this conversation is the theological/philosophical. People engaging in dialogue on this level are asking questions about more than the "Saddlecreek" approaches to doing church. They are rethinking core aspects of the Christian faith in light of our postmodern, post-Christendom world. These are the folks who are engaging postmodern and postliberal books on theology and philosophy. This is what gets a lot of Emergent leaders in trouble amongst evangelicals.

Let me be clear. All three foci around which emergent conversation is generated are valid and important! A friend of mine put this well in a recent email. He noted that Emergent (with a capital E) is less like the Nike swoosh (a brand label) and more like the American flag. It is a broad banner under which many different opinions and beliefs are expressed. I like the breadth of the conversation.

If you are reading this blog with any degree of frequency, guess what... you are a part of the emergent conversation. You don't have to have a blog, go to a cohort, grow a gotee, spurn penal-subsitutionary atonement theory, vote a certain way or quaff beer to be "emergent." As an introvert myself, I tend to process things internally before I am comfortable engaging others in dialogue externally. This also is important. Thank you all for being a part of the emergent conversation! Peace.

Emergent is for Introverts, Too!

0 Comments: