Yesterday I wrote the introduction to this post, which ended up being about as long as the next bit that contained the important stuff I wanted to say, so I split it up. Feel free to start yesterday, then continue on below, which is about the whole mess of misunderstanding over networks that are not called Emergent.
We return to the assertion that nobody’s mad at anyone, and add a caveat for the possible exception of those who have been grossly misrepresented in the fray. The essential take-away here is that the forming of a new network is not to set up an alternative one, but to found something for people with a specific focus. Undoubtedly, people both within Emergent Village and outside of it, within or outside the missional conversation, and within and outside of the emerging church. This should not be a surprise, and should be considered a form of progress. Not in the sense of “better than” another network or anything of that sort, but better in the sense that it represents a form of self-organization that is necessary for the inclusion of more conservative Christianity in the thick of what we’ve all been on about for a number of years already.
In 1962, Everett Rogers wrote about the Diffusion of innovations, which is used to describe the Technology adoption lifecycle, and is diagrammed using a bell-curve. To be clear, the “more conservative Christianity” which I mention would be anything to the right of the “innovators,” which term I attempt to use here as matter-of-factly as I can, with no value judgments attached to that or any of the other terms, including “laggards.”
The first thing I am suggesting is that the forming of networks is a signal that some of the contributions of the emerging/missional church are preparing to move beyond innovation and into the early adopter phase. To some extent, I’m sure this has already happened. As for the networks themselves, they are best considered in the same sense as Christianity itself… not an opportunity to claim that one is “of Paul” or “of Apollos,” but one which is used to highlight different strengths and contributions of each network, as identified by the specific focus or contribution of each. As for the manner of the networks themselves, relevant reading material will include Clay Shirkey’s Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations and Seth Godin’s forthcoming Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us. And yes, I’m talking about networks, because besides the existing ones like The Ooze, Emergent Village, Forge, Resonate, Allelon, and the new one being formed by Kimball, McKnight, et al, there will be others formed — not as competing networks, but as affinity groups uniting around a certain idea or specific focus. Group membership will naturally intersect and overlap, but the existence of the groups as an organized manifestation of an idea make it easier for people to get behind that idea and work to further or accomplish it. The current shift is therefore toward more organization in certain quarters, which not only makes it easier for newcomers to engage and become involved, but also to simply understand what each emphasis is all about.
The question that is begged is what has changed. Possibly the answer is found in a changing social milieu, a new spiritual awareness, or simply the wind of the Spirit. These and many other answers may well be valid, but the contributing factor that has the most significance (outside of the Holy Spirit, naturally) to this discussion is a shift in the emerging church movement.
The second major suggestion I would make is that the establishment of networks and social groupings with attendant linguistic changes marks a shift in the emerging church from deconstruction into reconstruction. The emerging church’s penchant for deconstruction was criticized by many, but it has always been a necessary part of the renovation and reformation of what was into what will be. During this part of the renovation, it was enough to note affinity for people to be about the task of deconstructing much of the same constructs and traditions. Most of the why’s were of secondary concern, as was the hope of what might be built once the deconstruction phase had coasted to an end. A significant amount of re-envisioning took place during the deconstruction, and as the dust began to settle, it became apparent that people had different emphases in their new vision for the reconstruction of the church.
During reconstruction, of course, it matters much more what the floor plan looks like and what building materials are used. And here is where the change in language may be found. What is portrayed by some as disagreement, distance, disgruntlement, or worse is simply a moving on with a slightly different form of reconstruction. These forms may represent significant or subtle theological and methodological differences, distinctions, and emphases, but for all intents and purposes, they all continue to work on the same overall reconstruction project, recognizing and affirming one another’s efforts. After all, not everyone on the job site is a plumber, or an electrician. Indeed, everyone has their own part to do.
In this way, each of these networks (not competing or alternate, just “networks”) remain within the overall big picture or stream of the emerging church. In its emergence, the church is becoming multi-faceted. And why would we ever have expected anything different? To a greater or lesser degree, this is by divine design. I’ve always loved the illustration that Gary Best of the Langley Vineyard (Vineyard Canada) used to use to describe the body of Christ, that of a colourful mosaic, which when you looked at closely, you could see that it was always changing and evolving and shifting, but the overall effect still created a larger picture. This is of course simply the nature of the church, as directed by the Holy Spirit who oversees all the networks and guides each of them.
True, some of the lines being drawn are theological. Again, this points to the winding-down of deconstruction by those who are highlighting some of the differences, which are only revealed as reconstruction begins to take place. This is not to say that the deconstruction is completely finished — even during construction, sometimes temporary supports are set in place that are later removed, and sometimes during renovation, it becomes apparent later that some further demolition is necessary. I have observed before that some kind of emerging systematic theology seems to be forming as theological subjects arise which had not been widely considered previously, and again, this points to reconstruction.
So if as has been suggested, there were always five streams in or into the emerging church, there are quite likely to be multiple streams within it as well. This is, in fact, nothing but the natural behaviour of centered sets. people are drawn into the general stream, and once there find affinity with particular facets or emphases, and begin to move in that specific part of the current. It’s not correct to say that the current is no longer part of the stream — it is in fact a component part even as a rope is made up of several cords made up of several strings made up of many threads.
Consider Mark Driscoll. He was definitely in the emerging church at one time, and wherever one places him now and whatever one thinks of his current emphases, his path out is looking quite different from that of others… his emergence is into the stream of new reformed theologians and churches. And bless him on that path after all, no matter what he thinks about the hot-button where one might disagree with him. The same will be true for many or most of us as we find “resonance” with certain leaders, journeymates, ideas, emphases, methodologies, or models which attract us once we’re in the stream and bobbing around. Having been part of the emerging church conversation for some time, as networks are formed to help contain and direct portions of the conversation to helpful ends, we are likely to fall in with one or more of these networks. For some it will be Emergent, and for others it will be yet unformed or unnamed networks and tribes who share affinity and purpose, with or without emerging/missional teminology.
In a nutshell, then, this “fracturing” of the emerging church is not a fracturing at all, but a “gelling” of different emphases within it and a moving from deconstruction into a reconstruction phase of the life of the emerging church, always seeking to emerge and continue to become what the Holy Spirit would shape us to be. Thus what is being called a death by some is in fact merely a shift into a new form of life. And after all, those of us who struck out across the desert on a journey of detox know well our hope and the foreboding words of concerned onlookers who said, “After you’re all done deconstructing, I hope you’ve still got something left,” and “After all is said and done, hopefully all that’s said will still get done.” Or other words to these effects. Of course, we’d caught wind of something, and struck out across the desert, saying, “There’s no time to waste, then, is there?”
LOVE your take on this. This is a most helpful post(s), one of the truly positive takes regarding the current status of the conversation.
I’m filled with hope at the notion of reconstruction and for what is now becoming on the back of what has been such an important process for many.
It’s not a way out – it’s a way forward.
“Thus what is being called a death by some is in fact merely a shift into a new form of life. ” – Love this!
Thanks again! One of the most exciting and hope-filled posts that I’ve possibly ever read since observing ‘the conversation’.
Thanks for this series, Bro. Maynard. I, too, believe the Spirit has been moving many toward a time of sifting through the elements and moving us toward reconstruction – even if we didn’t know it at the time. But when it’s time, it’s time. And think how many are talking about similar topics, but it hasn’t really been picked up yet on the radar of blogdom yet. Hopefully your very helpful post will encourage things along. Thanks for synthesizing the situation and flipping it to show the E conversations with a different integration point: self-organization of layers and subnetworks within the Lake of Emergence. It makes sense to me that the shifting is more along lines of reconstructionist “fractals” where each part also carries some essence of the whole and remains connected to it – not splitting into reductionist “factions” or “fractions” to segment parts within the whole.
Lately, I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain the issues of language and the level of dissonance. One thing that helps me as someone who is visually oriented in learning styles, is to shift from 2-dimensional Venn diagrams (what subgroup maps overlap with the surface of one another in the field of Lake Emergence) to 3-dimensional (what partial shape overlaps among the volumes of various subgroups do we find?). To me, a 3-D view of things helps remove the discussion from the reductionism of Flatland to a more realistic perspective. The language buzz and fuzz has been about figuring out comfortability level within the Lake’s topography (some species prefer nearer the surface, some deeper down), more than trying to figure who’s in the Lake.
We’re not in The Matrix where “There is no Lake.” Change is coming, and as with each previous paradigm shift in Western civilization, older structural forms will remain while a major new one will present itself eventually. But this time, the shift may be different and multiple new forms may ascend instead of just one. And it looks like a decentralized, multi-node, complexified, interpenetrating layer version will be it, allowing one and many simultaneously. Which some will welcome as offering multiple “spiritual connection sockets,” and others will approach cautiously but still participate, and others will reject and stay in (or migrate to) an older-paradigm-shift’s forms and formulas, in another Lake. So be it …
So, your use of Diffusion of Innovation is helpful in seeing that. For some subnetworks, innovation represents a more incremental approach. For others, more radical. I’ve had to live through that tension for the past five years, in trying to help leaders in a particular church come to terms with moving into the future. They chose the slow route, which may not be fast enough to allow survival … will have to wait another five years at least before that may be more clear. So, one of my working hypotheses is that paradigm/culture shifts (and hence, innovation) causes culture shock. Some groups may want to “make haste slowly” toward the future, and have more continuity with the past, or with tradition, or with specific ways of processing information, or … Maybe the concept of “eco-tone” helps here, as an overlap area between two otherwise distinct eco-systems. Like brackish water where a freshwater stream flows into the ocean but the saltwater backs up into the stream, creating a unique in-between environment. While that may sound safe, it could turn out that some eco-tones in this era of emergence may prove inhospitable.
Anyway, this could go on and on, and actually, hopefully, it will. Some of us have longed for a greater emphasis on reconstruction. But we also realize that no one “owns” truth that they don’t discover and/or test out for themselves. Deconstruction was necessary to understand the roots of our dissatisfactions; let the reconstructions ramp up so we can rebuild to God’s glory with organic architecture that befits the times and places we providentially find ourselves in …
Thanks again for all your work on posts about emergence theory, changes, and the Church, Bro. Maynard. I appreciate what you’ve done to continue giving a broader perspective to our times.
Hi there
Yep let me add my thanks for your thoughtful and encouraging piece.
I confess to a little wallow in the slough of despond when I began to read all this blogging about the end of the EC. The strange thing was that this was not the gleeful celebration of those who have long regarded the whole thing as heretical, but rather from people who were supposed ‘innovators’.
Because this time of networking- I am not sure we are through with it yet- certainly we are not here in Scotland. Here there are some groups who do their own things- with some sharing, but no organisation, and little physical support.
This might be because we are a long way from where ‘it is at’, but I wonder if it is also because people need to identify with something- or to react against it- before any movement can really become significant? I do not think we really have had the chance to do that here- churches are still locked in the last century, or perhaps trying to ape the imported mega-church models.
And what will unify those of us that have found such hope within the EC stuff if not some kind of shared descriptive language- no matter how problematic this might be?
Within our small group we are quite happy to be part of construction
(Sorry seemed to loose the end of that last piece!)
… but we also need to catch some glimpses of a wider architecture from time to time…
So, thanks again for bringing a bit of balance
Blessings from Beautiful Scotland (currently basking in a late summer!)
Chris