When it comes to Christian dialog, the blogoshere is an interesting place indeed. Never before have I witnessed so many “conversations” about theology as I have over the last few months. Even magazines once known as bastions of conservative Evangelicalism have opened themselves up to the debate. Much of this dialog focuses on existing versus emerging church perspectives, as the Church, along with the larger culture, shifts ever towards a postmodern milieu. Despite the sheer number of these conversations, what I have been most surprised by is the lack of real communication that takes place within them. Sometimes the lack of understanding is startling.

When I use this term communication, I mean the experience where one person’s perspective is comprehended by another- via dialog. This doesn’t seem to happen all too often in the blogoshpere. What we’re left with instead are personal attacks, character defamation, name-calling, and the like. Being a member of the EC community myself, I want to be careful not be drawn into the mud-slinging. But beyond this concern, we’re left with the question: how can we effectively communicate the heart of the EC conversation?

Let me describe the situation with an example. Author X writes an article discussing how the Emerging Church crowd is critical of the degree to which the western Church succumbed to enlightenment-inspired perspectives over the course of the last several centuries. Christians of a more conservative ilk respond by suggesting that all emergents are trying to do is create a slicker, sexier version of Christian faith to appeal to the 21st century crowd. These critics suggest that, rather than fixating on a seeker-sensitive model of Church, we should, instead, return to a “biblically-centered” view. Do you see the disconnect? While EC’ers are trying to shed light on the issue of the modernistic assumptions through which the 20th century church filtered its theology, others criticize the EC for cultural assimilation. The irony is palpable.

What I find frustrating- and a tad suspicious- about the conservative critique of the EC, is the lack of substantial dialog. The actual issues raised by the EC seem to go unaddressed by Evangelical conservatives. Again, ironically, conservatives accuse the EC of being deliberately vague and obtuse for fear that we will offend liberal sensibilities. And yet it is these very same conservatives who hardly touch upon the issues the EC is actually raising. Ahhh… sometimes it’s enough to want to pull your hair out!

I’ve thought long and hard about this issue. And I don’t think I’m exaggerating the situation. I have consistently seen the EC’s concern about the Church’s modernity assimilation go completely unaddressed. I would like to know whether or not conservatives accept, even partially, our suggestion that this cultural assimilation distorted, and at times, left completely unheeded, certain aspects of the gospel.

I think there are several reasons why the real issues we raise seem to go unaddressed. They are as follows:

1.) Missing the Point: Because we cannot summarize our concerns in a short sound-bite, others, growing impatient, make the assumption that we are merely trying to “go liberal” with our faith. They hear the words “new”, “progressive” “re-think”, “postmodern”, etc… and draw the conclusion that we are just trying to make Christianity more palatable for the masses. Some even go as far as to suggest we are taking the Lordship of Christ out of the equation.

2.) Denying the Point: Others know what we are saying but they don’t believe cultural metanarratives really shift. These people assume its the "same old, same old" when it comes to conceptions of self and reality.

3.) Denying the Connection between Church and Culture: Others hold a one-size, one- time, fits all view- assuming that even when the larger culture goes postmodern, we in the Church should not. In other words, they don’t see Church as an intersection between culture and the gospel. Obviously, those of us in the EC would tend to disagree.

So with so much misunderstanding, with so much missing-the-forest-for-the-trees going on, what are we to do? Should we keep dialoging, even when it doesn’t feel like that’s an apt description? Or should we just re-focus on speaking/dialoging with our own kind? And does the EC require a certain base-level of understanding before one can gain real access to the conversation?

Well, clearly, I think we cannot opt for this latter option. It’s just way to anti-emergent. We in the EC just have to accept that people are going to be entering into the conversation at various points along the spectrum of understanding. Some will enter because they’re curious. Others will enter because they appreciate the philosophical debate. And still others will enter simply because they appreciate the EC’s focus on praxis as opposed to abstract intellectualism. I’m sure many others reasons also apply.

Because a metanarrative, or a paradigm, or whatever term you prefer, is such a massive, self-sustaining construct, it takes some real effort and some real time to deconstruct. In fact, it takes a great degree of time and effort just to become aware of its very existence- much like Neo waking up within the Matrix.

Knowing this, I personally plan on continuing to “chip away at the stone”- so to speak. Even if the work is laborious and often lacks tangible results- in terms of people really grasping what you’re critiquing in the first place, I still think it’s a worthwhile endeavor. In fact, I feel called to it. And responding to my Creator’s call is the only justification I need to continue on my present course.

But beyond the task of shedding light in chat forums, feedback sections, the blogoshpere, etc… I think there’s an even more essential way we can further the cause of the Emerging Church. Simply put, we have to create new, tangible, on-the-ground communities that live out the principles being prescribed in print and online.

John Wimber, the founder of the Vineyard, the Evangelical movement that I have been most closely associated with in my 15+ years as a follower of Jesus, used to have this great expression. He said that when it comes to the Kingdom of God, “it’s more caught than taught”. I have come to understand the great wisdom and insight in those words. In fact, in many ways, the expression itself hints at real postmodern understanding.

I think that if we don’t incarnate our new understandings in the life of community, that we will inevitably fail to make a lasting impact on the historical Christian fabric. And to EC’ers- of all people, that lack of expression would be the greatest shame of all. We say we believe that walking the walk is an essential outpouring of talking the talk. Now we need to put action behind our words.

Of course, some might argue that this is easier said than done. After all, there just aren’t that many Emerging Churches to join as of yet. This is true. But maybe that’s where we need to adopt the adage that “we are the future”. In other words, it’s up to us as individuals to begin to sow seed in forging new communities of faith. We don’t have to do it perfectly. We just need to do it. Obedience, faith and faithfulness are still the essential ingredients required.

So that’s my take on how we move forward in navigating the future of the church emerging. We need to: 1.) Stay in community with those brothers and sisters of a more conservative strain; 2.) Dialogue with a spirit of humility, teachability, patience and grace; 3.) Start to forge Kingdom community experiments wherever we live, work and play.

A postmodern sensibility says don’t tell me, show me. I think that’s exactly what we need to do. This may be easier said than done. But as has always been the case since the time of Christ, if we follow God’s lead- practicing faith, hope and love, we are promised that the church emerging will do just that.