emerging church and theological education
just finished up a conference at princeton on emerging church and theological education. emerging church leaders from within and outside mainline denominations met with seminary professors to try and find a place for theological education in the 'emergent conversation'. these are my initial reflections on the conference, so it will be a bit of a long post. sorry!
the conference was kicked off with some challenges from brian mclaren for the seminaries, weaving in many of the emergent themes for which he has become well known. although much of what he said related specifically to the US situation, i was struck by three things in particular. first, he thought that the future of the church lay in church planting. second, that this was likely to involve a dying to cherished institutional commitments for new ways of being church to emerge. third, that denominations and seminaries should be extravagent in pouring out its resources to support such pioneering initiatives.
that dying to live through planting fresh expressions of church (fxc) is, of course, precisely what 'mission-shaped church' (msc) is calling for within our historic church traditions. there is some irony, however, that it is rather the reality of diminishing resources that has given impetus and direction to fresh expressions of church in the UK. could we have something to offer our US brothers and sisters here? i think the answer is almost certainly yes. indeed, this is why jonny baker and i were drafted to make presentations on msc at this conference. i had prepared an analysis of the msc initiative (for what it was worth), including some critical missiological reflections, with the understanding that it was going to prime the pump for further discussion. i was most frustrated, therefore, when there was no formal opportunity for substantive conversation or plenary Q&A on the things we had to say or the implications for the US scene. that aspect of the conference seemed to get derailed for other concerns closer to home.
perhaps it was because we neither began with a common frame of reference nor really sought to find one. it was quite disorienting. but maybe that is precisely what this chaotic 'emergent conversation' really is... a certain endless postmodern play with the use of language and our structures of thought without ever wanting to be located anywhere in particular. it would seem that an 'emergent conversation' means having the freedom to criticize traditions and institutions while adopting a 'view from nowhere'; which is, ironically, a deeply modernist project.
it is sometimes a bit frustrating to discover that the emergent community is willing to have figure heads, network directors and even spokespersons - all of whom refuse to speak for anyone else because that would start to constitute a tradition or, worse, an institution. it seems to be engaged in a struggle for identity (with some clear views about what it is not) while refusing to accept the conditions under which identity become intelligible (which entails adopting clear views about what it actually is). this, of course, privileges a position from which critiques can be made of others (who identify themselves within some narrative tradition) but not of itself (as self-consciously refusing such an identification). i could, of course, simply be missing the point, or misunderstanding the US context in which this particular conversation is taking place.
so, what we ended up doing mostly was talking about the conditions for the possibility of having a conversation. in other words, we spent a lot of time talking about talking, and not much time actually wrestling with the really substantive issues that 'emerged' from time to time. somehow i can't think that the desired openness of an 'emergent coversation' means our speech is condemned to be an endless chain of signifiers in which we can only hope to catch traces of essential or substantial significance. and i'm pretty sure that's not because i am some sort of modernist. either way, its hard to know what to make of the conversation at this point in terms of its contribution to theological education.
i can't help wondering whether it would have been much better to deal directly with brian's challenges, or take some specific themes which we address in theological education (like the atonement or the practice of the sacraments or the meaning of community or church planting) in order to explore what a concrete 'emerging conversation' actually looks like around them, and what difference it means for ecclesiology and christian mission in the world. another possibility would have been to actually share a variety of particular emerging church stories, exploring their theological commitments and practices of church planting, to see what points of common ground and future possibilities actually emerge in conversation with our traditions of theological education.
of course, its easy to muse such things in retrospect, and i may well be guilty of not seeing this for what it is... a start to a conversation which has a long way to go. and i will no doubt have more reflections to add as i think further about it.
as with most conferences, the real conversations occured on the margins (where all emerging truth seems to arise), in the pub, over meals, and during coffee breaks. these were absolutely invaluable helps to my own work as a theological educator and sense of vocation as a whole. i have made some new friends that i truly believe are companions in a common adventure as disciples of Jesus and his kingdom. for that, i thank God.
the conference was kicked off with some challenges from brian mclaren for the seminaries, weaving in many of the emergent themes for which he has become well known. although much of what he said related specifically to the US situation, i was struck by three things in particular. first, he thought that the future of the church lay in church planting. second, that this was likely to involve a dying to cherished institutional commitments for new ways of being church to emerge. third, that denominations and seminaries should be extravagent in pouring out its resources to support such pioneering initiatives.
that dying to live through planting fresh expressions of church (fxc) is, of course, precisely what 'mission-shaped church' (msc) is calling for within our historic church traditions. there is some irony, however, that it is rather the reality of diminishing resources that has given impetus and direction to fresh expressions of church in the UK. could we have something to offer our US brothers and sisters here? i think the answer is almost certainly yes. indeed, this is why jonny baker and i were drafted to make presentations on msc at this conference. i had prepared an analysis of the msc initiative (for what it was worth), including some critical missiological reflections, with the understanding that it was going to prime the pump for further discussion. i was most frustrated, therefore, when there was no formal opportunity for substantive conversation or plenary Q&A on the things we had to say or the implications for the US scene. that aspect of the conference seemed to get derailed for other concerns closer to home.
perhaps it was because we neither began with a common frame of reference nor really sought to find one. it was quite disorienting. but maybe that is precisely what this chaotic 'emergent conversation' really is... a certain endless postmodern play with the use of language and our structures of thought without ever wanting to be located anywhere in particular. it would seem that an 'emergent conversation' means having the freedom to criticize traditions and institutions while adopting a 'view from nowhere'; which is, ironically, a deeply modernist project.
it is sometimes a bit frustrating to discover that the emergent community is willing to have figure heads, network directors and even spokespersons - all of whom refuse to speak for anyone else because that would start to constitute a tradition or, worse, an institution. it seems to be engaged in a struggle for identity (with some clear views about what it is not) while refusing to accept the conditions under which identity become intelligible (which entails adopting clear views about what it actually is). this, of course, privileges a position from which critiques can be made of others (who identify themselves within some narrative tradition) but not of itself (as self-consciously refusing such an identification). i could, of course, simply be missing the point, or misunderstanding the US context in which this particular conversation is taking place.
so, what we ended up doing mostly was talking about the conditions for the possibility of having a conversation. in other words, we spent a lot of time talking about talking, and not much time actually wrestling with the really substantive issues that 'emerged' from time to time. somehow i can't think that the desired openness of an 'emergent coversation' means our speech is condemned to be an endless chain of signifiers in which we can only hope to catch traces of essential or substantial significance. and i'm pretty sure that's not because i am some sort of modernist. either way, its hard to know what to make of the conversation at this point in terms of its contribution to theological education.
i can't help wondering whether it would have been much better to deal directly with brian's challenges, or take some specific themes which we address in theological education (like the atonement or the practice of the sacraments or the meaning of community or church planting) in order to explore what a concrete 'emerging conversation' actually looks like around them, and what difference it means for ecclesiology and christian mission in the world. another possibility would have been to actually share a variety of particular emerging church stories, exploring their theological commitments and practices of church planting, to see what points of common ground and future possibilities actually emerge in conversation with our traditions of theological education.
of course, its easy to muse such things in retrospect, and i may well be guilty of not seeing this for what it is... a start to a conversation which has a long way to go. and i will no doubt have more reflections to add as i think further about it.
as with most conferences, the real conversations occured on the margins (where all emerging truth seems to arise), in the pub, over meals, and during coffee breaks. these were absolutely invaluable helps to my own work as a theological educator and sense of vocation as a whole. i have made some new friends that i truly believe are companions in a common adventure as disciples of Jesus and his kingdom. for that, i thank God.
posted by Phil at
2:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home