The difference between a fad and a movement is that a movement produces long term enduring change in history ‘on the ground.’ A fad feeds off something that already exists: a cultural awareness, a disenchantment or even a novel idea and expands on it. Through media, publishing, viral exchange, it becomes a sensation that sells books, creates a lot of activity, makes people feel something exciting … but in the end it produces not enough of substance that can sustain lasting change in history. Often, in the midst of something new, we can not tell the difference. Whether this is a fad or a movement – we will not know for many years for only then will the fruit be manifest. I am sure many thought John Wesley and what was called derisively “Methodism” was just a fad. It turned out to change the landscape of protestant Christianity (especially in N America) for all time. Anyone who is an evangelical lives beneath its shadow to this day.
In the last ten to fifteen years there have been a few tidal waves of reaction to N American evangelical Christianity: Emerging church and its founding Emergent Village, The Organic (or Simple or House) Church movement, and of course Missional Church. There are others but the reason why I mention these is that there has been a lot of blog commotion recently over their demise or decline. In each case I suggest frankly – Methinks We Worry Too Much.
When we see things fall apart, split into factions, or splinter off personalities, we should not worry. What is of substance will last if it rooted on the ground in real life communities. What was a fad needed to die anyway. Let those people move on with what they’ve learned and be part of something real. Yet we often see people clamor to keep the fad going. Perhaps these folk were invested in the benefits accruing to them as part of the fad. People like to keep the feeling alive of being involved in something important. But again – Methinks We Worry Too Much. Fighting too much to keep something going is itself a sign of a fad. The people fighting for it should let it go and devote themselves to what is happening on the ground.
I am in no position to judge whether Emergent, Organic or Missional is a fad or a movement. But I have a few observations off recent blog developments. With each observation the question would be Why are these people worried so much? Is this wasted energy – a sign that this is nothing but a fad? “Chill,” and let’s get on with the faithfulness on the ground. The fruit will bear witness eventually.
On Emergent Village: When Tall Skinny Kiwi (TSK) announced he was dropping out of Emergent there was an overly strong reaction. I personally see no reason to take the”friend of Emergent” banner off my blog. I still have a lot of friends over in this camp. People like Brian McLaren and Steve Knight have been good friends and have helped me personally. I see no reasons to announce a break. But Andrew Jones had some good reasons that I’m not sure I understand. What’s the fuss? Why are people fretting so much over Emergent Village staying together? or TSK leaving? Are these folk too invested? for all the wrong reasons? Methinks We Worry Too Much. If Emergent is a fad, a bunch of publisher induced hype, if its conversations never really affect a sustainable tangable progress of God’s justice in the world, we will know soon enough. If on the other hand, the leaders of Emergent work on the ground in real life movements of God in Mission, its fruit will be undeniable. Perhaps this is what Tony Jones is doing? He’s leaving the label to do work on the ground? Perhaps not. I don’t know. But for now, I see no reason to worry about him or Emergent, just encourage him and everyone in it towards faithfulness in Mission by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps this is what TSK is getting at for himself when he expresses “the need for some of us to move on from the label and get on with the job.” If so bravo!
On the Organic Church: When Mark Galli starts worrying over at CT and Out of Ur about the demise of Organic church, I ask why fret? He worries “about the energetic men and women at the forefront of the movement. Will they become embittered and abandon the church, and maybe their God?” Come on? These men and women are working ‘on the ground’ in real church communities. The fruit of their work will be visible when the time comes. Up until then I am sure these folk are not worried. So why should we? I like what Neil Cole has to say in response to Galli’s article: “I do not live for success but to follow Christ every day. If, when my life ends, I have only a handful of followers of Jesus that can carry on his work, I will not be ashamed to meet my Lord.” He in essence is saying to Mark: “Methinks You Worry Too Much.”
On the Missional Church: Much has been written about the problem with the word “missional” (see here for instance) It’s meaning has become diluted. It is being misused as a new market nich in church. A whole synchroblog was created to answer the question “What is Missional? Some fret about the word losing its meaning. Oh Ok – probably right. Nonetheless, I personally gravitate towards the Missional movement. I find it rich in theology and history. The word means a lot to me. I admit I get agitated when I have to explain myself a lot more when I use the word, nonetheless I still find it all compelling. I think the best tack is to take what I’ve learned among Bosch, newbigen, Guder, Hirsch, Frost, Roxburgh and many others: work within the church that God has placed me, be as discerning and thoughtful as I can with the resources God has given, and let the fruit speak for itself. For me, there is already much much fruit. I think anyone who spends a lot of time setting up turf for ‘missional’ Worries Too Much!
Those of us who publish books, write blogs and speak at conferences are always tempted to find an image/or be part of something we can project and find marketable. It gives one power with publishers. There’s also some kind of sick enjoyment that comes from seeing our name in print or influence. I have regularly had to nail any such temptations (as meager as the temptations have been) to death. That’s part of my necessary spiritual formation. Sorry, it’s true. Each one of the above “labels” has the potential to attract such spiritually malforming ‘bandwagoning.’ We should resist such grasping for attention by refusing to worry too much. For the seeking of any such attention through any of the above ‘labels’ is a sure sign that we have lost sight of Mission and the ‘movements’ have already become mere fads. So I end this post quickly! lest I find myself worrying too much.
Missio Alliance Comment Policy
The Missio Alliance Writing Collectives exist as a ministry of writing to resource theological practitioners for mission. From our Leading Voices to our regular Writing Team and those invited to publish with us as Community Voices, we are creating a space for thoughtful engagement of critical issues and questions facing the North American Church in God’s mission. This sort of thoughtful engagement is something that we seek to engender not only in our publishing, but in conversations that unfold as a result in the comment section of our articles.
Unfortunately, because of the relational distance introduced by online communication, “thoughtful engagement” and “comment sections” seldom go hand in hand. At the same time, censorship of comments by those who disagree with points made by authors, whose anger or limited perspective taints their words, or who simply feel the need to express their own opinion on a topic without any meaningful engagement with the article or comment in question can mask an important window into the true state of Christian discourse. As such, Missio Alliance sets forth the following suggestions for those who wish to engage in conversation around our writing:
1. Seek to understand the author’s intent.
If you disagree with something the an author said, consider framing your response as, “I hear you as saying _________. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, here’s why I disagree. _____________.
2. Seek to make your own voice heard.
We deeply desire and value the voice and perspective of our readers. However you may react to an article we publish or a fellow commenter, we encourage you to set forth that reaction is the most constructive way possible. Use your voice and perspective to move conversation forward rather than shut it down.
3. Share your story.
One of our favorite tenants is that “an enemy is someone whose story we haven’t heard.” Very often disagreements and rants are the result of people talking past rather than to one another. Everyone’s perspective is intimately bound up with their own stories – their contexts and experiences. We encourage you to couch your comments in whatever aspect of your own story might help others understand where you are coming from.
In view of those suggestions for shaping conversation on our site and in an effort to curate a hospitable space of open conversation, Missio Alliance may delete comments and/or ban users who show no regard for constructive engagement, especially those whose comments are easily construed as trolling, threatening, or abusive.