I met up with
Firstly, I am supportive of the movement formerly known as the emerging church (maybe we need a symbol), I still think that the term has validity, but think that we are going through and important maturing process. During that maturing process I would suggest that alot of the hype will be pulled down and communities will get on with what they are about: mission.
However, my first comment refered to the self-referenial and self-defining nature of the emerging church. This was most apparent in the Gibbs and Bolger book where leaders of emerging church communities told the researchers what they were like, we self-defined, and this self-definition also refered to people within the movement. Gibbs and Bolger concluded, for example, that we were centered aroun Jesus because we told them that they were. This maybe factual correct but it is lacking a critical voice.
This self-referencing happens online aswell, I publically say that 'so-and-so' is a great prophetic voice, they then say that I am, others chip in and gradually we build the one another up until we believe the hype...but there is a danger that it can be self-generated spin...I can publically associate myself with a person because I want to be seen in the same light as them. Peer review seems to be the way that we gain credibility and whilst peer review is valid it is also homogenous and is not as critical as it could be.
I also commented on the place of justice with the emerging church. Whilst in my final year with Sanctus1 I used to walk from a Church in a UPA in inner city Manchester to the affluent city centre. 10 minutes walk but world apart, there is something profoundly wrong sociologically when these two exist alongside each other. Every time I made that walk I knew that Christ would be walking with the poor and marginalised, obviously the rich have a place in God's kingdom, but in my reading of the text God sits with the poor and marginalized. The emerging churches that are seriously engaging with issues of serious social deprivation are minimal and should cause us to self-reflect on our priorities.
i've often thought about the whole self-fulfilling emerging church spin machine. i always got the impression when emchurch folk got together of an unspoken, slightly ironic understanding that we didn't really believe the hype ourselves but that this was the best way in contemporary society to get a message across. the real substance would follow. and to my mind, that substance has followed the talk and continues to spread in a very positive way.
the danger of spinning is that you come to believe your own spin. some did. i think those who were more self and christ-aware used it like any other communications tool.
but why did/do we need to shout about it? isn't it better to just do, just be? to be honest, the shouting was often for the benefit of other disciples, not always for those we were hoping the emerging church would reach out to.
some was preaching, believing in a communal prophetic voice.
some was looking for validation, we all have moments of doubt or need to be told we're doing ok.
some was looking for fellow travellers, it can get lonely out there.
some was looking for money. you need to create something exciting enough to write about so you can make money to keep doing it.
some was shouting for help.
and perhaps best of all, some shouting was in the hope that those looking to connect or re-connect with other followers might hear.
i think you're right ben, critical voices are essential but it looks as if it's been hard to find voices that wish to genuinely engage rather than slag off 'emerging church' out of fear or defence of their own spin-worthy and self-defining interpretation of church.
spinning is over. a slightly less frantic form of movement beckons. let's hope those dancing partners are out there.
Posted by: adrian | January 15, 2010 at 02:52 PM
"because we told them that they were."
hah hah - thats funny. good post ben!!!
Posted by: Andrew | January 16, 2010 at 07:55 AM