Ever since Andrew Jones (a.k.a. Tall Skinny Kiwi) prophesied that 2010 would be the year in which the Emergent Church was declared dead, the internets have been swirling with hearty “Amen”s, “Thanks be to God”s, “What on earth are you talking about?!”s, and “God, I hope not”s.
It seems to me that one of the most sane lines of response has been given by the likes of Danielle Shroyer, and others, who have argued that Emergent isn’t dying, but taking on a new, positive posture in which it’s redefining itself in some manner other than reaction against the status quo.
I recently stumbled upon a website that talks about “Story Fields“: stories that frame our experience and shape our decisions. Much of what these folks are doing for non-Christian policy making is what I’m advocating for in theology: the telling of compelling alternative narratives that create new ways of perceiving the world and our actions within it.
At this site, Tom Atlee talks about how alternative stories get generated and then mature. Talking through the process of change, he charts sources of power and what it takes to give a new story staying power:
- “I believe that every emerging culture or movement for social transformation gains its power, above all, through a compelling story field of its own. However, as mentioned above, insofar as the alternative story field is created against the dominant story field, it tends to lend power to the field it is resisting.”
- “I believe that compelling, viable alternatives must grow naturally from an inner logic of their own. They can’t be sustained by oppositional energy alone… If… they arise from a truly positive vision, they stand in contrast to but not primarily in opposition to the status quo. Thus they do little to empower that status quo, while at the same time inviting those who are ready for change, into the new story field.”
- “The question that remains for any movement is how to translate its positive visions into positive story fields capable of shaping a new culture.”
It seems to me that one likely scenario for Emergent/Emerging/Emergence is that it is reconfiguring its story from opposition to developing its own inner logic. I don’t necessarily expect Emergent to be around forever. But I do anticipate that the story of reaction will develop, in some quarters, into a positively articulated vision of the kingdom of God. Because of its less antagonistic and oppositional character and its genuine newness, as a story framing the lives of various communities, many will no longer recognize this as Emergent, and maybe that’s for the best.
Even if it’s wrong.
Excellent observations! I am late to what would be called Emergent and I did not enter in full rebellion of the church, I entered a new way of being church that was life giving… I was not running away, I way drawn too. That is a big difference.
That does make a huge difference, Connie. At Emergent gatherings I tend to sense that folks there are together because they don’t belong somewhere else. A new identity / narrative does need to be constructed for those of us who are caught “running away,” as you put it.
Great observation. Unfortunately the trend in Protestant history is fragmentation after the initial protest. It’s always harder to figure out what we’re for than what we’re against. Thanks for this post.
Insightful post. We Christians don’t have a history of always framing a positive vision instead of a mere opposition one (i.e. we still use the term “Protest-ant”). I don’t know if what gets labeled “Emergent Church” will live on or be absorbed into something else, but it is hard to imagine that the growing groundswell of desire for change in the Church will “die” anytime soon. Thanks for sharing.
Daniel, seems like the whole “Emergent”, “Emerging” church stuff did not take off so big here in the UK. Brian Mclaren, though from the UK is doing his thing in the US. I did a course at Durham (UK) last year with NT Wright called “The Bible in Tomorrow’s World”. More than fifty theologian/pastors from all over the UK attended. We had a great time but the “Emergent/ing” stuff was notably abscent though some of the important issues did arise..
Interesting. In Gibbs & Bolger’s book on Emergent Church they traced the lineage back to the UK and various non-traditional worship expressions there.
I wonder if some of the issues aren’t being dealt with outside of the use of an Emergent label? I’d be curious to hear what issues did come up in that conversation.
Daniel, let me give you one striking quote from Wright which might give you a good idea what we experienced. It comes from his 30 July 2008 paper at the Lambeth Converence with the title: The Bible in Tomorrow’s World: “What we desperately need, if we are to pursue a biblical, Christian and indeed Anglican mission in the postmodern world, is the Spirit of Truth. There is no time to develop this further, but it is vital to say this one thing. We have got so used to the postmodern sneer that any truth-claim is instantly suspect. And at that point many Christians have lurched back to the apparent safety of a modernist claim: conservative modernists claim that they can simply look up truth in the Bible, without realising what sort of book it is, while radical modernists claim they find truth in today’s science, without realising what sort of a thing that is either. But we cannot go back; we have to go on; and the Spirit of Truth, often invoked in favour of any and every innovation in the church, is actually at work when we live within the great story, the love story, God’s love-story, and become in turn agents, missional agents, of that story in the world. Truth is not something we possess and put in our pockets, because truth is grounded in the goodness of creation, the promise of redemption for that creation, and the vocation of human beings to speak God’s word both of naming the original creation and of working for new creation – the word, in other words, of mission. The Spirit of Truth is given so that, living within the great biblical story, we can engage in those tasks.”
An observation and an unrelated question:
Brian McLaren is not from the U.K. but from the U.S., specifically from my state of Maryland. He was a pastor about 20 miles from here.
Daniel: I’m intrigued by the story analysis from Tom Atlee. Since I am currently writing about Revelation, I wonder how that analysis works there. Does Revelation give us primarily a contrast story or an opposition story? And then what about Paul, whose antipathies to Rome are now questioned by some and proclaimed as gospel by others? For Paul I’ve preferred the term counter-imperial (contrast) rather than anti-imperial (opposition). For Revelation, however…
Tomorrow I head out to the cities of Paul and John—for stories both contrasting and oppositional!
Everyone: sorry not to get many of your posts up sooner–I was traveling today and couldn’t moderate your comments. Thanks for your thoughts.
Mike: Great question. It’s making me think more about the degree to which such a distinction is only possible right up to the point that important decisions are on the table. Then, does “contrast” of necessity become “opposition”? Of course, that doesn’t mean the whole story has to be framed as opposition. Which is the finer point on the website…
Michael, Daniel,
Sorry I got it wrong with Mclaren. The UK connection however is the fact that he is part of the Anglican Communion, or used to be?
Daniel, I’ll look through my Durham file and see whether I can find the NT Wright module programme & some interesting stuff.
Frederik