I just stumbled on the very first article I’ve ever read from a United Methodist with “Reverend” in front of their name who actually “gets it” (found via the North Alabama Conference’s Young Clergy blog.) A good 95% of this article had me cheering and making me felt called to action. I recommend it to anyone to read:

Why we are losing ground with young adults…

I have to admit that when I saw the title of the article I almost didn’t read it simply because I’ve been hurt too many times by such articles. After it was over I could literally feel my spirits going from high to low– I still don’t see any way the United Methodist denomination can actually change its culture in any reasonable amount of time, if at all. But I have to say I really really needed those five seconds of hope.

We heart you too, Tony; we heart you too.

Seriously guys, great show.  It’s nice to actually meet the people who have so influenced my own journey.  Besides, I got my coveted Trucker Frank for President t-shirt– that’s all I was really after.

Keep up the good work, and for God’s sake write more!

I had a good emergenty-type thought today that I thought I would share (and record so I don’t forget it.)

There is quite a bit of talk about the appropriateness of enculturalization of the gospel.  In other words, is it right to take the gospel and “clothe” it with the culture of a people or does that cheapen it?  The other option is to let the gospel stand “pure,” whatever that means.  Neibhur famously called these options “Christ in culture” and “Christ against culture,” adding a third category, “Christ transforming culture.”  I have read emergent type blogs debate this furiously, often going into meticulous detail on passages from Acts to support their claim.

Well today I had a “duh” moment and realized how obvious the bigger picture is on this one.  The gospel as presented in Christ and by Christ is itself intimately enculturated in first-century Jewish culture, even to the point of interacting with the ancient Jewish sacrificial system.  Jesus was a Jew, period.  True, he threw out the unhealthy portions of Jewish culture, but he remained a fully enculturated Jew.

But here’s the “duh” moment: Jesus wanted the gentiles included, too.  As Paul makes abundantly clear, the gentiles are to be included without the need to “convert” to Jewish culture first.  The result is that the work Paul and Co. did is to take the gospel and re-contextualize it for gentiles as well, trying to hold together a body of believers that was diverse yet united in Christ.

So there you have it, my contribution to the enculturalization argument.  Jesus himself embodied not only God incarnated, but also the gospel enculturated with intent for it to be spread to ALL cultures without forcing them to change the parts that were already good and true.

A bit of a digression here…  So what would Paul, who is in this understanding a master of re-enculturalization, say to the Moderns and Postmoderns in the Church today?  Perhaps he would say that just as there is no longer Jew nor gentile, slave nor free– so there is neither Modern nor Postmodern in Christ Jesus.  We should respect each other’s culture and build one another up, realizing that neither worldview “gets in the way” of the gospel or cheapens it more than any other.  NO culture can stop the unimagineable love of God from transforming the world.

As I’ve explored the sense of call I feel both to the emerging church movement and to the United Methodist Church, I’ve often felt the “chafing” that leads many emergent-types to declare that postmodernity simply cannot exist within an organization as modern as the UMC.  I still feel deep in my gut, though, that postmodernity not only CAN emerge from within organizations like this one, indeed it is most healthy if it stays connected to it.  Therefore, I believe that a big part of my call is to be a sort of “postmodernity gardner,” doing all I can to nurture the signs of postmodernity I see emerging all around me.  The details of that I might go into later, but today I want to explore an observation I’ve had sitting here at the Annual Conference of the Kansas West Conference of the UMC.

One of the true hallmarks of the postmodern church (indeed of the church of any age) is true, authentic community.  The term I like is common in the emergent conversation: generative friendship.  (I vaguely remember hearing that Tim Keel coined the term???)  In other words, friendship that generates, that naturally works to create life within and outside of the individuals and the community.

One of the great things about Annual Conference is the “family reunion” aspect of it.  Most of the people here haven’t seen their closest friends/colleagues in a year, and so the bond of friendship is incredibly strong and very, very apparent.  It doesn’t spread much beyond the clergy into the laity (probably because of the “colleague” nature of it), but there is at least the beginning of this communal friendship spilling over into others.

But here’s the issue as I see it– most of it is not generative.  It is a very, very supportive friendship, but I see little “generated” from it.  Sure there are pockets of generative-ness, but as a whole it is more sustaining than life-giving, at least from my admittedly limited perspective.

If I am to fulfill what I see as a call to help postmodernity emerge from this Conference, one thing I don’t question is that it cannot be a “top down” leadership thing.  That puts me, who is much closer to the bottom, in the perfect place to effect positive change.  The idea I am playing with is, “How can I help move this wonderful, beautiful community to a place that is more generative?”  That in itself would be a tremendous force to move the Conference toward postmodernity.

I don’t quite know how to answer that yet, but perhaps the best way is simply to move “hallway conversations” away from the superficial, “catching up” nature they usually take, and instead instigate informal conversations about deeper matters, like for instance theological ways to think about whatever happens to be going on.

Just a few thoughts.  All I really know is that this community means a great deal to me, and nothing would make me happier than to see it move to the next level of being a truly creative force for the hundreds of churches that make it up– and to see it become a creative, life-giving force for the transitioning culture of our time.

I have lots of other thoughts from Annual Conference that will probably never make it to my blog (such as the incredible disconnect between a denomination crying out in pain from decline and an Annual Conference that spends it’s time celebrating– denial, anyone?), but here’s some food for thought.

I love Annual Conference.

My wife Amy and I just had a fun little IM chat about matters emergent. I joked about it becoming a blog entry, then thought, “What could be better than just sharing the conversation?” So, with her permission, here it is. Names have been changed/removed to protect the innocent.

If you’re not used to IM conversations, know that sometimes thoughts appear slightly out of order (they make more sense in the moment). Bear with it, though; you’ll figure it out.

Amy: here’s food for thought: Emergent Church for country music fans.
me: Absolutely! What brings this on?
Amy: [name taken out] was in the mood for some music and put in Dolly Parton singing some gospel. For this group that is contextual music.
me: Yup. Get used to it.
Amy: I wonder if that’s an area we tend to ignore.
what if we’re already doing emergent with rural churches, but don’t call it that because it’s not “our” culture.
me: Yup. They always loved it in [my old, rural churches] when I’d pick something country-like for a hymn.
me: I think that’s a big element, at least in the worship style sense. Their culture in terms of TV/newspaper/etc. is still becoming increasingly postmodern, though, and we still need to adapt our theology.
Amy: good point, emergent isn’t just style, there’s theology too.
me: “Praise and Worship” would not be contextual in [my old churches].
Amy: But the theology of my congregation is still VERY modern.
me: For me and my high thinking mind, theology is the starting point. Worship style flows out of that.
Is there a disconnect between their theology and their culture outside the church? Maybe not for older folks…
Around here, especially in the contemporary church, I get the feeling that many “check their postmodernism at the door” so they can do church.
Amy: if you stick with [the area I’m in] then no, it’s not different, but if you consider the wider area, then perhaps yes.
me: That whole “check your culture at the door” thing is what I used to do. I think it explains a lot of the disconnect between secular and sacred– and it explains why many reject it simply because they “get nothing out of church”
Amy: yeah, but what about the people who go to church b/c it IS the culture they identify with as is? How do you meet both groups? Can you?
me: There are emergenty-type folks who would give you an adament NO and then stop listening. I give an adament I HOPE SO.
I think postmodernism needs to respect it’s “father and mother” more.
But how to do it? Beats me…
I’m still working on how to be postmodern in a modern pulpit my own self.
What do you think? Respect for father and mother, or emergence can’t happen unless you “move out of the house” for a while?
Amy: quite a challenge for both of us. too often my postmodern theology is interpreted through modernity and they hear something completely different.
me: Wow, that was a very modern/two-choice question I just asked…
Amy: hmmm… it’s a good metaphor, though.
I think most adult children in that situation would say “both”.
of course, do postmoderns have any affection for moderns?
me: It is hard either way, but somehow it turns out ok either way, too.
Do most teenagers have any visible affection for their parents?
(I like this metaphor… It may end up a blog )
Amy: good point. Maybe we’re in that rebellious teenager part and in another 200 years or so we’ll have emerged as mature adults at peace with our parents.
me: I hope so; we need to.
Amy: this is a fun conversation!
me: Very much… I needed it.
…plus it helps me procrastinate writing a sermon I haven’t done enough thinking on yet.
Amy: he he

“To put it one way: The question isn’t so much ‘how are we different in what we believe/think?’ as it is ‘how are we connected? what can I appreciate and learn from that other person’s perspective/tradition/tribe/camp?’” - Steve Knight

Well said. If you read the whole post from which it comes, there is a good mix of wisdom and pointlessness, I think. I haven’t gotten to the section of Tony Jones’ book referred to here (I just started it), but the whole “third way” concept seems a bit anti-emergent to me. This quote, however, resonates well for me.