One of the challenges that face any Christian, or group of Christians, when attempting something in the name of God, is discerning the underlying motivations behind "the cause". This might seem obvious at first- almost a "no-brainer". But the truth is that it's actually remarkably easy to do something with plenty of zeal - but for the wrong reasons. And sometimes when we do something for the wrong reasons, or at least with a greater collection of mixed motives than we first realize or are ready to admit, the thing we're trying to do for God never really gets off the ground. For those of us carrying some ecclesial baggage (and lets be honest- who among us doesn't?) it doesn't take much for our culture-sensitive approach to mission to turn into a Christian angst-fest. Let me explain.

Let me begin with a story. Recently, in conversation with a new friend I heard about the experience he had with an "Emerging Church experiment" in southern California. The story begins as many such stories do. A group of postmodernly-sensitized Christians picked up and moved from various locations around the country to relocate to the So-Cal area to plant this community of faith that was designed to be an evolution of Church.

This friend (let's call him David) remembers the potent ferment that was present amongst this group's early conversations. He was impressed by the degree to which people were really willing to press in to the questions regarding how best to find a new narrative voice for the Christian story for postmodern ears. Early on there was much prayer and even more (as should be expected) conversation about the issues. David, along with the rest of the group, had a hopeful sense that this new Faith experiment was going to help bridge the post-modern divide of the last 30 years or so.

However, to make a longer story shorter, things didn't go quite as planned. While David expected that the conversations would eventually lead towards a new expression of Church, what he found instead, was that the conversations begat more conversations which begat more conversations. Not that this is a bad thing in itself. On the contrary, the way I see it, conversation is almost always a good thing because it expresses relationship and wrestling- both of which are key factors in the life of any individual Christian and even more so, any Christian community.

Where the experience began to sour for David was when he sensed that, more than anything, the tone of the conversations being had were not what he had hoped for. Put simply, when the wrestling begat more wrestling- time and time again, David began to feel like this community of faith - that was supposedly all about finding new and relevant expressions for non-believers - was actually looking more like a support group for Angst-ridden Christians who were in recovery over the sins of their ecclesial past. This might seem like David, and now I, am splitting motivational hairs here, but I think discerning our motivations in such situations is vital if we are to be successful in being the Church at all.

The truth is, it is often much easier to argue articulately and thoroughly for a certain point - till it is adequately addressed from every conceivable philosophical angle - without really ever grasping the motivation behind the endeavor in the first place. Now I'm not suggesting that things begin this way. From what I have gathered, the vast majority of the intent behind our new Emerging conversations, are just and good. However, its in the later evolutions of this conversation that we need to be careful, and prayerful, about our motivations. Because it is in these latter stages that all sorts of less than worthy things can work themselves into the mix.

We all know that we are not setting out to (despite what some more conservative - if that's the right word - Christians might assume) form a more socially digestible social group. No- we are attempting to clothe an experience of Christ and His body, in ways that seem approachable by those who either haven't grown up in the Church, or have and find it clashes with their postmodernly sensitized way of seeing the World. And I think much progress has been made. Despite all our collective angst (my own included) the Church - in some of its forms anyway - really has evolved in some ways that seem right and good both to my interior postmodern lens and to my Christian spirit.

However, we need to remember that we are not going to reinvent the wheel here - nor should we try to. While some aspects of our theology have substantially changed (or at least become reframed) as a result of the postmodern perspective, its important to remember that - perhaps above all else - what the postmodern/Emerging Church conversation addresses, is "tone". And tone is important- tone is often the difference maker in many of the decisions we make in life- even the big ones. Tone is certainly often the difference maker in conversation and relationship.

And so those of us engaged in the Emerging Church conversation have set out to reset the tone of Church, so as to, as seamlessly as possible, introduce as many people as possible to Jesus Christ. Above all else, what lies behind the Emerging journey is a convicting and compelling sense of the missional nature of the Church. As is fitting with a sacrificial lifestyle - which is an essential aspect of Christianity - we are doing this for others more so than we are doing it for ourselves. At least- we should be. Shouldn't we?

There is a very fine line (as there are always is in such matters) between forming the Emerging conversation around our own angst, verses a truly outward-focused ecclesiology. An old mentor of mine used to say, "it's important to remember that the Bible is not the meal, it is the menu. Jesus is the meal". Perhaps we can and should say the same thing here. The conversation is about, above all else, introducing people to Jesus. There is a place for angst. There is a place for wrestling. But it has to move towards resolution in order for it to be a fruitful part of our spiritual lives- both individually and collectively. Because as we all know, healthy wrestling, when it doesn't aim towards resolution, can become a meal unto itself. And that's a bitter root I don't think any of us want to feast on for very long.

So how exactly do we figure out where one motivation begins and the other ends? Well, I guess the only way a community can discern this is when the community is made up of a group of individuals who are taking the time to seek the Holy Spirit regarding their own motivation. After all, unlike many aspects of the conversation, this is one dynamic that cannot be figured out via the intellect alone. Only each of us alone before God can truly hope to know our motivations. And I think we would all agree that motivations matter- they matter deeply. In fact, that's something that our postmodern worldview has told us was lacking in the modernist approach to faith and to "Church growth".

I think one thing is essential if we are to avoid the problem of turning the Emerging conversation into an "angst-fest". We must choose to embrace, for all its worth (good and bad I'm afraid) that WE ARE THE CHURCH. There is no room for "us vs. them". Again, this is something that our postmodern worldview should help us guard against; because the "us vs. them" scenario was a modernist development (one of its ugliest) both within the Church and within Western colonialist societies of the last couple centuries.

Perhaps what would help us is if we adopted a more Eastern Orthodox view of the Church- where we're able to recognize that often the invisible and indivisible Body of Christ, is much more than our contemporary institutionalized version of it. Perhaps then we could accept the blemishes while still holding out, and cherishing, the underlying ideal. Moving towards such a healthy tension could be one of our most helpful postmodern developments within Christianity. And it would allow us to move forward with purer motives.

So how did David's story end? Well, the Southern California Emerging Church experiment, kind of "black-holed" itself. The angst became so pointed that eventually no one could agree on a healthy postmodern expression of the Church- and so they eventually disbanded. David came away from the experience with a bitter taste in his mouth regarding the motivation behind the Emerging Church in the first place. That's unfortunate. I certainly don't share that view.

I believe the conversation was originally spawned out of almost entirely healthy spiritual unrest. The challenge however, in moving forward, especially as the conversation goes more "mainstream" - for lack of a better word - is not to lose sight of the original goals of the exercise. Otherwise, as with many of these kinds of journeys, we may end up finding the conversation going the way of the Holy Roman Empires of the world. That is to say, we become the bitter root of our own demise.