The Great Emergence Day 2
The morning of Day 2 of The Great Emergence conference began with a liturgy and worship. It was a great way to begin the day, although I was late and missed some of it. I must say, having come from an evangelical background, how new and interesting this was to me. I didn’t grow up in liturgy and it was nice.
We had a coffee break and then Nadia Bolz-Weber shared from her book. Once again I can’t stress how funny it was. I told her later that the her readings really set a great tone for the conference. She essentially asked what it would look like to find a way through the junk without being so judgmental we resemble the very thing we’re questioning.
Phyllis spent the morning sharing the diagrams that make up a good understanding of the Great Emergence. You can see them here: (Click for a large version.)
What makes up the Great Emergence is the rose, which identifies the four categories of U.S. faith participation. The blurring that is taking place is disconcerting for a lot of people and what feels like a loss of security is actually an invitation into a new expression. What it means to remove the barriers between the four quadrants in traditional camps. The tension in this was significant for SOOOO many people. And some just don’t want to let go, which is okay. It is my hunch that until a deeper theology and expression is worked out, a lot of those people will remain entrenched.
The swirl that makes up the center are those individuals that are emergent, which Tickle stated is quite a large group. People are not longer single category but multicategory. This led to the hyphenateds. Phyllis shared how the spheres are hovering around the center and likely won’t make it to the center.
Phyllis then shared the nature of the fundamentalist, which I didn’t get a shot of, in each group as a necessary counter force to the center of emergence. This part is discussed pretty extensively in the book but it was nice to here that our way forward is not to demonize those who think differently but to find a way to stay in relationship. And this is what Emergent does so well. Agree to disagree and stay in relationship.
The later morning session was a second breakout. My group saw the second group of presenters: Tim Keel, Sally Jean Morgan, Nanette Sawyer, Lisa Samson, Bob and Becky Pierson and Karen Ward. What was interesting is how these presentations, which were not dictated, created a very interesting spectrum of thought. At the front end of the presentations were Tim and Sally who talked eloquently about the nature of emergence in science and leadership. It was a very cosmological lead in. And as each presenter shared, it got more intimate asking how we live out what is happening in community. It was awesome. Instead of questions, Doug allowed the audience to share their observations and thoughts, which was quite interesting. The progression of thought was that we were all wrestling with what it meant to live in such interesting times and trying to answer our own individual calling.
Doug then did something really unique. He asked for a song that would represent what we were going through in the conference. A woman named Nancy, who I met afterward offered, “Stand By Me.” You can imagine the trepidation that comes from such a request. But as Nancy led us in the words, we realized that we all knew the song and lo and behold, the words were perfect. The song essentially asks how we stand together through trying times.
Phyllis opened up the session and shared what became a quiet buzz in the conference; the three questions. Most of us who had come to the conference had read her book. And this little section, which was way too short touched deeply on what so many were looking for. What’s next? If Sola Scriptura is going away, where then is our authority? I’ve shared what I think her answers are here.
And underlying this question were three more questions. They are:
- What is the theology of religion?
- What does it mean to be human?
- What is the nature of the atonement?
Tickle’s assertion is that answering these three questions will become the answers to where we are going. I talked with many people afterward and everyone seemed to wonder what that meant for Emergents. How are we gathering together to answer these questions? And my speculation is that these will create the foundation for Emergent theology in general.
Then Doug and Tony opened up a Q&A session. Phyllis, the amazing presenter that she is, struggled to stay in her seat, which brought a great laugh.
This section literally could have gone on for hours and I think we would have just scratched the surface. Phyllis brought up one thing that I thought was extremely powerful. Moving to the center of Emergence is not a “should” or a mandate. In other words, it’s not by force but by invitation that people will move out of their spaces and into other ones.
Perhaps one the most intriguing statements Phyllis left us with was the idea that no blood had been shed in the movement, speaking specifically in the US. Each previous period was marked by significant bloodshed and we all expressed hope in the idea that we could discover what the next chapter in Emergence looked like without it.
We closed this session with a blessing on Phyllis. Tony asked for someone and I had the profound honor of speaking a blessing over Phyllis’ life. To bless someone who has blessed me in such a wonderful way was humbling.
I left with two great questions, which I mentioned in the first post. How will the Internet affect the Great Emergence. Will it speed things up? And will this expression lead to a convergence as opposed to another split. Tickle’s drawings suggest so.
Much love to all the new friends I met and hope to get to know in the future. It was a great conference.
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.
-
Royce Stewart
-
Jonathan Brink
-
emergent pillage
