|
what
shape is water?
by
john o'keefe
define
the shape water takes? think about it for a moment, and tell me what shape
is water? you can't, unless you know the shape of the vessel
it is placed in, because water has no "shape" of it's own it takes the
shape of the vessel. the same can be said of the emerging/postmodern conversation.
i am asked all the time to "define what it means to be emerging/postmodern?"
the best thing i can ever answer is, "what shape is
water?" what i am asking the person is thing, in what
context are you asking me to define the "emerging/postmodern
conversation?" after
all, to define something as fluid as the emerging/postmodern conversation one needs to fist know the
shape of the vessel it sets in. but for many in the modern/evangelical
movement do not like that, they demand a definition, a constant definition
and one that applies to all in the emerging/postmodern conversation. given this, many in the
modern/evangelical movement strive hard to define the emerging
conversations, and never even strive to know the vessel. just as there is
no way to know the shape water will take, there is no way of know the shape of
the emerging/postmodern conversation will take. to me, that is the best thing about it. emerging
communities forming out of a methodist tradition will be different then those
growing out of a baptist community. this is hard for the "modern mind
of reason" to grasp because they need lines, walls, boxes
and definition to keep things in their respective places.
to them it is hard to think of a community of faith that is
"baptmetodepiscocathoreform" and where the people get
connected.
to
the modern/evangelic church the "age of enlightenment and reason" gave
birth to their world-view. with minds like kant
and decartes they believed that the world could be defined by human thought, and
that humans had total control over all they saw and
desired. it was even decartes that offers us the very foundation of
modern/evangelical thought; "cogito ergo sum" or "i think,
therefore i am." this though gave birth to the reality that in the
modern world, the method used is more important then the content measured, and
also that a worldview is defined on the "certainty" of that
method. the
mind became the center of all that was, and platonic logic becomes the end all
of end alls. over this time we raped lands, destroyed cultures and caused
some of the most massive destruction ever seen on this
planet. it was during this time, the that many of the great theologian
formed much of what the current modern/evangelical church hold dear. it seems that the church was happy to "trade-away" the
"doctrine of revelation" because, as they believed, they had a way of
"proving" God was real, and that jesus is that God, and so on.
it was simple, all they needed to do was put the method above the content, and
then tell themselves that the "content" was right because it fit the
method. that seems to be the heart of the problem they are
having with emerging/postmodern conversation.
the
problem that i see that they are having with us is that they are
striving to define us via what they see in themselves. it
is in the way they see the world that they are striving to "define"
the postmodern/emerging conversation. while i understand that, and i
do see where they are coming from, what they seem to be doing is try to
"push" the emerging/postmodern conversation into the box where they make the
"rules." they are striving to force the emerging/postmodern into the
evangelical/modern,
and it will not fit - so, with the same "off logic" that they created
the evangelical/modern movement, they desire to "bring down" the
emerging/postmodern. what
they do not realize, is that if they look they will see the dna they placed in
us. but they will not look that deep, because it is easier
to dance on the surface then it is to swim in the ocean.
and what they would like, is for us to get out of the water, get
dressed and sit on the blanket, and that's not going to happen.
most
evangelicals want us to be in one place, while we find ourselves in a very
different place. now, that is not to say that "all" emerging/postmodern people do
not "fit" into the "evangelical" mold, some do, and so do
not.
the issues is not "who is and who is not" evangelical, it is that those in the evangelical refuse to
see even those in the emerging that are themselves
"evangelical." it is also, that the evangelicals are striving
hard to swipe all people with one large brush. to them it seems that on
one end of the spectrum is what most modern/evangelicals desire and on the
other end, what they desire to accuse emerging/postmodern of being.
here
is what i see as the "lines drawn" by the modern/evangelical
movement:
1.
they desire to fight over what is the "certain" foundation
2.
they desire to fight over what they see as the author's "true" intent
3.
they desire to fight over how on defines "community"
4.
they desire to fight over the idea of a " pastoral theology" (and
leave it to the scholars)
5.
they desire to fight over what logic to use, and they demand it be their way.
for
me, this fight is just getting silly, and one i am not sure i
want to get in the middle of. to me, what seems to be the
case with the modern/evangelical movement is that they have
exchanged a faith in jesus christ for an
epistemological system. i think this is one of the main reasons (cores)
that form in the "emerging conversation" and one of
the reasons i think most of us are not comfortable with many
"tag" - because when we are tagged, we are associated
with another philosophy we may not desire to be connected
to. this drives many modern/evangelicals crazy, because it
seems that (to them) we are a mixed bag, and to be honest, we
are. while all that is true, let me share with you what i
think most people in the emerging/postmodern conversation are,
and "are not" about:
1.
they see us as "emotional and stupid": for some
reason, and i am unsure why, many in the modern/evangelical
movement see us as "touchy feely" and even "stupid."
many of us are rather smart (myself excluded :) ). while
we have a large share of "advanced degrees" we have
even a larger share of people who know life, and have
experienced a particle side of living the faith. i think
the reason we are seen in this light, is because we truly
believe that the faith can be lived, and lives can be
changed. we honestly thing that we can love everyone, live
in peace, forgive and live in grace. we are seen as being
"idealistic" and that is fine, because we feel that
jesus was also very idealistic.
2.
they see us as "young": some are, and some are
not. this has never been an age thing, it has always been
a thought thing. i am amazed at how many people think
emerging/postmodern is a "college" thing, or a
"youth group" thing. yet, when they come to an
emerging service, they see people of all ages, and they are surprised.
3.
they see us as not committed to scripture: this one is the funniest every,
because all the people i know in the emerging/postmodern conversation are fiercely committed to
scripture. while we many not get the same stuff out of what we read, we
are very connected to the scriptures of the faith. while we think
that people can read, talk and discuss all parts of scripture, we strive hard
to come to a community consensus of what it mean. many are tired very
tight to orthodox christianity.
5.
they see us as individualistic: this is the farthest thing
from what is real. we are totally committed to living in a
biblical community and team ministry. we think
accountability to that community is something we all need, and
we have no problem with having accountability structures.
i think this is one of the problems, modern/evangelicals desire
us to be accountable to them, and we desire to be accountable to
our community. just because they are "leaders"
in the modern/evangelical church does not make them a servant in
my community. for us, the "class" system created
in the church is wrong, so the laity/clergy gap is something we
desire to remove. remember that the modern
"superhero" is superman; and the postmodern are
"the x-men" - being the "lone gun" is not
our style, we love the team and the community - the more the
better.
6.
they think we are all liberals: while we may reject
any universal human experience as "the one we all must
share" that does not make us "liberal." in
fact, i know many in the emerging that run the spectrum from conservative
to liberal, and to group us into one area is something we will
reject. i believe the idea is that if we disagree with the
evangelical/modern movement we must be liberal - because they
see themselves as "the true center" and they are
wrong.
7.
they think we believe "anything goes": for
some reason many in the modern/evangelical movement think we believe
that "anything goes" and that "everyone is
right" simply because we are unwilling to condemn the thoughts
of others. well, that is not a reality we live in.
many of us hold fast and hard to what we believe, and as a group
we are very willing to accept the thoughts of others - we do not
have to agree, but that does not mean we have to condemn.
the idea in the modern/evangelical movement is "if you
disagree, start a denomination." but for us, it is
"if you disagree, cool let's go get a coffee and talk about
it, i want to know what you think."
the bottom line?
the emerging/postmodern conversation is deeper then the modern/evangelical
movement desire to make us out to be. they attack us, ridicule
us, and demand that "we change to fit their
shape." yet, when we stand our ground and express the
shape we believe God has lead us to, we are tagged
"argumentative." then, when we hold to how we
see it, they claim we are not being open. for us it is
simple, the church must be church - not a social club, not a
production, not a fashion club and not a huge building where
they spend more on upkeep then on feeding the hungry. we
have no desire to "sell" our faith to others, and we
are very willing to let each community develop in the shape set
before it. so, what share is water?
|
