Maybe it is time for an emergent movement
Talking about the “emergent” “movement” is always tricky – like bailing water with a fish net.
Since I’m not a part of the emergent conversation in any serious way, I have not kept up with all the current blog-storm about the “death” of the movement. But this post by Methoblogger Matt Kelley did catch my attention. In it, Kelley points to the non-movement aspects of the emergent conversation.
Instead of being a “movement” as such, the emerging church conversation has been an attempt to shine the spotlight on some thinking and practices that are emerging (hence the term) in different places and share some common characteristics.These characteristics include the tendency to question long held assumptions, deep suspicion of authority while not rejecting it outright, a fascination with ancient thinking and practices long forgotten by the modern evangelical movement (which generally does play by the rules of a “movement”), and an emphasis on conversation and learning from one another as opposed to promoting a set list of ideas.
Interestingly, he constrasts and compares the emergent conversation with the Reformation. He points to Martin Luther as a movement leader – something emergents resist having – but also says the current ebb or disorder in the emergent conversation might be compared to Luther’s hiding out from papal forces only to emerge again to be a leader of the movement.
My thoughts as I read Kelley’s post and others in the last day or so were of George Whitefield and John Wesley. By all accounts, Whitefield was the more dynamic and engaging preacher. He was a phenomenon, but he was a passing wind. John Wesley – who set about doing movement-type things like organizing people and creating unified doctrine and practices – created a whole way of being Christian that still bears his name.
Maybe being a part of Wesley’s movement was somehow inauthentic or perhaps it was tied to a passing modernist paradigm. I am skeptical of such claims. It seems to me that movements – not conversations – are what create change. Or rather, a conversation has to harden and solidify into a movement to change the world around it.
From the outside, my thought is that the emergent conversation would benefit if it gives birth to some movements. Maybe this current “ebb” is a sign of disatisfaction with conversation that may lead to a new phase – one that might leave a lasting mark on Christianity.
“It seems to me that movements – not conversations – are what create change.”
First, I am not opposed to the idea of change. Second, I am not sure that the purpose of our calling (individually or as the Church) is to create change. I read lots of descriptive words about our calling in scripture–like “teach,” “heal,” “make disciples” and “baptize”–but not many that urge us to create change. “Repent” is about change, but that isn’t the change that we are usually talking about.
Think the Church may have a vastly different role. Perhaps it could be summed up with the word “witness”–with our words and our life.
These are all good points.
I’m not an emergent myself, but my impression is that the emergents are frustrated by lack of change. My only point is that if they really do what to change – or renew – the church, acting like a movement might be a good way to do that.
My sense is that movements whose purpose is change are doomed to fizzle. John Wesley’s purpose wasn’t so much changing his church, but being faithful to the Gospel as he understood it. He (and his friends) did that in an authentic way and people saw there was real life in that, so they responded.
Change is often institutionally focused, and that doesn’t seem to be helpful. There is also a principle that for every change you want someone else to make, first make two changes in yourself.
That said, I don’t know too much about the emergent conversation or movement. I’m sure it has much to teach me.