Emergent as a Society - Part Two

One of my new favorite bloggers is Steve Bush, someone who has spoken powerfully and well about the shortcomings of the Emergent conversation. In today's post he lists the discussions he has had on the topic. Check out: "We're not ready for a movement yet"

As Steve has done in other posts, he asks questions about the best place to start. Here is an example: "Leaders or churches? Do you start with leaders in conversation and hope that change filters down to the churches? Or do you start with churches-in-action so that other leaders can have practical, concrete models to observe?"

My answer - both. Here is what I worry about: I have been involved in established churches and I have been involved in church plants. In both cases there was a tendency to become inward focused and self-referencing. Whether congregations eventually develop theology and praxis which is contextual is often, sadly, exclusively a function of the woman or man who happens to be leading that congregation. This can be true for independent or denominationally sponsored churches equally. I agree with Brian McLaren's analysis that Emergent is not ready to be a movement yet. But there must be some group of people that stands in the gap and actually helps people think about doing theology and praxis together in way that is contextual to both the local setting and to that congregation's place within the catholic Church. Perhaps, as seemed to be suggested, a society could assist during that transition phase.

I still think that the conversational elements are good. Many are still coming in to the conversation for the first time and, for them, certain basic issues are fresh. We need people who can be excited about reinvigorating followers of Jesus in their faith, an attitude that I fear is being lost in the Emergent conversation for lack of tending*. But we also need to move along and think about how to support the churches that want to model these values. Those churches will need someone outside of themselves who can think about bigger issues and confront them with those issues. I wonder if some sort of society model could do that.

* (My favorite "love the church" book this year was Generous Orthodoxy, well worth the read.)

Comments

[Steve B]

Will, this is all great and extremely perceptive. I agree with a great deal of it. However, I can't agree that conceiving emergent as a society is the next step. Professional societies, to my knowledge, are always a subsequent step to the origination and development of the practices of the profession. I know that this is true in my own case, the American Academy of Religion. First came the religion departments, then the society. (Then more religion departments.) It's hard for me to picture any professional field arising after a society. In other words, first came Willow Creek, then Willow Creek Association.

Here as elsewhere, my consistent drumbeat is first to throw primary energies into establishing the ecclesial practices (and nothing is more important than to realize that ecclesial practices are different from and infinitely more significant than leadership practices) and then start the formal evaluative "conversation," critique, analysis, society, order, etc. Or at the least, the conversations, societies, books, conferences, and blogs will only have so much steam to run on until the ecclesial practices are in place and public to a sufficient degree.

"But we also need to move along and think about how to support the churches that want to model these values." Yes! But for me, the only thing that will support churches that want to model the values is to have observational access to churches that ARE modelling these values. As much as I think Willow Creek is the apostasy of all apostasies, this is definitely how they grew into a movement. 1) they established the "ecclesial" practices, the practices were visibly "successful," and 2) then they started conversing, societing, conferencing, publishing, etc.

[Steve B]

Oh... and... thanks for the compliment! I wholeheartedly return it: I am enjoying your blogging and the perspective that lays behind it very very much!

[Zossima]

Steve, yes! Inside-out. Bottom up. At the same time, perhaps there is space for somebody with Brian's profile to bring the inside-out and bottom up that is happening locally around the world together.

If I could identify any organization as a "model" for this, I'd point to Visa. You can check out Dee Hock's (first chairman of Visa who grew it into the powerhouse that it is) thoughts on what he calls "chaordic organizations" at http://www.chaordic.org/.

But let's be clear: the conversation is just freakin' dragging because it is so nebulous. As I visit blogs, I see the same old topics being rehashed, frequently around the gospel and the nature of salvation. And everytime someone new visits an emergent blogger, they've got to rehash the same old stuff. There has to be some attempt to establish boundaries.

I think another reason the conversation is dragging is that we're--and this is certainly a reason for me--so enculturated to our society's scarcity mentality (gotta work to eat) that we're unwilling to just go out there and start what we're talking about. Part of our theological discussion has to be to explore the possibility that if we'd just go do good that God would provide for us.

The conversation can move on when the ecclesial praxis actually does.

[rick luoni]

Dear Will,

One of the questions I have is who defines our culture? Do leaders define what the "culture" of the church is going to be or are we defined by the culture?

Much of what we believe and how we understand God is through our particular culture. Notice how we define ourselves and the particular culture you find yourself.

I am not certain that the "emergent church" is one particular culture with a set of norms, beliefs, and ethnicity, and language. (I see many folks attempting to do this which is scary.) I think there are many people who no longer hold the beliefs, behaviors, and values of the dominant culture from where they are emerging. There may be similarities, but there are vast subsets of norms, beliefs, and values within the movement. While many may exist within a particular grid, there are various quadrants within the grid. Sometimes these quadrants run in opposite directions within the grid, such as N&S versus E&W.

I think there is some risk associated with attempting to "define" the emerging culture. Part of my concern is when we begin to define a work of the Holy Spirit we risk putting God in a box and could hinder and limit what God is able to do as a result.

There is a tremendous risk attempting to determine what should be held sacred. For as you clearly articulated, often the voice we hear is the dominant voice of the leader which determines what the core group values. While I like the idea of a society where we exchange ideas, etc. I am not comfortable with a society who defines the shape of the culture.

One final thought. Rarely do I hear any thoughts or concerns about "what does God want?", which is really all discernment is attempting to discover-- what does GOD WANT?. It seems much of the conversation is about what WE WANT. All discernment, (yes all) is only for the NEXT STEP.

God's peace,
Rick

[Jeremy]

Hey Will ... I'm glad Steve B. asked the question about leaders v. churches: I agree that the Emerging Worldview can be best facilitated through a two-way effort between leaders and churches. I, for one, remain excited, as my evangelical roots would suggest, about "reinvigorating followers of Jesus in their faith." Our small, young church here in the Pacific Northwest is teetering on the brink of collapse. As a lay-member, I'm starting a small group next week that allows young people in our midst -- people in their 20s and 30s -- to talk about the emerging church and today's competing worldviews in the context of their own lives. I am wholly unqualified, but I think that this meeting can breathe lifesaving energy into our church. Please pray for our little church and our little group, Will -- and all you readers, too. Having dialogue about the "Emerging Worldview" within the framework of the church is the best way to change it; that is, from the inside out. Trying to change the church from the outside in would be tantamount to tearing it limb from limb.

I agree that this Emerging Worldview needs protection from those who abhor change. Steve, you say formation of a Society is a "step subsequent to the origination and development of practices ..." and that "establishing ecclesial practices" is an important next step to take before a society is formed. I might be misunderstanding your point, but: What ecclesial practices? I think we can study what Christ did during His time here -- loving, teaching, trusting, praying -- and use the truth of Christ's life as the ecclesial basis for our "Society". After all, what's this all about? Following Jesus and discerning the will of God for His kingdom and our lives, right?

I want to engage my small group in both the global and the local spiritual walk. As the sage advice on the dirty, worn-out bumper sticker goes ... I'll bet you've seen it: Think Globally, Act Locally. If we continue conversing about this Emerging Worldview -- on the internet, at conferences, in books and journals and magazines; and if we dig in locally and interconnect in person and do the work of Jesus (loving, teaching, trusting, praying) -- and do it now! -- then something is under way. Our two-way effort between leaders and churches is under way. So let's get busy.

And with a nod to Rick, who got his message posted before I could finish mine: Maybe our goal with respect to culture should be to let Christ influence our lives to a greater degree than we do the community at large. Christ-culture!

Sorry for such a lengthy post.

[will]

Steve, I wonder if part of the problem is some of our experiences with individuals societies. Let me give some good and bad examples of models. Evangelical Theological Society, Willow Creek Association - bad examples of societies. The ETS is a bad example because it is both bound to a modern, foundationalist paradigm at the same time as being bound to the evangelical academy (no comments allowed about paradoxes like military intelligence!). The WCA is a bad example because, as you properly pointed out, they formed around the issue of praxis. Period. They come from a portion of the church that believes there are few if any significant theological questions to ask, and certainly few contextual theological questions to ask. As a consequence almost all they do is practical.

By contrast, let me provide some good examples. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) or the Project Management Institute (PMI). Both have very strong ties into the academy which enable them to come up with new thoughts and ideas. At the same time these groups are led by individuals who are practicioners in the field, giving them and understanding of the practical implications of the theory. I gave the following example in my original post, but the ACM helped foster the discussion on distributed networking in the early 1950's. This discussion eventually led to the public internet. This, by extension, has had significant ramifications for the practice of technology (how many web designers do you know or have you met?), and the ACM has been there to train individuals to respond. They don't code or configure networking equipment, but they have played a huge role in both shaping theory and in preparing practicioners.

I believe the same could be true for some kind of Emergent society. I have worked in churches. It is hard to keep your head out of ... well, the sand, especially as it relates to thinking theologically. Someone, somewhere, needs to be assisting congregations in doing that. While I might not agree that Willow Creek is the "apostasy of all apostasies", I believe that you properly identified the means by which they formed. The problem is that, by and large, they formed exclusively around praxis without regard to theology. Left to their own that is what most churches will think about. If they have no reason to question theology and mission their mind tend to wander more toward the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy. It seems to me that the reason the WCA succeeded is because they told failing congregations how to get people in the doors and boost the offering.

I have two issues with following your model strictly (I know I am going to get into trouble here; please hear my love for you and for Christ's Church). First, I come from the school of thought that desires to try to redeem our institutions first. I know that you and Tony Jones and others think I am nuts but I don't have a real desire to see a bunch of new churches get started. Within a 10-mile radius of my house there are 9 church plants that I am aware of. Enough already. I was joking with Bill Arnold this morning that maybe we need a church consolidation movement. However, in the spirit of the first thought, I do think that many, if not most, North American churches are not able to make it on their own, and should not. I think that the idea of a group of people going to an area, roughing it, seeing if they can make it, and THEN deciding to become a part of the regional, national and global Church conversation is antithetical to the story of God. It seems to me that is primarily a Western, colonial model that mostly Americans continue to propagate and I think it needs to stop.

[will]

Zossima, I agree. There does tend to be a lot of rehash. I have been thinking a lot about stage theory, so try this on. I wonder if the conversation is stage one, some melding of theology and praxis is stage two and a fully formed ecclesiology is stage three. This is McLaren's A-E in shorthand.

The problem is that the blogosphere is like a big party. Some people have been in the room for a while. They were here when Uncle Phil put the punch bowl on his head two hours ago. And they have heard the recounting of it three times since then. For someone who just arrived it is a great story.

I wonder if the same isn't true for the emergent conversation, at least on the web. This is where I think Steve Bush has it really right. We need to move forward into practice. But we also need to be patient for those just coming in. For them it is vague and ill-defined.

[Zossima]

Jeremy, you have a wonderful opportunity. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. Fall down. Just be conscious to learn from it.

You wrote:
>>What ecclesial practices? I think we can study what Christ did during His time here -- loving, teaching, trusting, praying -- and use the truth of Christ's life as the ecclesial basis for our "Society". After all, what's this all about? Following Jesus and discerning the will of God for His kingdom and our lives, right?

Well, what about feeding the poor and healing the sick as ecclesial practices? What about loving one another to the point of risking security and comfort? Based on much experience and observation, I tell you that your small group will not thrive without these. These practices are not for paid professionals or for those who are "called". They are for the Church. Period. Talk is cheap. What if you guys talked once a month and spent the other three times a month down at the local mission or Catholic Worker? I guarantee you that your understanding of Scripture and common bond will both explode.

Also, I encourage you not to talk much about global stuff. It is overwhelming. What can you or your group do about 100,000 dead people on the rim of the Indian Ocean? Not much. But what can you do for the recovering addict among you? A wonderful whole helluva lot. The problem with thinking globally and acting locally that I see is that the global concerns overwhelm the possibility of global action. Think locally and act locally. Then you will have freedom, authority, and energy to both think and act increasingly globally. So, only talk about global stuff to the extent that it energizes action.

The problem with talking about the emerging church "in the context of their own lives" is that the focus remains individualistic--How does it affect *me*? What does it require of *me*? Again, that keeps emergent as just another consumer church movement. This is the only thing that can separate emergent from evangelicalism. Otherwise, emergent is merely doing church with more candles and louder music.

I know that's a lot of advice from someone you don't know. I hope you can tell the spirit in which it's given. These are a few things I've gleaned over 10 years.

[will]

And Rick and Jeremy, great comments. I would echo both of your thoughts in saying that we need to be looking to see what God is doing in our local culture. I am a big proponent of contextualization. The only modifier I would add is that we need to be conscious of what context means in a world where I regularly email people in Asia, have been employed by European companies and have my blog posts googled by people in South America and Poland, all without leaving tiny little Harford County, Maryland.

[Zossima]

Will, I agree that it is important to move forward into practice. To me, the distinguishing aspect of emergent is (if it is to be successful) going to be entire local churches engaged in communal and missional activity (deliberately leaving those terms vague for now). The style of worship is peripheral. The way in which the Sunday sermon is conducted (didactic versus conversational) is peripheral. So, then, how to go forward with an emphasis on the communcal and missional so as to avoid the trap of getting overly focused on and entrenched in the peripheral?

The peripheral might have a high degree of surface success--ie., attract a lot of people who are at least willing to talk about the communal and missional. But putting the peripheral first, temporally and primarily, is dangerous, as it carries the threat of creating not an 'emergent' church but a 'seeker-sensitive' church.

If I ever do this (house church, cell church) again--and deep down I know I will; it's just a question of when and where--it will be something like what I sketched in my post to Jeremy above.

[Jeremy]

It's funny, the overlapping timing of these comments! Thanks, everyone, for your encouragement. Great advice, well taken.

Blessings,
Jeremy

[bob c]

Emergent (particualrly in the U.S.) is still extremely nascent - what value would a society or association superstructure give to this ?

[Steve B.]

Will, thank you. You've given me much to think about, and I'll be chewing on your informed, sensible suggestions for some time.

Here's a couple initial responses: I'm not opposed to redeeming existing institutions, but I'm sceptical that that process will happen with any success in the absence of the existence of exemplary, paradigmatic existing models that are embodying the theology that emergent leaders endorse. These models should: a) have defined a standard of success/flourishing/faithfulness and be achieving it to a significnat degree; b) make explicit what features of their practices and theologies deserve the label "emergent," that is, demonstrably deviate from existing practices, theologies, and models.

In absence of that, how are we to know which changes to existing institutions are redemptive and which are spurious? How will the congregants of existing churches be motivated to leave the secure and take risks in the absence of any models of success?

I see the starting of new communities and the transformation of existing ones as both necessary, important projects that require each other, but if one had to be prior to the other, I think that either starting new churches (at least enough to provide paradigmatic models) or identifying existing ones should come first, in that that action will significantly expedite the institutional reform process.

I celebrate proliferation, diversity, distinctions, and decentralization, and I fear the drive towards unity-as-uniformity, so I definitely don't endorse consolidation projects. But I don't think everyone needs to reinvent the wheel and then start dialoguing with others. I just want some thick descriptions available of existing, flourishing churches that are embodying emergent theologies.

Oh, and my apostasy remark was serious, but hyperbolic. But I don't think it's the case that mega-churches don't have theological reflection (McGavran, Fuller Seminary, what's-his-name who is willow creek's resident theologian), I just think I disagree with the theology they endorse, and more specifically, their missiology. In any case, implicit theology is more consequential than explicit, and they certainly have an implicit theology.

[Steve B.]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that all of my concerns about emergent boil basically down to this one point, from my immediately previous comment:

"the absence of the existence of exemplary, paradigmatic existing models that are embodying the theology that emergent leaders endorse. These models should: a) have defined a standard of success/flourishing/faithfulness and be achieving it to a significnat degree; b) make explicit what features of their practices and theologies deserve the label "emergent," that is, demonstrably deviate from existing practices, theologies, and models."

Not that this isn't happening at all (Solomon's Porch comes to mind as perhaps the closest example of this), but it's not happening enough to give "emergent" enough clarity to be helpful.

[rick luoni]

I imagine if we all joined an urban church on the east side of town, that most of this talk of the "ec" would end. I think Zossima nailed it when he said,"Well, what about feeding the poor and healing the sick as ecclesial practices? What about loving one another to the point of risking security and comfort?"

God peace and blessings,
Rick

[will]

To answer all of the comments from Bob forward, my analysis of the problem is the same, I just perceive there to be a need for something in the middle. Here's the concern I have. We are all unusual. Personal looks aside (smile), just by virtue of the fact that we are here reading blogs and commenting and carrying on this conversation makes us different. Most woman and men involved in the work of the church are beat up and beat down. Steve, I agree that Solomon's Porch is a paradigmatic model. And so are some others. I have two problems here. 1) There are not enough Doug Pagitt's or Karen Ward's to go around, people who can start these kinds of paradigmatic churches. 2) What do we do with the huge group of people in the middle in the meantime?

The problem with the notion of "just feeding the poor and healing the sick" is that it is not happening. See point #1 above. Whether in independent church plants or denominational churches, there is not enough gospel activity happening. Someone has to stand at a meta-level and prophetically challenge our congregations to live out the whole of God's story.

[lisa]

Rick, you wrote:

"I imagine if we all joined an urban church on the east side of town, that most of this talk of the "ec" would end."

With all due respect, and I mean that, should we let the people in the suburbs just go to hell? Do they not deserve to witness gospel living because they have nice cars and enough heat? Aren't they just as spiritually impoverished (if not more so)?

Why the either/or? Why urban cool?

[Steve B.]

Will, I'm in agreement with your comment above. But isn't the emergent "conversation" meeting the needs you specify that a society should meet? In other words, when you have time, could you spell out more precisely the institutional and organizational formats a society would take? The institutional and organizational formats that the "conversation" exists in include: books, conferences, seminars, blogs, websites, e-mails, and even gasp! person-to-person interaction. All of this seems to me to serve a necessary but insufficient role.

My whole point is that the conversation, as essential as it is, will fail to produce anything worthwhile in the absence of existing paradigmatic churches. I'm sceptical that the conversation in and of itself will produce the paradigmatic churches. So it seems like a huge priority of emergent leadership should be to put significant resources (and by resources I primarily mean time) into solving the problem you identify as (1) above (not enough paradigm-church starters). It's not that there aren't people with the talent and ability to do so, it's that they aren't doing so, and perhaps don't have the skills. Those issues call for strategic attention, and I think the "conversation" will suffer and perhaps flounder in the meantime, but that isn't to say it should stop.

So I'm proposing a two-pronged approach: 1. continue conversation, basically as is, and 2. devote intentional activity towards creating, publicizing, and networking paradigm churches. How does a society fit into that, if at all? What would be the institutional and organizational differences between a society and the present "conversation"?

[rick]

Hi Lisa. Thanks for you comment. Speaking as someone who left his business to attend seminary so that I could develop churches I can relate to where you are coming from. I have a passion for the Gospel and especially for folks like me. I live in the top 10 zip code in the United States. I live in a small town just north of SF,CA. Carlos Santa, Sean Pean, George Lucas, among many others are my neighbors. (none, btw way know I am their neigbor-- smiling)

My point is that I am surrounded by wealth. Yes we rich white folks (and I am not in their league in any way) are very spiritually impoverished and need the gospel, but for many of us who have escaped the urban jungle and moved into the suburbs have the luxury of pontificating about what the church should be versus many living in very extreme environments don't have the time to talk about church and write about church, they need the church now.

I worked as a chaplain at a SF hospital and also with street heroin addicts in a methadone clinic. (i wouldn't call it urban cool, however) Never once did we discuss the "emergent church" and what we need to do about saving the church. Theology wasn't something we discussed or argued, it was something we lived to stay alive, not to make us feel secure; reduce our stress from our busy lives; and keep us out of hell. So yes, I imagine if we all joined an urban church on the east side of town, that most of this talk of the "ec" would end because we'd be too busy living the gospel and much less worried about our expression. I believe this with all my heart.

As far as us rich white folks in the suburbs who love to "church shop" like we do for good sushi restaurants. Where we often reduce to the Gospel to feeling good and being nice to strangers and remaining patient in traffic. Yes, we need the need Jesus as well. So no, I don't think we need to let the suburbs go to hell.

Thanks for you question. I JUST had the same conversation with my wife tonight at our favorite sushi restaurant. :)

Rick

[karen ward]

hi everyone,

to any short list of 'paradigmatic' emergent communities, (beyond coffee and candles, cool hair and music, but practicing real emergent life and theology) please add jacob's well church, kansas city (pastor tim keel). tim is one of my 'heroes' and one of the finest emergent pastors on the planet (next to mark pierson in auckland).

i think that 'practicing' communities are where the 'rubber hits the road' with emergence. we do need more incarnate models, as emergence can be caught as well as taught, but learning 'takes' by engaging with those who practice. it is the oldest 'model' for teaching there is.

'the way to learn grasshopper,' is to experience, live, and exchange and dance (pericoresis...). so come hang out, visit, pilgrimage... pray, eat, laugh, work, live life (even for a few days or a week) with those who are practicing whatever you want to learn, and you will be well on your way learning those practices yourself.

we have folk visiting (days to weeks) little church of the apostles all the time, from everywhere from australia to london to hawaii. we feel it is core of our small monastic 'apostolate' to host these emergent pilgrims and visitors, and as more of these apostolic visits happen (to places like solomon's porch, jacobs well, apostles, and others... emergence will spread naturally and incarnationally.

in a few weeks, we will host two brits from a mission agency.
we will not lecture to them on emergence or give them a brian mclaren book to read (maybe as a gift when they leave ;-) instead, they will 'do what we do' for two weeks, including going with us to the emergent convention in san diego, sleeping with us on the parish hall floor of st. james by the sea episcopal in la jolla, coming back with us, working in our tea lounge serving tea (we are excited to have six brits coming this year, a real plus to lend some class to a yankee tea lounge!) they will playing music with us, hash out theology over local microbrews with us, eat our beloved salmon with us, go to neighborhood meetings with us, go meet our bishops, pray the daily office with us... hang out and help us assist our local homeless, help us plan and lead worship... just share and shape life with us while they are here.

we have a small guest apartment (for 2-3 emergent pilgrims) that keep above our cafe storefront (which is very hard on our meager budget) but with our nu monasitc bent, this is a great way we can do our bit to pass on the 'practices of emergence' we are trying to live.