I spent just a bit of time this evening poking around blogs of folks who were at the Umerging Colloquy. And I became even more troubled about how many did not feel "heard" by those whose voices speak louder, whose power is greater to effect change, who have "bishop" for a first name. I am troubled because I feel very torn---part of me agrees with this, part of me feels a little defensive, part of me knows that at least the bishop I know best (who is on the bearded one on the left on the stool in the picture...it's of the actual q and a session Friday afternoon in the basement of COR..I stole the pic from Gavin's gallery in flickr) is about as permission-giving a guy as you'd ever want to meet and has a passionate heart for those who have not yet heard and do not yet know, and is willing to go with things he doesn't quite understand. It may be that some of those louder, more powerful, bishop-type folks will never "get it." Maybe it's good enough for them to give permission, even if they don't understand??? I really don't know if that is true or not. I do hope that no one, including bishop-types, dismiss what is being said in the emerging conversation as merely disgruntled murmuring from the "younger generation." That is where the voices of folks like me, who actually DO understand both languages, and attempt to speak both languages (and feels schizophrenic in the midst of it) can help some, I think. It is a burden, and it is a delight. I guess I'm just not sure right now which of these is my native tongue...and that can be a little scary.
2 comments:
i recognized the bridge builder that you were. unfortunatly not all of us are very good at mapping both streets in giving directions. i hold both camps accountable, and primarily ours, as we should seek harder to speak the language that needs to bring about change.
Having been around the church for quite a while, I think what I experienced in this conversation was the tension between the anarchist tendencies of the emerging conversation (something that has been on the fringes for the past five years) with the language of institution (both our strength and downfall in United Methodism).
Part of the problem with the conversation was differing expectations of what we were getting into. The participants, I think, were expecting to enter into conversation about how to affect systemic change in ways that allow the emerging ethos to become a part of our church and structures. The Bishops (especially Scott) seemed unfamiliar with the conversation and thus didn't really have the language by which to talk about the cultural shifts. I think Scott in particular reflected an identity as a baby boomer more reflective of the assumptions of modernity than open to probing the boundaries of postmodernity. His use of language like "one can't call one's self a Christian if they aren't in church every week" (or something along that line) grated against the postmodern and emerging sensibility (and Barna's latest research) which suggests that Christian community in the postmodern world will involve a network of relationships that move beyond traditional congregational structures. Thus, we had one group steeped in the language and experience of postmodernity and two Bishops who were both trained and are (by their office) beholden at some level to a system shaped by modernity.
One last thought. I know that for many of us the frustration came in the continuing use of language which sees the emerging conversation as a generational issue (similar to specialized ministries to Boomers or Gen X) rather than something that permeates the entire spectrum of church life. That is why I can proclaim pockets of emergence in my congregation of 70 year olds who worship in traditional ways. The goal is authenticity to the identity of the specific community rather than trying to be something that we are not. I'm afraid that what the Bishops expected was to speak to a bunch of young adults about young adult ministry rather than how the emerging conversation affects all of our ministry together. And, unfortunately, I think the questions and conversation took the turn of the former rather than the latter.
peace,
jv
Post a Comment