the overlap

April 25, 2006

Well, the tyranny of responsibilities surrounding the Easter season have come and gone. It takes me about a week to ‘detox’ after these periods, not to mention make up for lost time with my wife and kids. I appreciate their sacrifice during these busy times. I’m sure with this reprieve will come more time to write and more often at that.

Today we move on to value #3 of the ‘backbone’ of relevintage: conversation as the language of cultural redemption. Previously, we have looked at the overall vision of relevintage. We have looked at the Bible as the source and the local church as the agent for cultural redemption. Today we will look at the importance of relationship, community, and dialogue as it relates to engaging with the postmodern. Let’s unpack the ‘conversation’ conversation.

Before I talk about what I mean by ‘conversation,’ let me clarify what I do NOT mean by the use of the word.

If you are familiar with emerging church dialogue, one of the words that is bandied about is the word ‘conversation.’ In fact, one of its ‘organized’ groups, Emergent , do not call themselves an ‘organization.’ They instead opt to say they are a ‘conversation’ for the emerging church. I have no problem with this, but when I use the word, I am not referring to Emergent or its ‘conversation’ in its strictest sense.

Further, in it most liberal forms, emerging church proponents use the word to describe the ‘free reign’ approach to dialogue about the things of God, even if it is apart from the absolute truth of God. Some even go so far as to say the ‘conversation’ exists because what we know to be ‘absolute’ may actually be a different version of ‘absolute.’ In other words, if the dialogue takes precedent over an eventual declaration of absolute truth, so be it. I am not referring to this type of ‘conversation’ either.

Let me say this though. I think that Emergent and even the most liberal emerging church leaders have good intentions when they use the word ‘conversation.’ In fact, I think they are starting from the same place I am. But as the conversation intersects with determining a truth about God [which I know can be subjective depending upon interpretation of Scripture], I sometimes find myself diverging with them.

Okay, what do I mean when I use this word?

When I use the word ‘conversation,’ I am trying to use it in its purest sense.

The best way we can communicate with the postmodern, both inside and outside of the church, is through the language of ‘conversation,’ Where I deviate away from some emerging church leaders is this ‘conversation’ must be closely tied to a biblical worldview that has been handed down once and for all.

Let me say it this way. ‘Conversation’ is in direct opposition to the old form of Christian communication. Things like: instead of engaging with culture, retreat to your subculture; when asked about your faith, lecture; when in the local church, preach fire-and-brimstone and give altar calls; when sharing your faith, street preach, hand out tracks, and do cold evangelism.

This form of ‘conversation’ is one-sided and ends up being detached and powerless. The type of conversation I am talking about assumes a loving, back-and-forth dialogue with a person or group.

When Jesus was asked to name the greatest commandments, he cited-‘love God and love others.’ When Jesus was asked how to pray, he defined God in terms of a relationship: Abba. Jesus pioneered a ethic based on relationship. Being a disciple means building relationships-with the Creator and with His created.

One of my heroes, Leonard Sweet, author and E. Stanley Jones Chair of Evangelism at Drew University, says it this way in his book SoulTsunami:

There has been no spiritual awakening in history without preaching, teaching, and healing that connects with questions asked by ordinary persons in ordinary life. Every great preacher in history has been adept at being led by the audience.

One of the ways that this is playing out in churches in the West is that preachers/teachers are actually opening up the floor for questions at the close of their ‘lecture-style’ presentation. What a revolutionary thought? In an age where seekers and believers are more open to spiritual things, wouldn’t ‘conversing’ with them within corporate worship further cement the possibility for transformation?

Though life change can happen in the context of the local church, according to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, 80% of adults coming to faith in Jesus do so as a result of the influence of a friend. This percentage elucidates the need to enhance our ‘conversation’ skills. We need to be students of the Bible who are connected to culture, long on love, short on talking, and experts on listening.

Within the context of relevintage, the ‘conversation’ will revolve around this: how a biblical worldview intersects with culture at large [in the vein of Chuck Colson’s book, How Now Shall We Live?] This will include commentary on news and magazine articles, as well as music, movie, and books reviews. There will also be discussion on topics on how to enhance our biblical worldview. This will include entries or series on pertinent cultural issues, like the claims of the book and soon-to-be blockbuster movie, the The Da Vinci Code [in the tone of Mark D. Roberts self-titled blog].

I would like to close with a quote about the language of conversation, relationship, and community from Sweet:

The seat of the soul is not inside or outside a person, but the place where people overlap. The soul is less the space within or without as between. A soul becomes a soul through people. A soul becomes itself through tapping and trapping the heart of another.

May we be in the business of ‘overlapping.’

Posted in relevintage, vision