The Evolution of a Conversation:

All conversations evolve, that’s a given. I mean, everything evolves so it stands to reason that a conversation should also evolve. But I think the question is, “what do we evolve too?” If we look at the “natural” evolution of the Christian faith do we see a model of what the evolution of a conversation is, or should be? Let me explain how I see it, and then I will go deeper into each area.

Christianity started as a conversation in Bethlehem, moved to a movement in Jerusalem, developed into a philosophy in Greece, became an institution in Rome, organized as a tradition in America, and truly needs to return to the conversation and not to the movement stage.

Let’s Talk:
When Christianity was a conversation, Jesus was the key spokesperson for that conversation. Others, while having a voice, were not the guiding force of the faith. Others spoke, and even added to the conversation, but all eyes where on Jesus. Then, after Jesus left, the conversation stopped and the movement started. You see, while Jesus was alive, the movement could never happen – once Jesus left, then a movement could be formed. I fear that if we become a movement, we will no longer seek to see Christ as the center of what we talk about – we will turn to the voices of others to guide us.

When the conversation turned to a movement, the voice of Christ was filtered thought the voices of others. We no longer took Jesus as the core teacher, and we started to look to people like Paul for our faith walk. We took the words of Christ and filtered them via Paul, as opposed to taking the words of Paul and filtering them through the words of Jesus. But movements do that, they replace the founder of the conversation with others who they see as “just as important” and we are on the verge of such action, and that frightens me greatly. Because one of the next steps is to become a “philosophy” and then an “institution” and I am not at all willing to head in that direction.

The Nature of the Beast:
No matter the intentions of the people involved, moving out of the conversation means we will move to becoming an institution. When I look back at the institutional church in my life I see flash back of hurt, pain, greed, selfishness, oppression and judgment. That is a norm for an institution. It must have “guidelines” and if one does not fit, one is not welcomed. If we look at “why” the emerging needs to be a “movement” we see that it’s because of the need to keep things more “centered” and “easier” to get out the word. But is that a reality? What I see is a gathering that sees itself as “The Emerging Church” and others who see themselves as “the emerging church” and how does a movement bring those together? Becoming a “movement” will not bring unity, and moving to an institution will never cause unity. So, how does it happen? I think it happens because it must happen, and I believe that the way it happens is we stay a conversation.

Keeping the conversation as a conversation is the only way it can happen. I think it is done, not with big national events that are smoke and mirror designed to sell books and “programs” aimed at an emerging people. Rather small gatherings of people in areas where the emerging is taking hold – and then spreading to the world around. Small, regional events, not designed to sell book, hype an author, or make money – but rather gathering where people can connect, make friends and learn from each other. When we have rings of interconnected, organic, and self developing small groups we connect with each other a core levels.

Possible? Impossible?
I am certain that some would say, this is impossible – and for them it is. Because if one comes to the table with the idea that something will not work, they usually do everything in their power to see it fail. Yet, many will say that it is very possible – but how does one do this without people to “put it together?” I think it is simple, and that is usually the best when we think in terms of “organic.”

Vintage 21 in North Carolina is hosting a lunch and is asking people from about a two hour drive to come and talk – no program, no speakers, no “sales pitch” – just voices, sharing vision. 247Connection [the church I am the Lead Pastor at] is also willing to do the same. Now, all we need is another willing to do the same and the process begins.

The Turn Out
While I am certain that this will not make people any money, and the book publishers will not have big gatherings to hawk their wears at – but I could care less. I am not in this to make money, or sell books – I am in this to share Christ with others, and the way that is done in via an honest, open and organic network of conversations – no “guideline” no “definitions” of what it means to belong, or who is and is not emerging – just a gathering of people wanting to share Christ in a relevant way with others.

I truly have been praying over this idea that we “centralize” the emerging church, and I am very uncomfortable with what seems to be the way it is going. I am one voice, loud sometimes, but still one voice. I can only speak for myself and no other – I strong desire to remain a conversation, and I am fearful of the idea that we become a movement. One thing those who desire a movement need to know, many of us who are in the emerging do not do well with movements and we have been kicked out, ignored or shoved aside in movements – we have a very clear and real dislike for the idea of a movement [because it always leads to an institution] and it will not fit for many of us. It seems that we are selling out our vision and call to meet the needs of the book sellers, the organizers, and those who are striving to bring us “back” to the evangelical movement.

postmodern mission and emergence

We can't talk about post-modern mission without talking about networks. This is also one of the areas where the church is least prepared. But as Liz Weil opined, "Prepare to feel obsolete. It's the first step to moving ahead."

The old church exists in the forms it does because, to some extent at least, those forms made sense in the modern world. In the world that is coming those forms do not make sense, and anyone who clings to them will be fitting flat tires on the old bus. It is important, on the other hand, that rising leaders understand the new forms. For most of them it will be like a fish swimming in water. They were born in this new world and much of it is simply intuitive. (I worry a little for some young leaders who are being shaped by the modern church).

Networks partake of some of those most intriguing qualities of emergence. They are related to smart mobs, like the RESONATE network. Networks cannot really be built or designed, they can only be supported and resourced. They are not engineered from the top down, rather they rise like mushrooms, from the ground up. They can't be controlled or manipulated, since they are by nature de-centered. Networks will explicitly resist such attempts, since central control makes them into something other than networks. Consequently, those attempting to control them are going to be very frustrated. In these transitional times we will need some established leaders in place who understand these things, otherwise the transition is going to be very painful for many of the young and rising leaders.

Perhaps the single largest challenge is that networks are about belonging. What we measure becomes important. We measure things like numbers and giving because they are the easiest to quantify. Success is whoever has the largest budget and the largest attendance. But networks are successful if people connect. How do you measure belonging? Joel Myers writes,

"Spontaneity is difficult to measure, so many organizations do not measure it. And since they cannot measure it, it loses its importance. Yet people "count" the spontaneity in their lives all the time. They do not measure numerically, saying "I've had five spontaneous experiences today." Instead, they tell the story of the encounter:

+ "I met someone very interesting in the deli today."
+ "I had a great time at the concert. The crowd was really into it. We had such a good time."
+ "It was as if we had known each other all our lives."

"Stories are the measuring tools of spontaneity, of community, and of belonging. Organizationally, we can measure the spontaneous experiences of community by listening for the stories people share. Then it is our responsibility to tell and retell the stories to create an organizational climate of belonging." (The Search to Belong)

Networks will actually require us to rewrite what we thought we knew about leadership. Rosemany Neave writes that, "This is where networks as a structure come into their own. They reflect a commitment to connect rather than to control; to share information rather than to ration it; to disperse power rather than gather it into the center..." (Reimagining Church)

So.. how does one "build" a network? Margaret Wheatley, Peter Senge, Fritjof Capra, Clay Shirky.. these are the "gurus" of the new order. Wheatley writes that leaders will need to know how to support..

".. self-organizing responses. People do not need the intricate directions, time lines, plans, and organization charts that we thought we had to give them. These are not how people accomplish good work; they are what impede contributions. But people do need a lot from their leaders. They need information, access, resources, trust, and follow-through. Leaders are necessary to foster experimentation, to help create connections across the organization, to feed the system with rich information from multiple sources-all while helping everyone stay clear on what we agreed we wanted to accomplish and who we wanted to be." (A Simpler Way)

And Capra asks,

"How does one facilitate emergence? You facilitate emergence by creating a learning culture, by encouraging continual questioning and rewarding innovation. In other words, leadership means creating conditions, rather than giving directions." (The Hidden Connections)

Who within the church scene has the kind of knowledge we will need as we move forward? I would guess that the greatest knowledge of these things exists in two places in the west.. in the house church movement, the underground church in China, and in the parachurch movement.