Emergent As A Society?

Bill Arnold started the ball rolling with this post. Dave Paisley commented. Karen Ward today furthered the idea. So what's the idea? Well let me start with some background.

Many have come to the emergent conversation from disparate parts of the Church. Some of these are asking, in the famous words of Gertude Stein, "Is there any there there?" Frankly, there is not a lot of organization around the emerging/ent conversation. A large part of this is purposeful. Many of those involved in discussing the emerging church in North America have been very influenced by ideas like Wendell Barry's In Distrust of Movements. An even stronger motivation was that many came out of organizations that saw huge amounts of dollars dedicated to sustaining the institution itself. Build a building, hire a staff, create "infrastructure" and large portions of your budget end up being dedicated to the maintenance of that infrastructure, often times in contrast to using those resources to further the original mission of the church.

In Bill Arnold's post he wonders aloud about the skittishness so many feel to emergent becoming a movement. Dave Paisley's comments that perhaps a better approach would be for Emergent to become a professional society. Over the years I have been involved with various societies, including the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Project Management Institute (PMI) and the Association for Information Systems (AIS). I never thought of these as movements, but instead looked to these as professional organizations that could assist me in news ways of thinking about how I engaged my craft. Some truly revolutionary ideas have come out of these groups over the years. The ACM, for example, published early ideas that helped foster the thinking behind distributed networking (in other words, the stuff that lets you read this blog).

Some of the advantages of and/or reasons for becoming a society are:

1. Emergent would have greater flexibility to promote ideas across denominational, racial  and geographic boundaries. The goal of a society is inherently to promote ideas and the practicioners of those ideas. As such the model of a society, being designed to be a crossroads between theory and praxis, may be the best model.

2. Societies are also very good at creating working groups. While some of this can degenerate into academic "echo-chambering", there are some issues that we have to spend more time analyzing, not just talking about. I distinguish the two by saying that conversation is a starting point, but analysis is the middle between conversation and praxis. It is where you come up with ideas that you try out. Somehow we need to find a way to really analyze, apart from the academy and in dialogue with those that are already doing great work in these areas, methods for creating more meaningful practice. While I am sure I miss something (perhaps even something you care deeply about), off the top of my head the issues that  are pressing upon us are:

• Women and Leadership

• Racism and Discrimination

• Acceptance of GLBT individuals

• Breaking Down Traditional East-West Barriers In the Church
  

• Civil Religion, American Deism, Individualism and the  Church

• The Effects of Technology, Capitalism and the Pace of Society on the Church

3. One of the other advantages to being a society is that societies publish. Clearly the emerging conversation has spread because of the changing paradigms of idea transference (think Tipping Point or Cluetrain Manifesto). But it is not like these ideas are the first ones on the block. I just started reading Darrell Guder's book The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Guder has been writing for a while. As I mentioned in a comment this morning, many of us are here because of people like Newbigin or Bosch. This is how it always happens. Ideas get out there, and eventually they create a groundswell. Think Matthew 13. The problem is that  there is, at present, almost no middle ground between the accepted publishing paradigm and the wild west atmosphere of the blogging world. Somehow we need to find a way for people to publish more AND better thoughts. A society could provide the ability to do that.

4. In this era of open source, an open source society is also possible. One of the fears of forming a society is that it feels too institutional - like the types of churches or academic institutions that we are leaving behind. But this is because many of the more academic models can tend to look institutional. Instead, consider the Free Software Foundation. A group with standards and office space, dedicating the idea of developing something killer to give away.

5. Finally, I not sure that the "conversation" dog is gonna' hunt much longer. I like conversation. I love to talk, as those who know me know. And I think we need conversations, particularly as we think about bringing down barriers and restoring relationships, some of which have rifts that precede the Reformation. But we need more than just conversation. But not a movement. So what's in the middle?
   

So, that is my defense of Emergent as a society. Let me know what you all think.

Comments

[karen ward]

hi will, nice to meet you :-)

yes, i agree. i think emergent could prosper as a society because it is not tied to the modern matrix as most academic societies currently are.

so this is a chance to explore 'a new kind of society' (ready to write brian?)
a 'blogsphere linked' 'event and cohort networked,' 'parallel processing' society that is more firefox than explorer, more linux than windows, and more ipod than 8 track.

so in short, we might try our hand at an 'emergent society,' that has resonance with trad. modern eppressions (and can therefore learn from them) but it will differ from them in that our goal will be a new birthing of the 'older idea' of a society but with emergent applications.

[rick luoni]

Will, on my way out the door. I get to play "blogger" for one more minute. A professional organization??? A society? I like that idea.

Can I be on the board or can I help "choose" who is on the board? Seriously. :)

I do have concerns about a select few folks having "control". I "feel" by some in this emerging talk to want to "control" the conversation and definition. That is scary. Let's face it, whatever is happening in the hearts of the faithful is an activity of the Holy Spirit. It seems that there will be those whose voices are excluded. I think there is a tendency to get several "like minded" thinkers together, but if that is the case then the church will never be challenged. We'll end up with 25 "societies" of those who think a like, versus the church being challenged to be the church.

Let's start the board with:

A roman catholic female.
A protestant female
An Anglican female.
A gay dude.
A lesbian.
A straight African american female.
A straight African american male.
A hispanic/latino priest or pastor.

No white dudes allowed in the society for the first five years. We just get to sit back and take notes on how to "emerge". It would certainly look more like "the church" than what you and I are used to. :)

What do you think? :)

In an ironic mood today.

Seriously, I love the concept.
Rick

[karen ward]

well rick, i suppose my current 'seat' on the emergent board is safe in this configuration!

i think we should try to avoid 'by the numbers' modernist style quotas, yet at the same time we must take seriously the incarnation of the Christ and the downward mobility of the gospel 'for all from the least' ('least' in this case being those who in the dominant modern configuration of thing have had less power). - also, i like 'curates' better than board, as board sounds too institutional. we who are in the alt worship wing of emergent community use this word, as it means one who cares for, but does not dominate or overshadow that which is curated. curacy is also a more fem friendly way of leading 'from within the midst'

peace.

[will]

Thanks for the input so far. I definitely think a society could foster the kind of collaboration that exists between conversation and praxis. Like Karen I choke on the idea of a 'by the numbers' approach but since it is you, Rick, I hear your heart and imagine a twinkle in your eye even though we have never met face to face.

One of the interesting elements to the dialogue so far is how it has focused on broadening the conversation. I just started Philp Jenkins' book, The Next Christendom. The global church is far more diverse in so many ways than the North American church. This could perhaps be a way to expand the number and types of voices that are having input into this conversation.

[rick luoni]

Will, my friend, you already know me all too well.(grinning and chuckling out loud.) I was just thinking aloud. Yes, but isn't the concept of society a "by the numbers" approach? I mean, the reality that there is talk about "how to" (fill in the blank) seems to be a "by the numbers" approach. Why not let what is happening thus far continue to emerge into what it is and where the Holy Spirit will take it? Again, I am just thinking aloud AND I like the concept of society, but I must pause to ask the question.

Hi Karen, (it's Rick from SF) Yes, the incarnation as many of us understand incarnation was institiuted by the work of the Holy Spirit, not us humans. So I agree with you, we need to allow the Spirit to continue to give birth to what the Spirit is doing. We just need to "not be afraid" and trust that God can actually pull this off if we remain faithful. Curate? How Episcopalian-- and a tad bit "modern". :) Yes, it means "care of souls". The church could certainly benefit from a few more curates out there. I like your approach. So is it a "rule" in the emergent church that I am not allowed to use the word "board"? Isn't all language metaphor? :)

BTW, to really emerge what do you two think about those who have been in the conversation for several years must step back from the "leadership" to allow for new and "fresh" voices to "emerge" and serve? Jesus only hung out for about 18 months. This reduces the urge for folks to grasp for power and control (look what happened to the Apostles), but would encourage servant leadership. As a matter of fact, why not do away with the "concept" of leader? That seems very modern. No leaders-- just trusted servants...curates... they do not govern (to borrow from AA)but serve. We know what tenure has done to institutions.

Do folks vote in a emergent society? If so, this white dude votes that no whites dude can be a "curate" for the first five years. It is time to step down and allow others to serve and bring a voice from God we haven't heard. Most us white dudes are just evangelicals regurgitating retired mainline modern scholars and we have been in power way too long.

Just having some fun here, but asking questions and thinking aloud nevertheless. Thanks for the comments and topic.

Blessings and Peace,
Rick

[jen lemen]

i like this idea very much. and will, i'll buy you a beer for coming up with that list of our pressing concerns. that rocked.

i think one of the things that keeps things like this healthy is if at least some of the structure is introduced on the front end. not so much an institutional structure, but a structure that would allow for ideas to spread/pollinate like cluetrain. dave p's been talking forever about how to truly open source a conference. it would be interesting to see some of those ideas/values implemented from the get go.

the other thing is making it very clear how a person could participate as a curate and to make those opportunities time-limited, revolving and very open so there isn't so much of a chance for time to make those assignments power positions. (the way emergent is structured now, it doesn't look like anyone is really leaving and that has given a handful of people inordinate amount of influence with no check or balance from anywhere else but the blogosphere)

karen's word curate and the sense around it sounds great to me. and rick's joking (maybe), but it would be interesting to see what happens if this thing could really be grassroots and didn't have to be shaped by the same (white male) voices. would those men do that--stay engaged, but step back from a critical role? things could get very interesting.

another big question is, can interested people envision another path for emergent and watch it actually unfold as a shared endeavor? or is that course already being closely tended by others who alone will decide? i think, will, you are totally right on--that somehow we must bridge the gap between traditional publishing and the blogosphere's unruly say-anything ways.

[will]

Rick, to your comment about the 'by the numbers' approach standing in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit. I wonder if one of our obligations is to faithfully see what God is doing as well as how we might be a part of that work. The scriptural example I always give is Matthew 25, Christ's last sermon. The parable of the talents and the parable of the sheep and the goats were likely delivered in one seemless homily. It seems to me that there is a sense that we need to be faithful stewards so that we can be involved in God's work of serving those most in need. I think that a lot of the Church, particularly the Western Church, is falsely divided into two camps. I wonder if there hasn't always been a sense where being blessed to be a blessing meant tending that blessing. Part of this seems to involve a certain level of intentionality.

[will]

And Jen, I'll take that beer. (-:

I do like the idea of a curate. We have to be thinking in these kinds of terms. One of the least healthy things that has happened in the entire history of the church is that a lot of men have attempted to build 'legacies', which are really just sick ego trips to themselves. The fact that it happens at the hands of white guys here in North America is warped but not new. It has happened in churches across the the theological, denominational and ecclesiological spectrum since the start of the Church. There are some models that are better at keeping this kind of thing in check. But this is why I would never want to see another "movement".

A society, on the other hand, is more like a conversation with a purpose. I believe, as we have all seemed to suggest, it needs to be done organically. But I do think it would be good to create situations where we could increase the 'shared endeavor' aspect of the organization.

Maybe the best metaphor is that of a trellis? There is something wild and organic about the growth of a vine, but without the trellis the vine will just lay on the ground. If we intentionally bring people from across the racial, theological and economic spectrum together, God only knows how they might cross-pollinate. This society could be the trellis to support the growth of the new organisms?

[maggi]

Good thoughts Will. I think I agree with Rick - despite the dangers of tokenism, it would be more healthy than the in-crowd choosing its little group of friends. A deliberate policy of choosing one (or perhaps occasionally two) from such a list would be a good thing; there's also the time-honoured means of avoiding tokenism but limiting the numbers on the board, leaving places on the board unfilled (supposing, for instance, there was no female anglican or white male protestant available). And finally, don't give any of 'em tenure. Two years to sit on the board, then you have to move off for at least three before re-election to the post.

Re. the curate thing - how about a Curator, as in a library or museum. It's the same root as Curate - taking care of - but it implies taking care of a space and some items in possession, in order that the usefulness of the space and the things are maximised for the users of the gallery or library. It would seem more appropriate to me that a Society such as you/Dave Paisley suggest take care of the property (intellectual and otherwise); the cure of souls rightly belongs within the community, not to a professional society.

[will]

Maggi, what you just described (a deliberate policy of choosing people from a variety of places, rotating seats with no tenure) is very similar in concept to the societies in which I have been involved. I wonder if this is a US phenomenon, or perhaps a technical phenomenon? As far as the curate idea, whatever the name, I agree with you. The concept I would like to convey is that of caretaker vs. owner. We need to get away from the idea that we are legacy builders and move toward the notion that we are, in this present age, simply a part of what God is up to.

[rick luoni]

Hi Will,

I agree with you that we need to be intentional. It does appear that MT has made an effort to link the two pericopes together in MT 25. I think this was intentional on the writer's part to link using our talents to serve "the least of these." I also think that perhaps MT may have been speaking for all human in the "last days" account. So the way I inderstand the text is for all humans will be judged by how they served the least of humanity. Our talents are to serve the least of these.

This is where some discussion concerning organization (I am not against it)gives me caution. Are we organizing so we can better use our gifts to serve the "least of these" and help usher in the Reign of God? If we are oragnaizng so that we can better serve humanity then I am all for it. If we are organizing so that a few people can have their ideas published in an article then I am concerned that our motives COULD be misplaced.

Maggi, thank you. I am aware and understand the concern of tokenism. The reason I suggested rotation of servants (not leaders) is for it soon becomes about power and control and not serving the least of these. Are we willing to risk bringing the new voices to the table and allow them equal voice in God's Kingdom; thus far we haven't in th circles I have traveled. I was nearly thrown off Church Council at a particular church for suggesting to include"others".

As far as curate, call it what you want. This is an English term usually reserved for clergy in a parish. Curate means "cure". (It is a dated word in the Episcopal church.) Basically it is currently used to refer to assistant clergy. Historically the congregation has decided who this person was going to be.

If you are looking for a model that has ben extremely effective for the past 65 years and grown throughout the world, you may want to consider AA. God started one of the largest small group ministries in the world with a group of drunks. The church, if humble and willing, could learn a great deal from AA.

Keep shining brother!
Peace,
Rick

[maggi]

Hi back, will - I don't know if it started in teh US or technical places, but the rotating membership of a committee is one commonly used in universities, political parties, school governing bodies and church councils here in the UK too. I think it is a good safety net against one or two voices predominating for whole lifetimes.

Rick - with the curator v. curate thing, I was thinking that curate a) has obvious connections with a particular kind of church, and b) suggests the care specifically of people, whereas Curator, despite the similarity of the word, is generally used about taking responsibility (on behalf of, say, a nation or city) of public spaces and national treasures, works of art, etc; the responsibility being to make them readily and easily available to all people. Therefore might be a more appropriate and user-firendly word in this situation?

[Tim Bednar]

I had a similar discussion a while about about emergent as a 'movement'. This is much better.

I argueed with Alan Creech and others over it, now I do not think I was right. I was just passionate about getting people to actually do something rather than just talk about it.

From my perspective, we just need to let it be what it is...all I see is the eventually of being sucked in to a corporate marketing scheme when it is wanted or not.

[will]

Tim, I agree that a whole lot of talking with no aim is worthless. And you and so many others have been sounding the toll against a "movement" for so long now. But somewhere in between the two should be a place to contemplatively consider ways to more effectively be involved in what God is already doing.

[will]

I thought you all might be interested - I received the following from Brian McLaren regarding Emergent as a movement:
-------------------------------

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

[bob c]

three things fascinate me on this thread:

a conversation with a purpose - the variety of perspectives of what that purpose is (renewal, reform, reboot, reimagine) would be a healthy conversation

rick's insights of looking to what the current conversation views as the margins for leadership - that level of boldness is...well...gospel living. reminded me of nancey wolfe's quote: "There is always the likelihood that any theology that claims to be universal is no more than theology from the particular perspective of those who are in power."

in brian's alphabet soup, sign me up for e & r, which means tapping into conversations that predate ec in the cath & anabaptist threads. one ongoing annoynace for me is the (almost insulting) joy of first discovery that sometimes infects the tunnel vision of ec, inc.

Finally, in terms of nomenclature, i am still grappling with conversation, which I think challenges us to engage. if we look to new models, i'd push toward order (St. Tom's is already moving down this path with http://www.sttoms.net/modules/wfsection/index.php?category=45), with discussions coming from a shared rule of life and accountability & discipline, rather than the pursuit of the new fix for church.

a society - well the caths help us see some of the limitations of that; an association - reeks to me of corporatization

[liz rios]

Hi Will
I think this "society" idea is a good one that needs to be explored further. I as a member of many societies myself feel that it would be easier to gather folks around something like this then to begin the "institutionalization" route. I belief that there would be less administrative overhead and society membership dues could pay for an administrator who can be anywhere in the world who can deal with the details of keeping people informed via the various uses of technology. I also like this idea alot because right now it is so loose and even when invited to join the "conversation" no one really listens or comments for that matter unless they are all talking along the same line. I feel there is no patience for the emerging/ent neophyte and who wants to force their way into a dialogue. With a society set up, you pay your dues (if it will be like most), you get the hook up of when you will receive whatever benefits will be offered and their is a place to gather on the web that is interactive (hopefully). Anyway, I got my mind going here and could write for awhile...but want to let you know I think it would be great!

[liz rios]

I read all the comments after I made mine and wanted to add that I think Brian's points are great as well. I am on the outskirts looking in, I am not "part of" and I honestly do not think most people who are on the fringes looking in can consider themselves part of this thingy (since we can't call it a movement, organization or society just yet). While the natural progression for this will be one day getting organized and marketing the purpose of the "thingy", those who are deeply involved in this conversation do right by thinking more inclusively. I think they do but they don't know how to actually make it so. And in that lies my reason for the consideration of a society makeup. Anyway, buenos dias! I had too much coffee. LOL.

[tony]

Here's what I commented on Bill's blog:

Bill:

I think this is all on the right track, but we've thus far been too much like an academic society, or "guild," in my estimation -- thus the criticism by Steve Bush that we've become the "Emergent Book Club." If professional "society" or academic "guild" has sufficient attention to praxis, then I'm all for it. If it means holing up in a hotel ballroom and reading papers to each other, then forget it.

Marx's final thesis to Feuerbach: "The philosophers have interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it."

Tony

[will]

Tony, one of the reasons I think the society model could work is precisely the issues you mention here and Steve Bush has so effectively hit upon in his recent posts.

When I attend an ACM seminar I don't think of the lecturers performing the work of application development. But I am not likely to sign up for a seminar from someone who has no in-field experience on the topic. I go there to learn at the crossroads of theory and praxis, usually from individuals who also live in that nexus.

I think the same could be true for a society. I like what Brian had to say, and so perhaps the society is not the end game. But somewhere between only conversation, which is necessary, and only practice, which can be self-referencing after a time, is the need for a moderator. That is the role I can see for this society.

[Steve B]

Just to clarify: when I called emergent a "glorified book club" I didn't mean that as a condemnation at all. I like book clubs, and the books (mostly McLaren's) give some center to an otherwise completely chaotic conversation. My point was just to say that while a book club is necessary, it is not sufficient. But I don't think supplementing that with a "society" is the answer. I think a visible network of functioning, viable congregations that actually subscribe to the theology that McLaren is endorsing (as opposed to the majority of self-identified emergent communities) is what I would be excited to see.

Will, thanks so much for these posts. I find them very thought-provoking and I'll definitely be chewing on this for awhile.
Will, thanks so much for posting this

[bill]

Coming in to this a little late but here's my two cents... I like the word phenomenon best when describing emerging church. An attempt to organize and propagate what is going on may be legitimate but the truth is that something broad and diverse is already happening. I think you could have a society but when you organized it wouldn't take long to see which parts of the emerging phenomenon weren't comfortable with it. In other words, I think the next attempt to organize, regardless of the concept, will invariably reduce it. This is not necessarily a bad thing but at that point it would likely not be accurate to consider that thing an adequate representation of emerging church.

[Karen]

Sorry, coming in kind of late. From where I sit inside the seminary bubble where all is very conventional and hierarchy-oriented, this is an exciting and refreshing conversation.

I love the idea of curacy. At first to my Episcopal ears it has the ring of "junior priest" who does all the s**t work somewhere until they prove themselves worthy of getting a "better" position, but used in the context that Karen proposes the implication of ongoing care and servanthood eclipses the notion of climbing the corporate church ladder. It kind of sounds like what we're really talking about is diakonos, that ground-level place where the gospel manifests itself beyond theory and discourse. I'm still struggling with how my sacramental theology might fit in to the emergent conversation but I'm grateful to see expansion beyond a strictly evangelical model.

If you need a lesbian for curacy, I'm available. :)