Tim Samoff // Weblog (old)

October 13, 2005

KC Emergent Cohort reflections (the novella)...

I would love to be able to have a one-on-one conversation with Alan Roxburgh (by the way, I wrote an entry on something he wrote a while back). I’m not saying that I’m one who could keep up with him, but I value many of the one-on-one conversations that I’ve had with smarter-than-me, theology-minded people. I’ve had the honor of speaking with Jason Clark, Joe Myers, and Maggi Dawn (not to mention my weekly interaction with Tim Keel and Mike King, etc.). And, whether they ever get anything out of conversation with me, I always grow immensely every time I get to speak with them.

Last night, thirty (or so) people from all around the greater Kansas City Metro area converged on McCoy’s Public House for a chance to get a glimpse of this whole “emerging church movement” thing. There were pastors from Baptist churches, from Nazarene churched, from Methodist churches, lay pastors, worship leaders, church volunteers, and people like me who just have an interest in all of this.

But, honestly, last night was a little frustrating for me. Most of what Mr. Roxburgh said (with some important exceptions) I’ve heard one way or another over the last few years. But, it’s not to say that what he said wasn’t profound. On the contrary. And, I admit, that while I may have heard or read many of the things that were spoken of, it’s always good to listen to an intelligent, wise person who is able to put all of the pieces together and actually provide answers beyond all of the questions. I am glad I went for that reason alone. Plus, I know that what Mr. Roxburgh had to say was probably new for most of the people there, so that’s great. (But, I’m a little annoyed that I didn’t think to record it until halfway though Mr. Roxburgh’s lecture.)

But all that is not was what frustrated me. What was (and will remain) frustrating is the prevailing mind-set that many seminary-educated pastors (namely, some of those pastors who were in attendance last night) continue to possess: That we need to find the next “expert” with the next “answer” to how we should do church.

In my opinion (and Mr. Roxburgh’s too, I think), is that just ain’t gonna happen, folks. Let me explain…

One of the fledgling concepts, brought to light by the emerging church movement (actually, by postmodern philosophy, but since I’m talking about Christianity here, I’ll limit my scope a little), is that culture, as a whole, is in constant flux. Because of this, static answers can no longer work. The reason for this is because once “answers” are devised, they are already out-dated. The idea that what has worked for one church might just work for yours is just not something that can be considered. Since culture is driven by people and media and emerging forms of communication (et cetera), we no longer have localities that are contained by geography, but by ideals. What has been discovered is that culture changes so quickly (fad-cycles are shorter, people don’t settle down in one place for very long, styles and thought processes are driven by what we see on the internet and television, etc.) that while something that works for one person might work for us in the short-term, but it will never have any real longevity.

Interestingly enough, some of those from mainline Christian denominations who are investigating the emerging church movement have a common question (I’m paraphrasing here, of course):

Who’s to say that fifteen or twenty years from now, what you [the emerging church] are doing now won’t just have a different group of people, who call themselves by a different name, and who are complaining about how the emerging church went wrong and what can they do to fix it?

This is the problem with the “modern” mind-set. This is why it is important to stress the fact that because culture has adopted an organic ability to morph at will, we need to find ways that are flexible enough to bend and twist with it. Static answers will just not do. There will not be an expert who can tell you how to do church. Church — as one of many microcosms of culture — will change… And, so must we.

So, as I sat back and listened to a few of the questions, I became a bit agitated by how pastors within the confines of mainline Christianity are continuing to miss the point.

But, I’ve probably belabored my point for far too long now. Suffice it to say that Mr. Roxburgh did a fine job in attempting to explain this to the audience.

As I said, I left early — in fact, the discussion had just begun, so I may have missed all sorts of good stuff (hopefully, Tim Keel or Mike King will post something about it). Because I left early, though, I didn’t ask the questions that were brewing in my mind — I felt like if I couldn’t stay and listen to everyone else’s questions, then I probably had no right to ask my own.

Here is one question (the one that I can still remember), that I would have loved to have asked Mr. Roxburgh (and, yeah, like everything I do, this has a little bit of setup):

I completely understand the need for a local missional construct. I also see much value in the concept of defining leadership within a locality — to teach people how to pastor through praxis and amongst those who they are doing life with. But, based on the traditional, modern idea of foreign (or remote) missions, where does the Allelon Foundation stand? Or, if it’s any easier to answer, where do you stand on this issue? Is it your opinion that foreign missions should take the backseat for a while, while we iron out the Rules of Life for local churches and hubs? Or, will the idea of foreign missions continue to be supported alongside the creation of the more local missional hubs?

Anyway, one of the reasons I wanted to ask this question is not because I have a huge heart for foreign missions (which, maybe I should), but because there are so many people who do desire to do mission work beyond the circumference of their own locality. Clearly, from reading Luke 10:1-2, I see a need for “remote missionaries” (if we are to honestly live by the example set forth by Jesus Christ). The question then becomes: Who will be responsible for this?

While this aspect may not be in the forefront of Allelon’s current thinking, if they are to begin the process of educating people to become church leaders, then they may want to consider it.

But, that brings up the other reason why I wanted to ask the question. Maybe there is something I’m missing in Mr. Roxburgh’s talk about missional church leaders and hubs.

Anyway, I wish I could have stayed for the entire evening, but my day was long and I needed to get home.

(By the way, wouldn’t that photo of Alan Roxburgh make a great book sleeve photo?)

Posted at 10:31 am

Trackback Link:

Except that we had a few more choice things to say in the car that I can’t remember all of now.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 12:49 pm

First, let me mention that I do support the work of Allelon. I thought it was a cool idea from the very beginning — and an idea that could be used in all areas of academia, not just theology.

James…

> Is it possible that we get
> so caught up in how church
> is suppost to work for each
> generation that we can miss
> God’s calling at the same
> time?

This is a great question. And, it’s one that I think arises within every generation. But, let us not rule out the fact that philosophizing on things theological may also be a calling (which I do think you are taking into consideration). What I am confident in, though, is that for every theological philosophizer, there are thousands more believers who are actually immersed in praxis — people who couldn’t care less about all of this stuff that I bring up here.

And, as far as misions are concerned… I think that would deserve another post. The question I ststaed above was not necessarily my sake, but for the sake of people like you — people who desire to be sent out. I’d hate for those who feel the calling to be placed in a remote location to be forgotten.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 14, 2005 at 08:00 am

Yeah, Jason! Yeah!

timsamoff () (URL) - October 14, 2005 at 09:22 am

If you read the history of the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers of the time were also calling it Enlightenment — it was this “new” idea that was spreading across Europe. But, yes, only to those who think about this sort of stuff.

timsamoff () (URL) - October 17, 2005 at 11:02 am