On Movements
First week and I'm already breaking my own rules...
Since I decided to throw my lot in with the emerging church (or admit that I already was emergent, in Jamie's opinion) I've been asked by several people what made me make that decision. The question I've heard most often has been; "What makes this movement different from all the others?" That's an excellent question, one at the heart of so many criticisms - and, in my opinion, it's a legitimate concern. We've all seen, heard of, or been involved with movements that are "the next thing", or "where God is really moving." It's years later, and who calls themselves a Jesus Freak anymore?
This came up in conversation between myself and several other bloggers at the King's Head the other week - at our "theology pub" session or Rendevous or whatever we wind up calling it. We were talking about the brand spanking new "Emergent Canada" organization that showed up and set some kind of land-speed record for controversy among Canadian bloggers (with it's talk of "purchasing" friendship et al). The question was raised, "Do we really need a franchise of Emergent to call our own? What is the purpose that it hopes to achieve?" Now, the wonderful links over to your right (robbymac, Brother Maynard and Voyageurs) will provide you with some excellent discussions on these questions, better than I could hope to achieve. But what I'll give you here is my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Screw movements. That's right, screw 'em. Repeat after me (quietly if you're at work), "Screw movements." In my experience they have been distracting, dividing, antagonistic garbage. Poisonous and evil rubbish, as it were.
Now that I've got that out of my system, here's the other side. As much crap as movements can be, I believe that behind some of those movements lies truth. The emergent movement has its issues. They aren't as big as some might suggest, but they're there (and the critics are often bang-on when they point their fingers. The folks over at Emergent No had some really good points, despite their borderline-paranoia and the rampant assholery in the comments section). Movements don't move people, God moves people. And if God is moving people to reimagine church, to reimagine our preconceived notions of who He is and what He wants, then that very well might manifest as or be surrounded by a movement. Some people may need the relative structure that comes with an "organized" conversation, and we shouldn't fault them for that. Some people don't need them and are sensitive to the Spirit's leadings, able to make the changes in their own situations completely independent from any movement, and we shouldn't fault them either. A good friend of mine, the same one who led me to Christ - let's call him Jon With No H - has started a ministry to "post-modern seekers". He's been working on it for a while, and never read a McLaren book until the ministry was basically up and running. He doesn't really care about emergent, but he recognized the same needs and decided to do something about it. So maybe emergent, as flawed as it is, is on to something. And perhaps we should be encouraging that rather than discouraging it.
My belief is that at the end of the day we still have to live our lives clinging to the Truth and following God as best we can. And if a movement helps you to do that, then great, and I'm sorry for the "screw movements" comment. If not, well, do what you gotta do to love God and love your neighbor. That is the point, isn't it?
posted by Grey Owl at 6:30 p.m.
15 Comments:
If by breaking your own rle you mean blogging less than once a week, I am glad. You don't have to post everyday, but give yourself the freedom to express how and when you feel it.
Ok, so on to your post. The idea of movements can be tricky. Your friend Jon may not have needed a movement, but granted his freedom to explore postmodern Christianity is generallly an exception to the rule. A movement is not about membership, so a person doesn't have to "join" bring reap the benefits. In fact, usually only a minority do get involved first hand.
However, if they are successful in their movement, others will unknowingly exercise the freedom won them by it. Everyone may think that evangelical youth groups and cheesy dramas have always been synonymous, but in truth, when YWAM approached the idea years ago, the arts were seen as the devils playground. We forged ahead anyway, and now everyone can reap the benefits of the "Stick Sin Chair" sketch (I am soooo sorry).
In the end, though, I tend to steer clear of the word movement. I think, in part, that it is trends that we call movements. Additionally, American culture & identity is so deeply rooted in revolution, that it may just be more fitting for them south of the border (no judgment, just observation).
For myself, I choose to call it the emergent journey. As an emergent Voyageur, I am exploring new possibilities. We are not really discovering anything new- it has always been there. However, it is new to us, both exciting and dangerous. I am just glad that I am not on the journey alone.
As an aside, the documentary "Dogtown & the Z-Boys" (and NOT the pop film "Lords of Dogtown") is an excellent film that explores what a movement really is. Perhaps we could have a Rendezvous some time to watch and discuss it (I own a copy).
Peace,
Jamie
Hey Jamie,
Thanks for replying. Yeah, I kinda thought that I'd wait a bit before posting again, but this was really on my mind. I just hope more people read it...
I think that I may not have been as clear as I wanted when I talked about movements. What I'm referring to are not the kind of social change movements that have occured in the past - under Martin Luther King Jr., for example, or even the example from Dogtown. My wife is a HUGE Beatles fan, and we've talked about the rock revolution and such before. That's not what this post is about, and I think you understand that. But for those who don't: it's more about the modern, consumerist phenomenon of movements that is so common these days - these kinds of movements often attract all kinds of folks just looking for the next "fix", be it spiritual or physical.
Like you said, Jamie, it is largely trends and fads that people cling to. My concern is that many will cling to Emergent as an organization and, were it to flop, would be disillusioned about the ideals that it stood for. And so they'd move on to the next Big Thing, whatever that may be, and all the advances will be for nothing. I just don't want people getting hurt if Emergent goes the way of the buffalo. That's why I think - and I'll mention it in future posts - that any Emergent organization we're going to have should take a role as a facilitator and not something for us to give our allegiance to (or buy friendship from). So that if and when if disappears (and for whatever reason) the people left behind will be able to stand on their own. Make any sense?
If emergent (or whoever) is successful in helping to bring the gospel to the world in a fresh, relevant way- and I hope they are - then as you say, we will all benefit. I don't want to piss on anyone's cheerioes, I just think caution is the word of the day.
Like you, I prefer to think of it as a journey. And just for the record, I'm pleased to be able to go on the journey with you and others I've met in the Virtual Church.
Hey again,
I agree completely, which is why Scot McKnight's blog (www.jesuscreed.org) is at the top of my blogroll. If you want good theology and perspective on emergent, go back and read all 60 something posts on the subject. It is also why I think the journey in Canada may have a lot to offer to the global journey. Thanks again!
Peace,
Jamie
Hey Grey Owl,
I can handle movements, but it's franchising, marketing, and cloning the participants in a movement that I want no part of. Len Hjalmarson (Next Reformation.com) and I were talking about it just yesterday, and our thought was that Emergent Canada is premature at this point.
Let the conversation in and between regions continue as it has been, and if (and that may be a big IF) it eventually, naturally, relationally grows into a national conversation that requires something like Emergent (or Resonate) to co-ordinate, then so be it. But let's not try to force it too early, and without a relational consensus that it's needed.
If you're planning to head west for a visit, there's always a couch available for you. Actually, we have a double-hide-a-bed, if your lovely wife wants to come too!
Jamie - I've heard mixed reviews about Scot's site. Some have said it was good, and some have said that he has banned all comments that disagree with him. I suppose I'll have to check it out for myself, eh?
Rob - thanks for stopping by. I guess for me the question is if a modern movement (as post-modern as it's trying to be) can divorce itself from the franchising/marketing/cloning aspects that seem so common. I'm inclined to be a bit pessimistic about it, I guess, but that stems from my experiences.
I agree with you, the need for an "official" canadian organization is likely a ways off. Perhaps because (as Jamie points out) we are so different from the States... We are, as a rule, more culterally progressive (ie liberal) than the states (and this isn't a value judgement) and perhaps the "postmodern transition" is just a bit less of a deal for some of us. My wife read "A New Kind of Christian," and just said, "Yeah, so what? I've been brought up this way." So perhaps a national conversation would not attract as many people because they have already moved beyond it. An interesting thought.
Just FYI, I tend to over-emphasize my dislike of movements just to make a point. I don't want to come across as overly negative, but I do want to encourage discussion - like this one!
Thanks for the invite. A trip out west is likely several months away (like, next summer) but if we do go we most certainly will put you on our "tour." Thanks again!
Hey again,
No, Scot is an incredibly gracious, open and wise voice in this dialogue. Of course, we won't agree with everything he has to say, but all it worth hearing.
As to him deleting comments that disagree with him, that isn't at all true. However, I do believe that he strictly moderates his blog comments to maintain it as a respectful and safe place to dialogue, allowing those who demonstrate a genuine desire to learn. Let's be honest: it is HIS blog, not a communal forum. So in his house, his rules. Fair enough.
I think the emergent journey in Canada will not only be different in context, but therefore also different in emphasis. The values may be the same, but where they work themselves out in Canada are going to be very different, which is why too closely alligning ourselves outside of Canada is premature and possibly counter-productive.
Great dialogue here, bro!
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie said: "The values may be the same, but where they work themselves out in Canada are going to be very different, which is why too closely alligning ourselves outside of Canada is premature and possibly counter-productive"
Good point. Our American siblings are different from us in many ways (like their definition of "free" trade, for example...), and for us to join up with them "as is" may not be the best choice to make. Which was my initial hesitation with Emergent Canada - it seemed like the emphasis was on taking what emergent was doing down south and applying it here as they "passed the ball" to their Canadian counterparts (which begs the question, "What were they doing with our ball in the first place?") Not that the Emergent-US-ers were wrong or bad, but what is good for them is not necessarily good for us. Did I understand you correctly?
Absolutely. I hope to post on postmodernity and indigenous (First Nations) theology in near future. I believe that the First Nations people have held many of the emerging values within their cultural for generations, poising them to be crucial in Canada's emerging journey. This is one example of where the difference lies from Canada to the US.
Peace,
Jamie
I look forward to it! I've always wanted to know more about First Nations theology. Now, this is just curiosity on my part, but why is it different down in the states? They have First Nations people down there too, right?
Good question. The reality is that the US has largely ignored the First Nations people as a significant minority (though this is changing), especially given the centrality of African and Latino American demographs. Additionally, Canada, with all our faults, is Mosiac driven, making us predisposed to explore culture a little more. That is the brief answer.
Peace,
Jamie
as an american i would first say that we often run ahead full steam without really knowing where we are headed - as i have listened in on these emergent conversations i see that there is really nothing new here...it's not a question of theology, although doctrine is often debated, it is a question of if we are indeed follower's of Christ, and our mandate is to make desciples, then shouldn't we be doing more that sitting in church on Sunday. When the hippies went out searching for Love and Peace and found Jesus, they wanted it to make a difference in their lives.
They (we) looked around at the stanunch people in the pews and wondered, what are you waiting for.
Are the emergents, US and Canada going to keep talking, or are they going to mobilize the postmodern generation to action. Movement?
Truth? Missions? Discipleship...
blog on Grey Owl,
this ex-hippy on the Navajo Reservation is interested in where you Canadian Emergents are going...
Maryellen - I appreciate your insights. I think that us Candain "Emergents" are definately more interested, as you say, in doing more than sitting in pews. Talk is cheap, and I certainly want to do more than just talk.
From the folks I've talked to I've learned that most of us seem to be doing those things in our own communities and contexts - serving and trying to make a difference in our immediate surroundings. That why I almost think the "movement" is unnecessary - God seems to be motivating people to get things done well enough on his own.
Thanks for coming by - it sounds like you have an interesting story, I'd love to hear more of it sometime.
Jamie - I look forward to your article!
I'd like to add that there are MANY very missionally active communities in the US. Certainly there is a lot of dialogue, but there is also action. Thought I should point that out.
Peace,
Jamie
When we began adapting the liturgical structure and elements to meet a growing need in our community I had no clue what emergent was. I did however have an understanding of a shift in culture towards post-modernity and had been grappling with how it could be addressed in a church model that I thought was well on that road. We've had varied results, but seen lots of folks touched that wouldn't normally get beyond the doors of a church building. Maybe that is because we don't have a church building (smile). When I discovered Resonate it was like finding out you weren't the only crazy one. My experience with movements - both inside and outside of Christianity - is that they tend to be less organized than they appear to be, and I think that is good. When a movement becomes too concrete and institutionalized then it has likely lost a lot of the dynamism that made it wonderful in the beginning. I don't mind movements, but I am wary of overarching movements. I rather like to see it as community that springs up to connect hearts at this or that leg of their journey. Maybe it is best to qualify it as a warning: don't give you heart to a movement - give it to Jesus.
Enjoying your blog.
Frank
I coulnd't have said it better myself, Frank. I really appreciate you stopping by.
Post a Comment
<< Home