This nice 7-layer emergent cake frames the conversation well for those entering the emerging church conversation* from the established church. Of course, I’m not too shocked it stopped short, neglecting the large and growing presence in the Church who have cast off the structure of the establishment as well.
I suggest you read the entire Christianity Today blog post yourself. I’m only going to touch on a few of the things.
In Level 4: Mission, it’s said, “Conversion is accepted as a journey and not merely a point of decision.”
I’m not sure if you’re using “levels” that a theological point should be a gauge for how deep you are into the emergent conversation. The whole thing is way too amorphous to pin a theological point within a level.
Level 5: Church I had to read several times. I’m not sure whether I just feel the layer is incomplete, or if there should be an eighth or even ninth layer. Truthfully, I’m not thrilled with the whole layer analogy, but if we all accept that every analogy breaks down, then I think McLaren has come up with a good way to put a frame around a bigger picture for those from the establishment.
Okay, I don’t want to put anything on top of Layer 7, as I see this mission to the world and activity as central to the Kingdom of God. So let’s call this Layer 6.9:
The pastors see that alternative forms of church are not enough, and they take jobs in the community, renouncing a paycheck in a world where institutional religion has less esteem than the porn industry. Drastic measures are needed to break down the barriers, and these pastors make the necessary sacrifices to remove themselves from the institutional nipple.
Oh, and I think it’s only fair to add Layer 6.95: Some pastors truly want to be at 6.9 (they don’t just say it, they mean it), but they realize vital connections are needed between the establishment and the emerging. They take criticism and heat, but against all odds they persevere and maintain relationships with those who are growing to dislike, perhaps even hate, them. They stay in the establishment to bridge the gap and strive for unity in the body of Christ. But by bridging the gap, they don’t downplay the work of layer 6.9 or ignore it. They realize this is the fulfillment of their conversation.
*Please note that I use the word “conversation” only as a courtesy to the writer. Even in the levels, there are things that go way beyond conversation and into action. This is a movement, whether we call it that or not.
Alan, I’m from the “institution”– perhaps “worse,” a denominational institution. One of the things I’m really trying to figure out is how the institution (and my role in it) can function in ways that serve what’s emerging– rather than coopting it (ye olde “Microsoft tactic”), or playing bait and switch– baiting with the “emergent sensibility,” and then switching with merely or primarily institutional interests. And, for what it’s worth, theologically I’m at “level” 7 (or 6.99?).
What I know about from learning and doing several years of institution based community organizing (in a local United Way) is that institutions really can serve better angels when they’re focused on helping the folks they’re supposed to “serve” accomplish what those folks want, rather than “using” those folks to accomplish what the institution thinks is best– either for itself, or worse, for them.
Yeah, institutions come with blinders, with investors who want things that may be incompatible at times with mission, with all sorts of limitations. But they also, generally speaking, come with a level of clout, organizational capacity and power relationships that can really benefit others– again, so long as they see those “others” not as clients in need of services, or customers in need of products, but rather as deeply gifted partners in a journey that’s about positive community change.
The paradigm I bring is often called “asset based community development”– and it’s just as applicable in the relationships of church institutions to local communities and congregations as it is to the relationship of banks or governments to local citizen groups. It’s not about answers and solutions, but questions, not about “perceived needs” but rather “discerned and claimed assets,” not about designing services, but mobilizing people with the passion and skills for a new day, and not about making people clients or customers but about participating in their empowerment as citizens.
That’s where I’m coming from– from within “the institution.” I find myself wondering if or how you might see value in this sort of approach from an institution toward the kinds of things you’re seeking to be and do in service to or as a manifestation of God’s kingdom.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Taylor Burton-Edwards
November 15th, 2005
I think you may be taking the “levels” analogy a bit too seriously. I mean the first two are more concerned with facial hair than much else. =) It was also transposed from a bar room conversation!b
Certainly there are going to be tangents to these layers like you’ve mentioned. But maybe ditching an establishment is more of a fork? I don’t know if the established church is going to go away. I’m interested in your next podcast about the benefits of it. Maybe there’s good reason it shouldn’t go away.
Maybe both styles of “church” should exist simultaneously? The important thing would be to let people have the choice. I think an article like this can open the door to alot of people in the establishment without scaring them off.
Mike
October 30th, 2005
Mike -
Yeah, I’m quite possibly taking it too seriously. Everybody has hot button issues. Mine is that the majority of the emerging church is a part of the established church. If you don’t significantly change your structure, and you still operate as an institution – even if you’re very family-like or “relational” – you reallh haven’t “emerged” in my opinion.
So when I read stuff about the emerging church, and there doesn’t seem to be any place for people like me, it tweaks me.
But please note, I was sincere with the good things I said about the article. I believe it frames the conversation well for those in the establishment. I also believe many pastors should stay in the established church… but when I say that, I also mean they should stay in “emerging” established churches.
I can’t stress enough that I believe God is in the activity of Brian McLaren and company, and I’m truly thankful for their work and their lives.
My concern still remains that someone unhappy with the established church will not find something too different at the core of most emerging churches. I’ve talked to many, many people who feel the emerging church is a bait and switch. And I believe this is because many in the movement are not as far removed from the establishment as they believe.
Anonymous
October 30th, 2005
Alan, I know what you mean. I came to layer 7 and thought that in escaping dualism and hierarchy we’ll have to come back to look at the whole structure of our gathered lives.
len
November 2nd, 2005
“I believe … many in the movement are not as far removed from the establishment as they believe.”
Couldn’t agree more. Fluffiness rankles me as well. If the ‘emerging church’ ID is stretched to included anyone with facial hair (note I have none) and a concern for justice then it looses all useful meaning doesn’t it.
I’d have to start calling myself post-emergent
Maybe Brian is trying too hard to be inclusive (uhh, whisp of heresy!)
Matt Stone
November 3rd, 2005
Hey Alan,
This is just my opinion, and we’ve covered this ground together already over at the Ooze, but personally I think your anti-institutional thing is a separate (though no less legitimate) and perhaps parallel phenomenon to the emerging church. One can be emergent and institutional, and one can be anti-emergent and anti-institutional. I think perhaps Brian didn’t include it in his list because it’s not quite within the context of the emergent conversation. Again, I’m not saying anything against your anti-institutionalism, I’m just saying that there’s nothing necessarily emergent about being anti-institutional.
And I agree that “Layers” is probably a bad analogy. Maybe we should talk about different doorways into this conversation, or overlapping and interconnecting circles. I don’t know. Metaphors break down.
Gandalf
November 6th, 2005