Previous Post – Fasting (SOTM Series 10)

Over the last few months at Little Flowers, a few of our members have approached me with an odd question: “Are we an emerging church?”.  My answer was invariably something to the effect of: “That depends on what you think an emerging church is”.  Most of them know that I have been very involved in the emerging/missional church conversation for many years.  They know of my previous involvement with the Emergent Village Coordinating Team and that, while I stepped away from it, I did not reject EV or the emerging church movement.  Recognizing that our church is not “typical”, their question is fair.  In the end, while we don’t identify as an emerging church, we fit many of the characteristics that are used to define one (depending on whose definition you are looking at).  What I can say without any problem is that I owe a great deal to the emerging church for where I am today, both as an individual Christian and as a pastor/missionary.

With all the talk about the emerging church dying (or not), I have wondered if I should weigh in.  Since retiring (e)mergent Voyageur, I have not blogged as explicitly on the topic, but I have always remained involved in the wider conversation, especially where relationships were concerned.  This should not be read as an attempt to distance myself from the emerging church (or Emergent Village), but more to refocus on the areas of interest and calling that formed and grow out of that influence.  While I have openly expressed concerns about aspects of the emerging church & EV, they have not been issues for which I felt any need to denunciate or reject either for.

That being said, I do feel strongly that hard questions need to be asked at this stage.  We have to resist the impulse to defend (at times) in order to recognize the realities we face with honesty and humility- not so that blame or fault can be found, but rather so that maturity, growth and new life can continue to be produced.  Far wiser men and women have weighed in on this topic, so perhaps it is presumptuous of me to think I have any answers, but a few things came to mind as I considered the future of the emerging church.  As I point these out, let me be clear that I am speaking to myself as much as to anyone else.  I owe a great deal to the emerging church and hope this will play some small part in giving back.

Don’t believe your own PR: This first concern is something that I have learned of late from Tiger Woods.  However you want to define success, the emerging church has been more than a minor blip on the cultural screen (as some would suggest).  While it has not nearly reached the influence of events such as the Reformation, neither is it merely a trend or a fad.  The face of Christianity has been meaningfully shaped by the movement, mostly (in my opinion) for the better.  This is something to take joy it!  There is much to be proud of.

The danger, of course, is when we start getting self-congratulatory.  It is so easy for us to get caught up in the prestige of change.  While not inherently bad in and of themselves, publishing deals and speaking engagements can begin to make us quite fond of ourselves and our accomplishments.  The danger is when this becomes a pride that can blind us from our own capacity to make real mistakes, something that should be expected in all situations, especially around new ideas and practices.  Even our bad press can feed this pride, not unlike the isolated fundamentalists who call themselves the “remnant”.  Without question, a significant dynamic of the emerging church is a critique of what is and has been.  The pride and entitlement that results in believing our own PR can sometimes make us become the very things we are seeking to change.

Please understand that I am not calling all (or even most) emerging church folks arrogant or prideful.  I am consider myself part of that community, so that would be as much an indictment of myself as of anyone else.  Rather, I am saying that we need to be very mindful of our own capacity to miss this subtle poison in the midst of the excitement and community of the emerging church.  We need to be our own critics, constantly examining for the “logs in our eyes”.  When I attempted to do this in the past, I faced open hostility from some, as though I had betrayed my loyalty to the movement.  We must be willing to acknowledge our failings, both personal and collective.  There is too much at stake to ignore.

Don’t forget your roots: With the “success” of the emerging church (as described above), the zeal to grow and expand is enormous.  Be it ideas or influence, the creativity of the people involved is fuelled by a passion that seems unstoppable.  This zeal and passion is a good thing, not to be discouraged or quenched.  By like anything of power, its power needs to be tempered and channeled appropriately.  Like a tomato plant, we need to intentionally “prune” our growth to allow the healthiest sections to produce the best fruit, not just a large amount of fruit that lacks over all quality and health.  This is discipline of nurturing the roots before the fruits is one that will frustrate our desire to see more.

The danger here for the emerging church is that “more” is often equated with “good”.  When we let this happen, the need for bureaucracy becomes too demanding.  While this kind of organization is not bad in and of itself, in excess it can serve as a warning that we are biting off more than we should chew.  It is here where the ideals of community/horizontal leadership are functionally challenged by an increase in “experts” and hierarchical leaders.  Money becomes a greater need, often colouring the ideals and the intentions the movement was founded on.  This is a direct result of buying into our own PR.

Seeing this, it is critical that we are willing to ruthlessly prune our activities and focus in order to best serve the greater good.  That will inevitably mean cut out many very good things in favour of the potential for the best things.  How do we know which are which?  This takes time, caution, discernment and grace.  However, one key is looking back to what birthed the movement in the first place, what made it the best of what it is.  Those are the roots that need to go deeper and broader.  Then, and only then, can more growth occur.  This is critical for the emerging church in all its expressions.

Don’t ignore the warning signs: When we experience quick growth and expand too quickly, we inevitably will start making mistakes.  However, true to human nature, we are more likely to minimize the failings and over-state the successes.  While not wise or healthy, it is at least understandable.  We are deeply and personally invested into all of this.  As one significant emerging church leader once told me, criticisms of the movement feel like criticisms of who we are.  Even more so, he felt them to be attacks on the people, the friends he loves.  We need to be loyal, passionate and willing to defend what we believe in.  The danger, however, comes when this loyalty blinds us from legitimate problems.

The impulse, when faced with problems or failures, is to look outside ourselves to lay blame.  I do not deny that there are very real external forces that, intentionally and unintentionally, work against what we are called to be.  However, to deny our own weaknesses is a death sentence to real growth and life.  Again, we must become the most adept and honest with our weaknesses.  We must resist the impulse to defend at all costs.  Honesty and humility will not only be our greatest gift to ourselves, but it also has the added bonus of beating our critics to the punch.  Like any and every expression of faith, the emerging church is just as prone to weakness and failing as any other.  As a relatively young expression, it is, perhaps, more prone.
It is a good thing to be loyal and passionate about what we believe and the people with whom we build communities of faith.  This should not be undervalued.  However, the community that Christ calls us to is one that is daily taking up the cross because there is daily need to do so.  This is a grace, not a judgment, and it is critical for the emerging church to embrace, especially now at this stage of its maturity.

Don’t Get Distracted: Eventually, the warning sign and the realities of the risks will be too hard to ignore or minimize.  When this happens, our impulse is to look for an easy fix, which could range from a new leader (or total shift in leadership models), new ideas, new programs, new language, etc.  As with all the things stated above, these are not inherently bad things, just dangerous when they are grasped as a means to overcome the challenges.  It is too easy to convince ourselves that, if we just make the next significant breakthrough in understanding or practice or publishing or debate, we will beat the problems and emerge on top of our game again.  This is just an empty hope.

In all the points I have listed so far, I believe this one is the most critical.  I believe that the emerging church will see a renewal of momentum and impact if they can discern and resist this pattern.  This is not to say that there is no momentum or impact as it is.  While harder to define because of its amorphous, decentralized nature, the emerging church is very much alive and well.  However, the need to be intentional about the way forward has never been more critical.  We must embrace what Peter Drucker and Peter Senge call the practice of “systematic planned abandonment”- that is a consistent commitment to evaluate everything we are doing and abandoning anything that is not where we are strongest (which will include many things that are essentially good).

I think the emerging church needs to place a great deal of emphasis on being characterized as a humble movement.  The challenge with this is that it requires admission of failure, intentional reduction of activity/focus and a return to that which is at our core.  It is most difficult because we that our critics will use this as ammo against us.  We must be willing to face such treatment if it means it will bring life to the movement and those involved.  Further, we must be willing to reduce the number of conference, programs, book deals, etc. throughout this process.  Again, this will be used as a proof that the movement is dying.  I see this already happening, which is promising.  I hope we can continue to do so with more intentionality.

Don’t give in to “Post” syndrome: While I understand that words are important to help us understand meaning and identity, I must admit that I am tired of the prefix “post-”.  For people both within and without the emerging church conversation, there is too quick an impulse to say that we are “post-emerging” or “post-emergent”.  I am fine if people choose to give up on certain language or formal participation in an expression, but more often than not their use of “post-” says more about where they are at than where the movement is at.  If we believe in the emerging church, then we should not be too concerned with being “successful” or the “in thing”, but rather that we do very well that which we know we can do very well.  While many of us would say that we are not into being the “next big thing”, I think honest reflection will tell us that it still has a great appeal and temptation.

The fact is that the emerging church is neither dead nor irrelevant.  No, neither is it perfect or even of primary importance to the Church.  To make either claim is wrong and dangerous.  The emerging church will continue to play an important role in the Body of Christ, especially in Western Christianity.  It will be messy, ill defined and be called many things in its life time.  It is far too early to give up or move on.  Yes, we need abandon aspects of it, even repent of some things.  No, it won’t always look the same and can’t be identified by a singular group or organization.  But neither is irrelevant.

I think, in part, some of this shift within the emerging church is born from disappointment.  Many people involved have become disillusioned by the movement not becoming what they hoped it would become.  While understandable, I think we need to be as critical of our expectations as we are of the results of the movement thus far.  There are many voices that need to return to the conversation, even if that means being judge “guilty by association”.  Perhaps I am to blame for this failure too.

From all of these points, you may have noticed a trend.  Without question I believe, to a degree, that the emerging church needs to go back.  We need to return to the sparks that first lit this fire in our hearts.  We need to feed those initial embers, resisting the impulse to let the fire burn wildly in all directions.  While it might be spectacular to begin with, it will ultimately be destructive and short-lived. While we resist the the limits of boundaries (and often with good reason), I believe that we must place limits and patience at the heart of what we do.  And like a fire, rather than quench it, those very boundaries can serve as a means to harness it for specific purposes and direction.

I acknowledge that I have written in generalities here.  There is much I still need to unpack.  I also acknowledge that this is just one facet of the bigger issue.  I make no claims that this is “the” answer.  However, I believe that there are some critical keys above that, should we intentionally embrace them, could bring new life into the emerging church and into the wider Body of Christ.  I would love to hear your thoughts, so please weigh in.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 at 3:14 pm and is filed under Church Planting, Community, Missional, church, emerging church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.