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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Well said! I have enjoyed the use of all 3 names at times but really refuse to be labeled with an identity other than follower of Jesus. Neil Cole’s quote is also on target. Thanks for posting this.
David, the essence of this human journey is still spiritual. As Dame Julian put it, “All shall be well.. and all manner of thing shall be well.” I wonder if this anxiety is generated more by our need to be change makers.. to find our significance in all this stuff. But if that is where we are living, we have not yet found the center.
On another tack, life.. and emergence.. is always found on the edge of chaos. Well.. I think we have seen a lot of chaos and noise in all this. In the language of complexity.. “where is the strange attractor?” Wherever we see things taking shape on the ground, Jesus is at work. It will always filter down to less than we hoped to see, but we know the kingdom is beyond our grasp. All this is of grace.
Whoa, careful with linking the emerging church and emergent village too closely. The EC has its deepest roots in those parts of Western culture that are far more Post-Christian than most of the US where EV got its start. I would say that the EC/Fresh Expressions movement in the UK has more than demonstrated itself to be a bonafide movement while EV hasn’t come close.
David, amen to this! We worry too much. I’m glad to call you a friend, albeit only virtually up ’til this point. Hopefully our paths will cross here soon.
JR – I’m just curious how you characterize the grassroots, umm (trying not to say “movement”), organization of cohorts and conversations that has been fostered by EV over the past 10 years, which continues to this day and is (I would argue) growing? If it’s not a “movement,” then what is it? an “organization”? a “network”? Those things aren’t bad, and it really doesn’t matter if EV is a “movement” or not. I guess I’m just curious how you define “movement” and in what sense EV doesn’t “come close.” Thanks!
sorry JR … on talking about Emergent Church I was meaning Emergent Village .. not emerging church in a broader sense (including UK etc.)… I made that change!
I like the focus of this post, David. If we have to work to keep something going artificially, then is it a work of the Holy Spirit or of us? For that matter, I am one who doesn’t think the movement(s) is(are) dead…maybe just continuing to evolve, because the Spirit is continuing to do fresh, new things.
Dave, not sure I see what change you made. I was referring to where you said, “…Emerging church and its founding Emergent Village…” Sounds like you mean that EV somehow “founded” the EC movement when it is actually probably closer to exactly the opposite – but maybe I’m just not reading that right.
Steve, ahhh semantics. EV can certainly be considered a movement on the level you described. I was thinking in terms of Dave’s definition, “The difference between a fad and a movement is that a movement produces long term enduring change in history ‘on the ground.’” I just don’t think the EV has had the sort of influence in the church on a national scale that merits it as a movement on Dave’s count. Lest you think this an indictment, I actually think this is to EV’s credit – that it might be a catalyst for multitudes of diverse nodes of change as opposed to the solitary thing which gets labeled, “movement.”
JR – thanks for clarifying that. I like what you’ve said re: “catalyst for multitudes of diverse nodes of change.” Of course, only time will tell how history views EV looking back to where we are today. May it be kind
Great post, Dave. A good, level-headed response to all this chatter. Just what I’d expect from you. You are a voice of wisdom.
[...] There have been even more “Is the Emerging Church Movement Dead?” posts and even a few of the posts noted above almost sound like eulogies. For a perspective on this, you might read David Fitch’s “Emergent, Organic, Missional Church: Methinks We Worry Too Much.” [...]
Really enjoyed this post. Thanks.
I think this is where it’s at – all of these labels can and have become trendy in many ways. The proof of the pudding is really in the quite, on the ground work of God through his people and not in the longevity or demise of a label.
Bless you!
I’ve been attracted to these movements at various times but between pastoring a church full time, teaching on the side, having a wife and kids, I simply had no time to invest in them. I always wondered where the leaders found the time. I am thankful for the good they have accomplished, however.
Thoughtful post brother. If we continue to follow the ways of the kingdom, some things will fade away. Others will stick, and our great-grandkids and their kids will be living a different reality simply because we chose to follow the leading of the Spirit.
Me worries too much most of the time; me thinks you have wisdom here!
Shalom.
[...] Categories Select Category Art Book Reviews Booknotes Christ and Culture Devotional Classics Emergent Church Emerging Church Eschatology Faith and Science Good Times Lectio Divina Makes Me Laugh My Soundtrack Other Links Politics Prayers Quotation Marks Random Musings Theology Uncategorized World Christianity /* 0 ) { location.href = "http://natewigfield.com/?cat="+dropdown.options[dropdown.selectedIndex].value; } } dropdown.onchange = onCatChange; /* ]]> */ Transforming Christian Theology | Let the Journey Begin January 26, 2010, 12:59 am Filed under: Emergent Church, Emerging Church, Theology | Tags: Christianity, David Fitch, Jesus, Kingdom of God, Philip Clayton, Theology, Transforming Christian Theology, Transforming Theology It seems that there are many movements (and rumors of movements) emerging these days from the landscape of post-Christendom here in the West. Whether or not these so-called movements will prove influential in years to come has yet to be settled. Without a doubt, some of these movements will be “here today and gone tomorrow.” Others may last a bit longer, but will slowly run out of steam. However, there will undoubtedly be a few that not only “carry their weight,” but actually become stronger and more influential over time. David Fitch has written about this in more detail over at Reclaiming the Mission. [...]
[...] David Fitch has it right. Sometimes these conversations mean very little. Its time to take a look on the ground rather than pontificate from a well branded perch. He concludes, 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. [...]
[...] often think David Fitch says it well and he does again here with his comments on whether the whole ‘emerging’ scene is dead, sick, passe or [...]
[...] teacher and preacher David Fitch thinks we worry too much about the differences between emergent, missional and organic labels for church. Read his take and [...]
[...] defensive posture, protecting our own turf. It won’t be productive if you ask me. As I said once before, all these differences can only be worked out ON THE GROUND in the same way it always has, perhaps [...]