Brian McLaren on Emergent as a Movement

If you have been following the conversation in the Emergent as a Society thread you may have already read this. However, Brian McLaren suggested the following thoughts which I think are helpful, and it was difficult to post them yesterday in anything other than comments, so here they are more formally:

---

Will, I very much like what you're saying about a society.  Perhaps it's a better term than an order - which is the other idea we've been working with.

But I wanted to clarify - I'm not against movements or against emergent becoming a movement.  Not at all.  What I've been trying to say repeatedly is that I hope emergent can hold off becoming a movement a bit longer ... because I don't think we're ready quite yet.

I say that for a number of reasons, including these three (speaking only for myself, not as an official spokesperson for anybody):

1.  Emergent could be any one of the following, if it becomes a movement:

A. A movement of white suburban American evangelicals grappling with problems unique to the white suburban American church. God knows there are problems, and this is a worthy project.

B. A movement of white American and European evangelicals, grappling with their own problems. Again, a worthy project.

C. A multicultural movement in America and Europe including post-conservatives and post-liberals from evangelical, mainline, and catholic backgrounds. This starts to get more exciting.

D. A broad multicultural Christian movement addressing problems in the West.  Again, God knows the church in the West has problems that need addressing.

E. A global movement bringing together postcolonial Christian leaders from the global south and mideast with postmodern leaders from the global north/west, who have a shared critique of modernity/colonialism, to develop a shared vision for the future.

Over this rough typology, we could overlay another grid of concerns:

P.  Ecclesiological and methodological concerns - how to "do church" better.

Q. Theological concerns - how to understand the gospel better.

R. Theological concerns and their practical outworking in areas such as justice, peacemaking, compassion, economics, ecology, etc.  - How to be better agents of God's kingdom in our global context.

I'm worried that we'll stay too close to "A" and "P" if we start organizing too soon around our current conversation and concerns ...

I'm interested in us moving "down the alphabet" on both lists, but this takes time, especially because most of us are deeply involved in local churches.  When we have some leaders among us from the global south - to whom we all listen as true peers and colleagues, and whose problems we share as "our problems" - then I'll feel safer about moving into anything like a movement.  Again, this is very difficult - and time-consuming - if it is to be done well.  But I would rather fail at this higher goal than succeed at something lesser.

2.  I'm also concerned about unity and divisiveness, especially because so many of our current friends are from evangelical Protestant backgrounds.  We Protestants are well practiced in dividing and separating.  If emergent's borders become too well-defined too soon, I'm worried that we'll either become or be perceived as the latest divisive thing to come down the pike (charismatic movement, Toronto Blessing, etc., etc.), creating "in groups" and "out groups," us versus them, etc.  No doubt, there's a lot of this out there already, but I think a lot of it is simply the residue of this protest practice of dividing.  I'm hoping we can get to a place of real catholicity, seeing ourselves not as the latest greatest anything, but rather as a group of people seeking to bring blessing to everyone we can, albeit from the margins.

3.  In a related vein, it's inevitable that there would be a lot of marketing hype and commodification of what we're about.  That's just reality.  I think this is a phase that will come and pass ... and if we can a) not be distracted or enamored by it and b) stay focused on what matters, I think we'll outlast the media/marketing/commodification phase and come to a truly productive phase with broad, broad participation of people working for the kingdom of God through churches, seminaries, parachurch, business, government, the arts, etc., etc.

So, I'm not at all against becoming a movement.  I'm just concerned about timing and about having the right people at the table when we begin moving - the right gene pool, so to speak.  I know this frustrates a lot of people who are in real pain now and wish for solutions immediately.  I'm all for anyone who feels so called to create those solutions as part of the emergent network/conversation/movement/whatever.  But my focus is on the longer-range, wider-scope issues and challenges and opportunities.  I hope that we can have a both/and - some people focusing on practicalities at hand (which are important), and others of us trying to look as far down the road as we can.

I hope that helps.  In the meantime, yes - the model of a professional association or society is a good one.  It's a way of conceiving a form of post-denominational or post-sectarian connectionalism - and it seems to be emerging naturally in many forms, like the Willow Creek Association, the Purpose Driven Network, or Leadership Network.

Perhaps some people will feel called to develop something like that here in the U.S., which could be a good thing.  But I hope that we won't forget that this moment invites us to think more broadly and more long-term as well.

I hope you'll keep working with the society/association model ...let's see where it leads.  Blessings - Brian

Comments

[rick luoni]

Dear Will,

The more I think about a society where ideas are exchanged and there is comrade within Christ’s Body the more I like it.

I am uncertain what Brian meant by emergent or movement. Perhaps EMERGENT is only an EXPRESSION of a MOVEMENT of the Holy Spirit. This is one reason I am reluctant to attempt to define what God is dong.

This movement occurring in parts of the church is a movement of the Holy Spirit that is and has been stirring in the hearts of the faithful for much longer than I have been alive. Many of the conversations I have with folks about what God is doing in the Church and what I yearn for in the Body I have had for 20 years. Much of what I see and hear happening in parts of the church we were doing in our living room 20 years ago. We as a greater body of people are just now being able to communicate and connect in ways that were impossible five years ago. My point is, that what we call “emergent” is perhaps an EXPRESSION of the Spirit's movement within the hearts of the faithful that has been transpiring for years. How do we define God’s activity?

I would consider what many call “emergent” to be an expression of the Holy Spirit’s movement like a rhythmical or metrical structure of a POETIC COMPOSITION, more than an ORGANIZED EFFORT with a common goal. I think of it as GOD as POET—moving, stirring, creating, arranging like a symphony with rhythm and cadence versus a campaign, drive, lobby, or organized shift.

The idea of a society (or unbroken circle) exploring and sharing God’s poetry in the lives of the faithful is a wonderful idea. I too want encourage you to explore this concept.

In Christ,
Rick

[will]

Since these are Brian McLaren's thoughts and not mine, I can comment on them first (smile). Here are some observations:

I really like the progression from A-E. I think this is a great framework and, further, I think that Brian and others have placed themselves way out on front here by constructing a truly global context. Interestingly, though, I also think for many in the emerging conversation this has been the progression of thought on a personal level. It certainly has been mine. When I became re-engaged in the church I started by asking questions unique to that local congregation (A). Grappling with those issues help me to understand that I was not alone in dealing with the same issues (B). Next, people like McLaren and Bill Easum, as well as the writings of Bosch, Newbigin, Charles Kraft's earlier work and many others help me questions my assumptions about culture and ecclesiological structures (C). Questioning dogma and culture has allowed me to be open to other things God might be up to, including addressing issues that are not on the "accepted cultural issues" list of my upbringing but find resonance in the prophetic words of Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, et. al. (D). Finally, as you address these issues within the story of God you realize that we are all knit together into Christ's Church, and that developing a vision for our individuals churches cannot be a separate exercise from developing a "shared vision for the future" for the Church (E).

As an individual I have gotten none of these right. As the Church we will get none right in the near future. But setting a goal of becoming a unified Body once again, well, that's the right goal.

Regarding the P-Q-R framework, I think that all are eqally valid concerns. One nuance I have been focusing to the issue of "theological concerns" is the issue of revelation - how is God revealed? I wonder if a lot of our issues in the North American context don't spring from either a Deistic or a Gnostic understanding of God.

Toward that end, and please forgive me if I am a bit too foundational here, I might suggest that these issues fall along a progression as well, perhaps as Q-R-P. In other words, who is God (Q-theological concerns), what is God up to and how are we to respond (R-practical outworkings) and then what sort of structures should be in place to support that work (P-ecclesiological/methodological concerns). I realize that the issues are more of a "grid" as Brian suggested, but one of my concerns about much of the existing church, across denominational, theological and even racial lines is that they have not begun by thinking about God. Rather, too many have brought long-held assumptions to the question of methodology. If we do not begin by asking questions about God then the questions of ecclesiology and methodology get in the way.

[bob c]

As a phenomenon, it is difficult to see that Emergent has matured enough to go beyond the conversation phase - the individual and small group discovery, unpacking, relearning and the assorted material (books, conferences, PowerPoint) that often accompanies this in our commercialized world.

In Brian's note, he is frank enough to call out the reality that Emergent is still very much at Point B, struggling to even consider the value or viability of moving to C or beyond. This is no doubt an extremely valuable place to be, but it limits the scope of the aspiration one can attach to the phenomenon.

One significant roadblock of professional society is that, at it's core, it has two roles: one is the setting of standards, the other is to ensure compliance with those standards on the part of its members.

I am less clear on the differentiation between association & a conversation - can someone help me out here ?

[Sivin]

I'm following this with great interest and hope to dialogue more from where I'm at. But first off to meet a Seminary principal for dialogue.