The Nature of Postmodern/Emerging Dialog

Posted by Jonathan Brink
August 24, 2007

no.jpg

I was reading this post by Roger Saner at Future Church (Thanks Makeesha. You find the best stuff.) and it really got me thinking about the nature of postmodern dialog. One of the signature elements of the emerging church has been “the conversation”. It is the idea that we are in dialog with each other.  Not a shouting match but a dialog.  I really began to think about what this means. Why is it called the conversation? I’ve written about this a little bit before but Roger’s post helped me think about this a little further.

The historical church, often called Christendom, hold the idea of universal truth. I get that. I too hold that somewhere out there is fundamental truth to be found about the way the universe operates. Part of the journey is in seeking out this truth. Christendom also holds that this truth can be found in the Bible, which I also hold to be true. Two for two. We’re onto something here.

The problem is that the Bible doesn’t speak about every element of truth. It speaks nothing about the nature of mathematics or why does two plus two equal four. It’s not an extensive discussion about sex, which I’ve often wish had been available in my youth. It says nothing about what to do when you have a zit on your face the day of your first date, or how to handle your parents getting divorced so you don’t think its your fault. Yet these are very real issues in life. And so we have those things that are objective in the Bible (love your neighbor, don’t lie, etc.). These just make sense. Life proves them out to be common sense. We also have those things that are subjective (just about any esoteric theological point, the nature of end times, speaking in tongues, war, etc.)

The problem them becomes when we come to a conclusion about subjective elements that require us to make a judgment and we run into someone who doesn’t hold what we believe. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to people who don’t think exactly like me. Why is that? ;-) And this is where the paths diverge. The modern (read: Christendom) feels the need to convert the other person to a certain way of believing about truth. Why is this? I don’t see Jesus spending a lot of time “converting” people through philosophical argument. He simply says come follow me. And when they don’t, he lets them leave. What if this need to convert is actually a desire to validate what we believe. How in the world could others not see truth exactly the way we do? How dare they? (I’m feigning my best indignation here).  And to be honest, why would I want to be like that.  I’m not interested in anger, shouting, and conflict as a model to prosper from.  I want to get to love, and community, and creativity and freedom.  I want to be like Jesus.

The signature trait of the emerging church conversation is the capacity to hold the tension and not feel a need to convert the other person, to live with the reality that others don’t see the world the way I do. Isn’t it possible that each person is a collective story made up of a lifetime of experiences? And that those stories shape the way we see the world and truth. There are countless things I didn’t know just last year. And yet, why do we assume that everyone should know those things when we ourselves didn’t know them at one time. But now that we do, everyone must. The conversation assumes that we are all beginner, learning along the way. And if someone doesn’t know, maybe they’ve just missed it.  Or maybe they’re right and we’ve missed it.

And along the way we discover truth together.  We discover that love really does work better.  But to get there I have to, no we all have to, go through our junk.  It’s the stuff that makes us question if we’re worth it.  It’s the stuff that happened when we’re four and we had no capacity to deal with.  It’s the stuff that we don’t like to admit that we hide in our closet.  These are our wounds, our brokenness.  Instead of arguing, let’s find a way to journey together to get through these things to what really matters, like love.

To really understand someone, we have to listen to their story? And to listen we have to lay down our objectives for a while and not speak, which requires time, and lots of coffee, and dinners and often tissue.  It also doesn’t mean we not speak at all. But how often do we not speak, all the while waiting for the other person to finish talking, so we can say what we have to say, and in the process miss what they have said. Love listens.

And isn’t that what we all need, someone to listen, someone to put down their objectives and just allow the other person to be heard? Sometimes I don’t need to know the “right” answer.  I just need to be “real” so I can process what it means to be human.  In real community, it is those individuals in my life who listen who hold my greatest trust. I don’t really want them to listen blindly. I want to them to listen in love. And when I’m ready to hear the truth, they are the first people I go to. The conversation then becomes love.  I find that those people who are willing to listen are really on my side.  Those who don’t listen, usually aren’t.

I like the emerging missional conversation because I find people who are looking to learn and listen AND share what they have learned along the way.  And when we disagree, it’s not the end of the world.  Their value as a person doesn’t depend on me thinking the way they do.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Christianity, Church, Conflict, Emerging Church, Jesus, Missional, friends, leadership, love, postmodern, religion, theology

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • thanks for the nod - I find good stuff because I spend an inordinate amt of time on the computer hehe...

    I think you provided a very good thesis on why the "modern vs. post modern" conflict exists. Pomos (wow, say that too fast and it sounds really derogatory hehe) want to dialog, to wrestle and mostly to allow themselves the freedom to listen without making immediate judgment calls and they want that same respect in turn. So most of us are ok being in community with modernists but most modernists struggle to be ok with being in community with us which in turn makes it almost impossible for us to be in community with them (that was a very awkward sentence, sorry). I know that sounds like I'm blaming modernists and I guess in a way I am - but I also believe the onus is on us (hehe...funny play with words there) to be peace makers, to communicate ourselves with clarity and to build bridges. I suck at those things to be honest.

    So anyway, yeah, good stuff Jonathan hehe
  • Wow. Very good post. I think you described the 'conversation' very well. A couple thoughts:

    "this need to convert is actually a desire to validate what we believe." That's a really good point. Refusal of the invitation is seen as a refusal of the evangelist as well. My departure from pastoral ministry was interpreted as an indictment of the church, although I said nothing to that effect, but some people were upset because my refusal to play the game said something about their sportsmanship.

    "Love listens." Brilliant statement. It reminded me of my post A Hobbit's Tale of the Soul. This is an excerpt:

    "There’s a powerful quote from the movie Big Kahuna with Kevin Spacey and Danny Devito that describes this well:

    'It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.’ That doesn’t make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch. And you’re not a human being; you’re a marketing rep.'


    "This realization has forever changed the way I interact with people and what I think of evangelism. I want to know people and value them for who they are and what they can teach me through their stories regardless of whether they agree with me or not."

    God's blessings on the journey.
  • Makeesha,

    I like how you've captured the tension. Our presence BUGS them. And pomos made me laugh when I said fast out loud.
  • Lyndon,

    I never saw that movie but with a quote like that, I'm going to. I'm tempted to make it a quote of the day.
  • jerry
    Good post jonathan.
    I think there's another "tension" we should explore: to what extent should the "church" adapt to the dominant culture. As you know, thanks to Constantine, the church has essentially lost its culture. There are those who argue rather than adapt and "fit in", we should regain that early church culture "not of this world". Might first of all make it easier to tell who the "christians" are, eh? I recently made a reference, "where are all the christians on monday through saturday" to a former pastor. His reply hit me upside my head: "where are all the christians on sunday?!"

    Wasn't it Billy Graham that observed, "the number one stumbling block to christianity are christians!" Can this be true? Probably today even more than ever. We're constantly being accused of being hypocrites. Perhaps, and maybe to the point you're trying to make, we should acknowledge that charge, plead guilty and live out our faith differently.

    You're right, Jesus took a very simple approach to following Him. I wonder, if all we strived for in living out our faith was to "Love God" and "Love others" (neighbor, enemies, etc.), we might have a full blown revival take place!

    Shalom.
  • Jerry,

    I think this simplicity is just too complex for the church sometimes. Historic Christendom likes to make things complex for the sake of inserting ourselves into the process. Then the people have to follow the leaders rather than Jesus.
  • Thanks for the mention, Jonathan - glad you stopped by! And good thoughts on truth+Scripture/stories/Christendom/respect :) Grace to you on your journey.
  • yuming
    i just wanted to read your thesis so that we can make it as a basis for our assignment. . . thanks! :)
  • Conversion - it has to do with how close people are to God. Evangelical means we believe that people need to have an encounter with Jesus. In that encounter there is a recognition that we can't do it, only Jesus can (and did). We can't do it because we have a sin problem. It is only a faith in Jesus' grace that allows that sin problem to be cleared up. That is choice, the moment of conversion. It is at that point you have assurance of salvation because the holy Spirit has been given to you as a "guarantor".

    The unfortunate thing we have done in church is to say that is all. Holiness churches have always understood there is more, that following Jesus is a lifelong commitment to discipleship that will change your life. Perhaps the whole responsibility is also not just on the church or its leaders. How many people come to Jesus and then don't want to be changed. How many of us as youth made a commitment that didn't affect our actions or attitudes or speech in any discernable way? The church is made up of vast amounts of these people. We used to call them carnal. Romans 7 and 8 reflects both people trying to live the Christian life in their own strength as well as those who are led by the Spirit. Maybe it is not so much church structure that needs change from time to time but a revival of the work of the Holy Spirit. That itself will change how and why we do church.

    Does me wanting to see someone become a Christian make me a salesman? I am called to love, for loves sake, but Jesus also commanded before He left to "make disciples". Their value as a person is not dependent on what I think of them, but of what God thinks of them (Romans 5:8).
blog comments powered by Disqus