one of the most thoughtful mission thinkers out there in the blogosphere in relation to mission and the emerging culture is mark sayers who i really enjoyed meeting last year. he has just posted a piece that i have been thinking about for the last 24 hours the emerging missional church fractures into mini movements. initially i thought he was writing as though this was a problem but on re-read i'm not exactly sure. maybe he is just trying to map something…
here's my thought on this. if you look at this through an old lens – denominational or tribal – it looks like a problem. but if you look at it through a network lens it's exactly what we should both expect and hope for (though i wouldn't use the word fractured as that sounds very negative). i blogged previously about small world theory which i don't want to go over at length again. but to recap a couple of points. people can only hold a certain number of meaningful relationships, most people are locally focused (in their small world), it only needs one or two people in any small world to be connectors to other small worlds and suddenly the insights across the various small worlds (or movements as mark calls them) can flow around the network.
the key point therefore for any movement is having a particular edge and practice, connecting with others but then encouraging some to focus externally so that that movement isn't insular.
my fear around mark's post/headline is that people will think fracture, spilt, difference, disagreement. whereas i'm looking and thinking diversity, network, connectivity, flows, insights etc… it all depends on the lens you look through!
i wrote a piece on the spirit in which this might be conducted called the network of christ which you might like to read if you didn't catch it.
of course australia is a different context which i know less about in terms of how networked/fractured it is. but my impression in the uk is that there are plenty of small worlds but lots of connectors and lots of generosity…
This is all such good stuff, you’ve inspired me to go back and re-read (or re-re-read) Clay Shirky.
‘the network of Christ’ works so well and is very affirming, will print it out and stick it on the wall so I can read it next time I wonder ‘what exactly am I doing and what is the point?’
i was thinking the same thing. i read it and saw myself and the ministries we are supporting in so many of the different streams that my reaction was “wow, look at how ecumencical we all are – different and yet we get along’ what a great picture of UNITY is there, rather than disunity.
i share your pov on this, jonny
the idea that the emerging phenomenon would somehow be a monolithic experience seems counter to the very notion of expressions rising from contexts
in modernity, faith communities seem to bend to far towards institutions — nameless, faceless brands. in networks, people are empowered. Individuals matter more — but they matter most when connected as a network. Networks of individuals transcended divisions.
thanks for the voice-over on this, jonny
haha awesome job at re-framing mate. I was in some what of a stir myself after reading his post. I didnt even react to it too well on my blog but you did a great job at addressing the concerns i had. Well put =D
with love n hope
Daniel (Legoman)
i’ve been thinking about this all day! [dammit, it’s saturday]… i think for a network to work, you have to trust the others who are part of it, you have to want the best for the other, and you have to value the fact that they offer something very different to you… i guess that would be the criteria for me in thinking about whether the emerging church is a network, or if it’s fractured.
i don’t have an answer – i’m never really sure that i’m part of the emerging church, and i don’t recognise myself in any of Mark’s categories, so i don’t feel confident to comment. i’ve experienced great grace from many who are in the emerging church, and also some pretty crappy moments… One question I have, from Mark’s analysis is whether the fact that so many expressions of emerging church began as a negation of what they had left, mean that they / we are susceptible to responding to conflict and diversity with yet more division… i’d like to think each generation can break the patterns of the past, but i think it takes conscious and deliberate action to do so.
i’m not sure if i fit any of the categories eith cheryl! i didn’t even digest that part of mark’s post. it wasn’t an important question for me. i was more concerned that there wasn’t a narrative of schism and fracture – i don’t feel part of a fractured community but a connected one however lightly or loosely. but yes generosity and trust are key and difficult postures i think.
mark buzzed me an e-mail to say that he wasn’t describing it negatively – more of an observation.
This is an importannt discussion. When yeast multiplies is it fracturing? Is it schismatic? Or is that what we would/should expect in any viral movement? The difference between network and schism may be recongnizing and stewarding our common connection to Jesus and pursuit of the Mission of God. Hopefully that’s part of the shared DNA that unites us across the breadth of expressions and contexts.
“Fractured or Networked” – a thought from the world of quarrying and mining. There would be very few building or roads today if monolithic blocks of pure stone were the only material available.
Fractured stone offers so many more possibilities. Hidden gems (Diamond, gold,fossils)are released in the fracturing. Fractured rock can be networked together by cement (rigid, inflexible), lime (less rigid), tar (flexible)into many shaped, communities. And alien, discarded materials (Slag and Fly Ash) become a valuable resource, freed to achieve a new potential.
The awkward, irregular bit of grit that is me, needs a network to find purpose and meaning.