Well, there’s a kid on the blogk at Emergent.ca, where there’s now somebody home. It isn’t obvious if this is a new kid on the blogk or one who’s been there a while. I’ll warn you now, this is a lengthy post… bit I’ve provided a few images to help distract the reader and break up the tedium. Onward, then. Emergent-Canada (Emergent.ca) is starting to organize from the looks of things, and it’s being discussed at Emergent-Voyageurs, and being announced and linked to by the Tall Thin Kiwi before being reflected upon by Robbymac and commented upon by Len Hjalmarson. Naturally, Jordan Cooper has published his thoughts as well (link seems to be to a second response, an earlier version having apparently been pulled), since people immediately started bugging him for comment on behalf of Resonate as soon as the Emergent.ca questionnaire appeared online. Note most or all of the foregoing links have comments and discussion following the posts; I’ve placed some thoughts into that discussion and of course into analog conversations while I’ve attempted to formulate a more thorough opinion. To be honest, I was somewhat concerned I would hastily say something unhelpful that I’d come to regret if said publicly. For having waited, I am glad… I hope it makes me look more intelligent than I really am.
Lots of things have been said within my earshot, and I’ve said a lot of things as well. In the interest of keeping everything relatively open, here is a paraphrased sampling in no particular order of sentiments that have been expressed:
- Emergent.ca? Who are these guys? Their blogs are mostly just announcements of events for their community… where’s the conversation?
- Lambrick? Isn’t that a megachurch? Not very emerging-sounding…
- A survey? How modern of them. Are they going to tabulate the results and organize all of us?
- Brian McLaren “handed them the ball”? Who says Brian had the ball to begin with?
- What’s wrong with just promoting Resonate, and everyone getting involved there?
- Why do we need an American franchise?
- Isn’t it a little early to talk about fundraising when nobody knows what the organization looks like or what if any expenses there are?
- Friendship should be free, and let donations be donations (if we’re going to talk about fundraising).
- Isn’t this a little out of the blue?
- Who’s on this list of 350 people, anyway? I don’t think I’m on it…
- How are a couple of pastors on “The Island” going to understand the nature of what’s going on on the prairies, let alone “down east” in TO or in “La Belle Province” or the Maritimes?
- Who’s Jordan Cooper? Who’s Brian McLaren, and what’s “Emergent” anyway?
That last one just to illustrate that not everyone is paying attention to the conversation in the same way, even if they are living out emerging/missional values… but it is an honest question from some quarters. I must admit to sympathizing with and/or saying some (or many) of these over the weekend, but I’d like to re-adjust things a little and see where we’re at now and where to go from here. Don’t worry if it sounds bad in the middle somewhere, it’s going to come out happy and cooperative. So here we go again, in some vague order at best:
- Firstly, to Simon Goff and Randy Hein (though it’s mostly Simon we see commenting all of a sudden!), we want to welcome you to the conversation. We recognize that you may feel you’ve been involved all along, since your “Shifting Realities” conference was back in 2003. To us in the blogosphere though, we feel we haven’t heard from you since the conference — which I myself and I’m sure many others heard about for the first time just now. Most of us feel we don’t really know you yet, but as they say on The Dukes of Hazzard, “A stranger’s just a friend you haven’t met yet!”
- Simon, we’ve seen your contact info on the Emergent Village website for some time now, but had gotten to wondering why nothing had been said or done about it… it looked a bit odd that there was only one church in Canada listed and not one that we immediately thought of as emerging. You’ve already talked about this a little bit, so there’s not much point belabouring it. Since others have been engaged already, it would have been nice not to delay the conversation until your particular local church was ready for it (unless I misunderstand what you’ve said), but now that it’s getting started, we’re glad that it is.
- We’re pretty sure you don’t mean it this way, but to say that Brian McLaren “handed you the ball” sounds like some kind of divine heirarchical appointment. We’re sure Brian didn’t mean it this way either, we figure he just said, “Well, go and organize, sombody’s got to do it — grab the ball and run with it!” which doesn’t come over quite the same way. Like I said, we’re sure you don’t mean it like that, but when it started pushing buttons, some of us were tempted to think the worst.
- We’re glad that during the “quiet period” since your conference up until now, Resonate was formed and began taking up something more like a wider national conversation than we’ve seen so far. They’ve been at it a while (a year or more?) and are doing a pretty fair job of it — we want to wish them well with their new journal. We also want to affirm that we don’t see them being replaced or superseded anytime soon. We think Resonate has its own unique spot to fill.
- Speaking of Resonate, we want to thank those guys for their contribution as well. I myself have never been contacted by them, but nor have I gone out of my way to contact them to be listed as a regional contact person or get them to link my blog (maybe I should). The closest I’ve come is commenting on and linking to Jordan’s and Len’s blogs… not the same thing. Sheesh, even with bullet-points I digress! Although there are regional contacts listed on Resonate, I see that most of its members are in the Saskatoon area, and there’s a lot of conversation between them… for this reason I personally see Resonate as being more regional, even though they’ve made an attempt to foster national conversation. And good on them for it, too.
- Let’s talk. Simon, Jordan, Len, Rob, Jamie, and others… let’s have a few conversations via email or conference call or whatever works, and plot something. We want to pitch in and row together (the rowing image is just for Jamie the voyageur). The questionnaire is a good start, but we’d like to see something more organic, where we can interact a bit more, and let that drive things rather than the questionnaire only. (For my part, I look at the questionnaire and want to add a comment, qualifier, or explanatory remark for almost every line!) Perhaps we can lay some groundwork and lead up to an in-person meeting.
- I kept saying “we” but I could be speaking only for me… others whose voices I’ve been hearing for the past several days may chime in of their own accord at this point. I do think we’re in general agreement on the foregoing though.
- There are already some recognizable national emerging church voices, and perhaps these could be surveyed directly to solicit their input and see if they would participate on a leadership level. I’m thinking here of Jordan Cooper, Rob McAlpine, Len Hjalmarson, Pernell Goodyear, Darryl Dash, Mike Todd, and others. Hint: the ones already talking probably care enough to get involved.
- I would like to solicit the advice of guys like Jason Clark in the UK about how they relate to Emergent-US. I know there was discussion about the whole franchising and branding and identity things, so I think it behooves us to consider the experience of those who have been through this before, and see what wisdom we can glean from the process.
- I’d like to know what’s up with Emergent in Australia. Like Emergent Canada, there’s nothing but a contact email address, and in Australia there is already another identifiable group that’s is rather emerging and would be considered Emergent-friendly… namely, Forge. There was a recent toe-stepping and makeup dance that we all remember, but I’d like to hear from the folks at Forge… what is the perceived place for Emergent Australia when Forge is already in place? Are there parallels for us with Emergent.ca and Resonate?
- I’ve talked elsewhere about regional differences in Canada. We’ve got a huge geography that sometimes the Europeans don’t grasp, with some cultural differences that can be much more pronounced than moving between most American states. For those who don’t quite get the picture, take note that the town of Kenora, Ontario was recently talking about seceding from Ontario and joining Manitoba — largely because of such differences (they’re 1800KM from Toronto and 200KM from Winnipeg). In order to recognized this, should we perhaps have regional groups that relate together on a national level?
- Someone sagely observed in analog conversation on the weekend that the picture in Canada will look more like Australia than like the USA. Something in my gut agrees with this completely… but is it actually true, and if so, how should we reflect it as we seek to broaden the conversation to the national level? (To flesh this out, it probably means missional-emerging rather than emerging-missional, and more house/simple church than megachurch… but in saying that, we might admit that in Toronto or Vancouver, it could be more American than Australian.)
- Regarding the whole question of franchising, branding, and sleeping with an elephant… Canada does have a bit of a complex about being closely tied to all things American. In some respects we need to get over it, but in this respect I think we need to consider it to some extent and allow it to be what it is. I think that regional groups would facilitate this, and whatever Emergent-US is or does, Emergent.ca could be a bottom-up group with its own national identity. If there’s a perceived threat in adopting the name, I think we could still happily claim friendship with Emergent-US even if we ditched the Emergent name.
I’ll say it again: groups of groups. For any church with a cell group structure, or house churches that relate with other house churches, you’ll probably already think this way, and get this picture. Actually, I should clarify — a cell-group church that genuinely sees itself as made up of cells rather than something that breaks down into cells will get this. One is top-down, the other is organic. I’m thinking “groups of groups” in an organic sense. There is already a strong regional group for Saskatoon in Resonate, and initial feedback in Winnipeg indicates a desire to get together. I’ve also spoken with pastors of emerging churches in Winnipeg who were unable to attend our little pub night last week, and it seems to me that there’s a general and genuine desire to connect with one another. My rather strong suspicion is that it’ll eventually become an identifiable group, whether formally or informally. I don’t know exactly what the situation is in other regions of Canada, but I suspect that with a bit of assistance, people in each of those regions could begin to connect with one another in a similar way. This strikes me as being a lot like Emergent Cohorts, but maybe with different names or regional identities of their own.- Facilitating gatherings is one potential role for Emergent.ca, but note that this is very likely to require regional support. Holding a conference on one coast elevates the cost to those on the other end of the country so that they may just as well attend a gathering in Europe. Or Bermuda. Last time I checked, most of us ec/missional types weren’t the overly-wealthy ones. This facet alone elevates the importance of regional gatherings and regional groups to support and facilitate them. By the way, this doesn’t have to be anything grandiose, and is already happening… witness Peregrinations: An Emerging Church Forum (for those who were already aware of this, note the date change and filled-out schedule)… note the list of big-name, high-power speakers at that one (well done, Len! Very pomergent). Conversations and conferences are also taking place in unexpected places (even if they really haven’t quite figured out the pomergent way to do things yet).
So. Where have we gotten to? I want to encourage all Canadian ec/missional types to go on over and complete the questionnaire at Emergent.ca. Those who are already in “the conversation” should look for additional ways to connect and dialogue about what role Emergent.ca should play, and what type of overall structure, goals, and character we’d like to see the emerging church conversation take in Canada. The appearance of this questionnaire and the resulting conversation that has resulted is a large indicator of growing momentum for the ec/missional conversation in Canada. It’s a good thing.
Excellent. These are just the questions that need to be asked. And thanks for imputing only generous motives to Brian and Emergent-US. We have no interest in “franchises,” only in conversations and friendships.
“Well, go and organize, sombody’s got to do it…” Annnd why is that? I know you’re not saying that necessarily, but somebody probably is. Somebody always does. And I continue to be annoying and ask the question, WHY? Why does somebody “have to” organize things at that level? Nothing wrong with organization inherently, but I’m of the opinion that it should be done naturally – worked with along natural lines that is. These kinds of “let’s start a big national effort” things don’t look that way to me at all. I’ve been involved in something like that and what I saw was the degradation of the local/regional. Too much focus on the big, the national, the global, I honestly think, because it’s bigger and seems more “significant.”
I’ll say too that I think there is far too much assumption of large responsibilities going on with all this business (business, hmmm). I mean that there are too many assuming too much of themselves, or taking on what is assumed of them by others who need to have big-shots to fawn over. I know that sounds harsh but nobody seems to be hearing this part of things so being a little caustic might be just the thing. I know I’m not Candadian and so what I say is only generally relating to your post but the same things are going on here and everywhere it seems.
I personally don’t want to put my proverbial eggs in one more big basket that’s trying to collect everything, or thinks it’s called to be the big egg basket. I see lots of broken eggs in that future. I get talking about these things and I start to get discouraged and want to shut down and give up. What I see happening: people slowl but surely fearing and nicing their way into being just like the previous ecclesiastical generations (in a bad way). Hopefully this relates enough to your topic here Maynard. Sorry if I’ve vomited in your comments.
Oh, and if you don’t start spelling JordOn’s name right, you may have a Candadian church split on your hands. ha! Grace and Peace to you.
“…not everyone is paying attention to the conversation in the same way, even if they are living out emerging/missional values….”
That’s a quote from early in the post.
Amen. There’s a lot I could say about what’s implied by that quote actually, but I won’t…. You all might not like me if I did.
I’m not Canadian either, though sometimes (given our crappy politics on this side of the border) I wish I was, but I’m in wholehearted agreement with Alan Creech. Since he has said it better than I, I merely say “Yeah, what he said.”
I come out of my corner to drop in little stuff like this in your conversations Maynard. I hope you are not too annoyed by it. ;)
So long until next time. Peace
Row? ROW?!? Voyageurs do not row! We paddle!!!
Ok, now that we have that behind us (wink wink), on to your post. Excellent examination. I want to respond on many levels, but it would end up being fairly long. I’ve wanted to do a follow up blog, so perhaps I will do so there. Great jorb!
Peace
Jamie “I Paddle Not Row” Arpin-Ricci
Jamie, pass the paddle and move over will ya?
KUDOS for a great summary and solid suggestions on the way forward.. I belatedly confess to feeling not only a bit shocked at the way this occurred but also unhappy with the process.. not merely because it seemed too managerial and “top-down,” but because it was essentially non-relational. That said, I believe the best of these guys and want to welcome them.. now let’s back up and do it right.
And.. to affirm the suggestion above of the way forward …
“Mort Meyerson, chairman of Perot Systems, said that the primary task of being a leader is to make sure that the organization knows itself. That is we must realize that our task is to call people together often, so that everyone gains clarity about who we are, who we’ve just become, who we still want to be. This includes the interpretations available from our customers, our markets, our history, our mistakes. If the organization can stay in a continuous conversation about who it is and who it is becoming, then leaders don’t have to undertake the impossible task of trying to hold it all together. Organizations that are clear at their core hold themselves together because of their deep congruence. ” Margaret Wheatley, “Goodbye COmmand and Control”
Sorry guys,
But I don’t think Lambrick is an emergent Church. I have been there.
I attended for several months during the growth spurt on Sunday Nights, “The Place”.
Emergent is much more than a service or a meeting, it is a mindset, a paradigm.
I think too many people are catching the emergent bandwagon right now… and personally, I am stepping back and oobserving.
I am moving to the Uk, to be involved in a ministry there. Hopefully, I’ll be able to connect and build conversations with a few people and learn some more, before I come home next year…
Waiting and watching…
Casey
I’ve heard this from others. One doesn’t have to buy the paradigm to be in the conversion, but to be in a more central role it would be wise to do so. Casey is reopening the fundamental conversation .. what qualifies as “emergent?” Our preference in general has been to avoid definition. And perhaps we don’t need to address that question in principle if we can instead grow together relationally. All this again pointing to the wisdom of the suggestion made inthe original post.. let’s talk.
Yes, let’s get beyond the branding to the larger purpose.. which might mean thinking smaller, paradoxically.. and working relationally almost always feels slower and less efficient, but builds much stronger foundations. In the end, we want to serve God and our world, we must all be willing to yield control in the process. What I like about even “this” conversation as it unfolds is that there is a process of collective discernment at work.. that creates safety and it bypasses potential hierarchy. We all have a voice, and together we will work out “what the Spirit is saying to the churches.”
As I was hitting the hay last night, a memory of Brian McLaren popped to mind. Brian’s church looks very traditional if you consider their meetings. Most of us emergent types would not want to be there on a Sunday morning, and might not want to be part of the community either.. My point being it is possible to offer leadership within this movement and be operating within a setting that is modern in ethos.
Second point, by way of the other conversation (what is emergent?).. Bob Hyatt’s wrote the following:
It may be helpful to think of a continuum of “emergence.” As I look around, I see three main areas of reconsideration within the emerging church movement. They are methodological, philosophical and theological, and, I want to propose, to the extent that a church community participates in the ongoing reconsideration/dialogue /reformation in each of those areas, they may be considered to a greater or lesser extent “emergent.”
Many churches which claim to be “emergent” .. exchange theater seats and a non-threatening atmosphere for candles and dim lighting, but are mainly concerned about methodological change. They seek methodologies for making themselves more attractive to the unchurched, but ministry philosophy and theology remain largely static. God bless them in their mission as they attempt to reach people, right? But “emergentâ€?? I’m not so sure…
A little farther down the continuum of emergence are the churches rethinking not just methodology but also ministry philosophy. Many of the Acts 29 churches fit in this category. They are willing to change the way that they do things both on an external level (the look and feel of things), on a deeper level (ministry philosophy, how spiritual formation/discipleship is done), but they aren’t really thinking theological change. If anything, many, like Mars Hill in Seattle, actively resist change in the area of theology. They continue to feel comfortable with theological labels such as “Reformed” and continue to subscribe to a view of male-only leadership.
The last (and, I think, most “emergent”) group of churches out there are the ones who are rethinking all three categories. For them, being emergent isn’t just about how Sunday morning is done (methodology) and neither is it simply a matter of changing how things like discipleship and teaching are done (ministry philosophy). It’s also a matter of continuing the work of theological discovery. They are rethinking and reforming theology. For them, theology is not a finished work. They take to heart Doug Pagitt’s words- “If you want to honor the Reformers, don’t just say what they said… do what they did.” This last group see the work of not only contextualizing the knowledge we have of God as a continuing process, but also recognize that
1. we don’t know all there is to know about God/Scripture/theology
2. we think the process of learning more will continue indefinitely- the church will continue to grow in it’s knowledge of God.
I think when we try and shape something ourselves, there is usually major structural problems. I wonder why? the necessity of a unified national voice. My experience which is minimal compared to alot of the commentors on the post…is that alot of emerging expressions of church may have a common thread…but there identity and character is probably shaped more by the context in which they live.
I wonder if we can’t be more like farmers, continue to nurture the conversation, draw others in, cultivate our shared experiences. Rather than hurry, let what ever happens evolve naturally and organically. In the midst of friendship, fellowhip with each other and the Spirit of God…it will bear fruit. We need to be certain it bears His fruit…not ours. Shalom…Ron+
As an emerging emergent, I was a bit taken back by the comment that you cannot be emergent in a modern church – to paraphrase the comment – something about a mindset…
so then why can’t you have the mindset in a modern place? I guess as a pastor of an extremely non-emergent church, that is filled with a handful of people who are trying to live emergent (even though most of them wouldn’t know the word or have ever read a blog let alone wrote one) I just want to remind everyone that the Spirit isn’t limited to one ‘group’ nor to one medium ‘blog’. If emergent is really of the Spirit we should expect to see it everywhere – not just in one or two conversations — I know I don’t read a lot of blogs, simply because I do not have the time – nor do I have the priviledge to be part of an emergent work – yet I consider myself a fellow traveller down the emergent path – if emergent becomes about who is and who isn’t – then emergent has failed.
It strikes me as being difficult to draw people in when you need a manual to study this “emergent” thing – it’s confusing . Would it not be easier to BE yourself and express/ share your life with others without giving it a name? I am pretty grossed out with “Church” right now and there are so many politics, memberships, titles… it seems to me that there is a lot of division within “emergent” groups as well. I don’t like clubs, clubs exclude people. It seems like this is a club type thing, but then I don’t know enough about ’emergent’ so I don’t know…I find God in people not organizations.
Hey I do have one question though…Where are all the women at?! Are there any women involved in this ‘conversation’?
My 2 cents
Ron, I like what you’re saying there… I think this was one of the reasons why everyone was a bit stunned at the survey. I’m not sure about the “necessity” of a unified national voice, though I think it could be helpful. A problem does exist in how this national voice comes into being.
Warren, I’m honestly not sure how to answer your comment. Something in me wants to say of course it’s possible, but I don’t think I’ve seen any modern emerging groups. I think modern churches would be more likely to produce “seeker-sensitive” than fundamentally emerging… and I also wonder if the people you describe are not more missional than emerging. Maybe I should unpack that — most missional people are emerging, but the conversations or streams are not identical, and I think it’d be possible to be missional and be modern at the same time. Of course it might change some of the ways in which it was practiced, but I think what’s fundamentally at the core of the missional drive is neither modern nor postmodern. As to emerging, it’s a funny question… one of things that people are seeking to recognize is that the gospel is neither modern nor postmodern, but must be contextualized. In this way, emerging churches are largely attempting to contextualize for postmodernity, which has become or is becoming the prevailing mindset… but while doing this, there’s a full expectation that postmodernity will pass away and be replaced by something else. Perhaps then the postmoderns will be stuck in their ways and refuse to change as moderns are sometimes accused.
Ron, you and Sliverzgirl both mention the notion of in/out and clubs, which is one of the things that postmodern / emerging churches are attempting to dispel. The emerging mindset sees Jesus as inclusive (which doesn’t necessarily mean universalism) and for the most part, tries hard to be inclusive as well.
Sliver, it might be easier to just BE, which is how this all started… when you’re going against the flow, sometimes it’s hard to just be without support from others — then somewhere along the line people started to see that they weren’t alone, and that their being looked and sounded a lot like other people’s being even though there hadn’t been any prior contact. This caused them to want to talk and relate togther for mutual support. Perhaps this is the fundamental thing we should look back to… this is a better ideal to let drive the conversation than any kind of desire for a national voice. As for where the women are, they’re out there, doing the stuff. Not as many women are blogging it seems, but they’re definitely in the trenches. this is the subject of a post and discussion here that I started just the day before this post. I notice you’ve already found that thread though, and will comment further there.
Len: “the empty hat suddenly produced the prodigal rabbit” — priceless!
There maybe is a misunderstanding towards what I meant as BE – Because to BE is much harder than that. I don’t mean to do nothing, and ignore the workings of other’s lives.
The word “Be” has a few different meanings: “To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched.”
OR “To exist in actuality; have life or reality” It was the latter I was referring to. As in Be myself – live my life surrendered to the flow of God –
“sometimes it’s hard to just be without support from others ” and I totally agree with you, I am more referring to not getting caught up in the name game, It’s my opinion and I am not necessarily telling you that you are wrong to give names to ‘groups’ of people I am just expressing my thoughts on my experience with giving a name to a person of a particular walk of thought/life. For example “I am penecostal, I am a mormon, I am a baptist, I am an emergent” It seems that when someone has given themselves a title to be part of a group it is hard for them to sway from the opinions of the other “members” as well as making it difficult to have the other’s opinions and not thinking for themselves, easy trap to fall into, when someone says that they “are” something it gives the impression that an ‘outsider’ would have to Become something as well to fit into that circle, a lot of people are not comfortable with the idea of becoming something, but rather I think more into the idea of building relationship with someone and sharing with that person. I think there is more life in that, than trying to draw someone into membership based gathering.
I really am excited about the ideals of people who love jesus and want to break out of the mold and come out of the box as it were – but there are some blogs I have been reading and it saddens me when it seems like the new breaking fire and
wind are slowly just becoming headers, ‘one more group’ faceless, in the family of God. It’s the titles that bother me “I AM THIS, I BELONG to THIS” rather than, I love God, and then just proving it with your life, like another definition of “Be”:
“To occupy a specified position” When we are doing that we will draw others who are hungry for God to us and us to others and then titles need not apply.
My jumbled 2 cents !
Interesting thoughts Sliverzgirl…
I am writing an article on ‘branding’ write now. I’d like to hear more of what you ahev to say…Check out part 1 at my blog.