lifeasmission

Recently I spent 4 days at a conference in Eagle, ID. This conference was different than anything I had ever been to before. The featured guest was Brian McLaren, but whereas someone in his position would typically be described as a presentor or lecturer, what he actually did was serve as a facilitator. In different sessions Brian spoke on the topics of context, theology, ecclesiology, and leadership. Each topic was addressed specifically in terms of a postmodern context (fear not - we wrestled through our fair share of head aches over that loaded term). There were between 60-80 people at the conference and we were situated at round tables of 6-8. After Brian had initially addressed a topic, the real work began. We would spend the next 30-60 minutes in dialogue at our tables hashing things out, often by telling stories, and then one person was chosen to present to the large group what our small group had discussed. As each table shared, the entire room engaged with one another and then Bian or one of the other facilitators (Alan Roxburgh, Pat Kiefert, or Mark Lau Branson) would reflect on what they were hearing, ask additional questions, and offer more specific insights. It was both an incredibly frustrating and enormously helpful way to get at the theme of the conference - "Ministry in a Postmodern Context."

I don't want to go into great detail about the intricacies of the conference (though that would be fun face-to-face), I just wanted to share one thought I had (perhaps with more to follow). I'm not repeating what was said at the conference, but rather noting some of my own thoughts based on what was discussed.

Postmodernity is not the issue. It seems to be the case that our postmodern context is affording us (forcing us?) to think about things such as theology, ecclesiology, and leadership in different ways than we are accustomed, but that's not the same as saying that a postmodern context determins the agenda. For example, say I love my mom (which I do) and I am used to loving her as someone who walks, talks, works, and functions normally. However, something horrible happens and she is crippled in such a way that she can no longer do those things. I will still love her, but the way in which I love her will probably look much different. Love, not my mother's physical capacities or condition determine the agenda. Likewise, postmodernity has crippled many of the ways we have normally understood theology, ecclesiology, and leadership. We live in a time where it is imperative that we rethink how to engage these issues given significant cultural changes. It's scary, but I must admit that in my fictional example there is a real chance that given my mother's new condition I would find myself unable to lover her, thereby disclosing that what was ultimately important was her condition not love. Equally scary is the thought that in a postmodern context, many people will discover that their ideas about theology, ecclesiology, and leadership were far too culturally dependent and what they truly have faith in will be likewise disclosed.

I hope I am not making the absurd mistake of assuming that any theology is ever untainted by contextual and cultural factors. That is certainly not my point. In fact, it was one of the greatest mistakes of modernity - assuming that truly objective, and therefore universal, truth was attainable. Rather, my point is that postmodernity ought to be understood as the context in which what is really important finds expression, not that which determins what is important.