It is probably fitting that the first post of this blog is about the emerging church conversation in South Africa, as that will probably end up being a primary preoccupation, and indeed is also the reason that I have finally given in and entered the blogosphere as a contributor.

After all, the world really needs another emergent/spirituality/theology blog!!

The event that initiated this auspicious start, was the meeting of a group of friends on the 4th and 5th Dec, to discuss a way forward for the emerging church conversation in South Africa.

Nic Paton has given an excellent summary of the conversation, so I will not repeat with an overview, but will rather add some comments and reflections of my own.

I also agree with Cobus van Wyngaard, who has blogged on the event here, that the term ‘emerging’ is becoming increasingly worn and tatty. I feel the same way about the word ‘conversation’, but I will stick with both until something better comes along!

What clearly came out of our discussions was that all the emerging conversation really is, is a space. Many people are populating this space with ideas and practices that share some common themes: postmodernism, a chastened episteimology, ancient-future spiritual disciplines, a strong ‘missional’ focus (which usually connotes some idea of integral mission), etc. However, none of these define either the belief or the practice of those who identify themselves as emerging or emergent.

In an African context I think it is very important that we maintain and celebrate the undefinition of this space, recognizing that it has to develop a healthy local (contextual theological) flavour, as well as being part of the larger, global (read Western) emerging church conversation.

That is why I believe our questions around the nature of the space we wish to create/curate were important, as how well we succeed in doing that will determine how deep and transformative the encounters are within this space.

I am also of the opinion that if we are not fully inclusive in terms of gender and race/culture from the beginning the conversation will quickly become one-sided and exclusive, even if this is unintentional. This is priority number one!

I like the relational framework we discussed, where the three intersecting sets of the conversation reflect the modes of relating expressed in the Trinity (you may notice I have revised this in terms of what Nic listed in his post):

God the Father = creativity (transpersonal mode)

God the Son = community (interpersonal)

God the Spirit = sacred (intrapersonal)

There is a lot more to this scheme that I will discuss in another post sometime, as it relates to some of the stuff I am working on for my doctorate. I can’t quite decide yet how the three elements of belonging, behaving and believing fit into it, but what I think is more important than the order they belong in, is that there needs to be an integration of the three. I do not think it is correct to say, for example, believing is less important than belonging, or that one should necessarily precede the other, but rather the question is what is the nature of that believing, behaving and belonging?

In that regard, what is most important for me is that the space we create is defined by the law of love. It has to be a space of grace and acceptance, where we suspend our judgement of each other. Just think for a moment: what would the church as we know it today look like if this was its defining characteristic?

That is the kind of church I want to see emerging…