I have been looking forward to reading Kester Brewin’s Signs of Emergence for a long time. The subtitle alone made me excited to see what he had to say: “A Vision for a Church that is Organic / Networked / Decentralized / Bottom-up / Communal / Flexible / Always Evolving.” When I look at my copy of the book right now, I notice there are close to 20 little colored flags marking pages where I thought Brewin had something worth noting – just to give you a sense of the “stickiness” of the book. It’s one that I plan on coming back to and hopefully using sometime this year for a paper I’m working on. There is some great stuff.
The UK edition of this book was called “The Complex Christ” which was an apt title as Brewin places his vision for this new Emergent Church between two sections which are meditations on Christ and the incarnation. Going through various implications of Christ’s incarnation and emergence into the world, Brewin comes up with his vision for the Emergent Church. Brewin is also a fan of James Fowler and his developmental process in faith highlighted in “The Stages of Faith” – and finds ways to incorporate some of the process that Fowler outlines into his vision as well.
Brewin is writing about the Emergent Church – which he says differs from any church that simply applies the label, emerging church. Brewin writes:
My problem with many of these emerging church projects is that they are still attempting to bring church up-to-date by “trainspotting” some aspect of culture and making church fit it. I want to argue that in the Emergent Church the emphasis will be on being the train, rather than trainspotting: rather than trying to import culture into church and make it “cool,” we need instead to become ‘wombs of the divine’ and completely rebirth the church into a host culture. ((Kester Brewin, “Signs of Emergence” (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2007), 92.))
I am very interested in leadership in the Emergent Church, particularly in a traditional expression of it like presbymergent, and so I found this quote helpful:
“Listen,” God says, “I am doing a new thing. Do you not perceive it?” Complexity theory warns us that we must listen because old-order top-down systems cannot survive in an emerging, evolving world. There will be no more revolution, only evolution. As the New York Times proclaimed, this “isn’t just a fascinating quirk of science; it’s the future”…We must reestablish ourselves as the body of Christ, not the machine of Christ. Bodies are organic, dynamic, sentient, and conscious…Machines break down, while bodies evolve. ((Ibid., 85.))
What will those of us who are seeking to remain in “institutions” do with our “old-order top-down” systems – can we change them from within? But doesn’t that imply that we will have to “give in” to those institutions, to get into the right positions of power so that we can make some of these changes? It all seems like a bit of a Catch-22.
In chapter 4, Brewin discusses “The Character of the Emergent Church.” I found the various characteristics that he listed to be very helpful – both for my own understanding and for helping people become familiar with what the Emergent Church is working toward. He takes various characteristics of emergent systems theory and applies it to the church:
- Emergent systems are open systems: open boundaries between the life and work of the church – and of the local community;
- Emergent systems are adaptable systems: churches need to be completely adaptable to their unique, local contexts;
- Emergent systems are learning systems: the church needs to be open to new ways of learning, failing, practicing, getting feedback and strive to be continually seeking to learn – dynamic, not static;
- Emergent systems have distributed knowledge: knowledge does not lie within one person, but is mediated through many people in our collaborative culure – the idea of open source is very important here;
- Emerging systems model servant leadership: leaders will play more “back stage” roles – they will not be on the big screen on the stage;
- Summary: The Emergent Church Must Exist at the Edge of Chaos: “We have seen that emergent systems only evolve in the strange places between anarchy and rigidity, and that specifically they begin to emerge only when they are held at the ‘edge of chaos.’” ((Ibid., 116))
If you’re looking for a good, basic introduction to Emergent and particularly if you’re interested in emergence theory, I’d say that Signs of Emergence would be a very helpful.
Related posts:
Share This Post:
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
“Trainspotting…so, well, 1990′s of you!! Your next illustration must be more interesting…
I’m interested in the conversation about emerging vs. emergent. I tend towards using emerging because emergent feels more like a brand to me than a description. I notice in your post that Emergent Church is capitalized almost like a proper name.
@Shawn – yah I can understand that….I capitalized Emergent Church in the post, because that is how Brewin does it in his book. I think he partly does it to set it apart from the more generic “emerging church” conversation that is going on now – he says that he thought of the term prior to the marketing of “emerging church” stuff here in the states – and wanted to clear that up for the US version of his book. The UK version of his book came out in 2004.
Though – I think I tend toward using emergent, just because “emerging church” is being co-opted (in my opinion) by many conservative (theologically & methodologically) churches and being used to label their “hip new candles & coffee” service.
Make sense?
This sounds like just the type of book I need to read at this point in my ministry. My church switched to a bottom-up model a couple weeks after I arrived and it has been quite painful. Yet, I feel the church is deepening as a spiritual community. I am not sure that I would attribute it to the flattened model. Yet, it gives me hope that there are those who are comfortable in the midst of chaos (most of us however are not). I will check this book out. Thanks for the review.
Peace
On the surface I agree with Brewin’s characteristics of “Emergent systems” and think they are good for the church.
One thought about his use of body and machine imagery: He indirectly associates machines with top-down systems, and alludes to the idea that bodies are not. But bodies are centralized, top-down systems. Everything is controlled in the brain. Is that really the best image for what he is trying to convey?
Also, Adam, I’m interested in understanding why you dislike conservative churches that attempt to use some of the same methodology that you support. Since I’m sure you’ve written about it before, is there a particular post you could point me to?
Hmmm…I am struggling with the differences between emerging and Emergent as you just said there in your comment. And I’m not saying it’s you, but I’ve seen this in a lot of emerging and Emergent churches.
In my experience, no matter how hard Emergent churches try to think they are more than just “candle and coffee” services, they aren’t. To be exclusionary like that isn’t being in the spirit of Christ and the church.
I’d rather be emerging if the Emergents going to be a clique. We’ve got enough division in the church…we don’t need another arrogant sect. It’s that attitude of Emergents that makes me rather be conservative because I can reach a lot of people in my conservative church even if I don’t have a chick dancing up front and painters easels in the back.
1) Emergent systems are adaptable systems
2) Emergent systems are learning systems
3) Emergent systems have distributed knowledge
4) Emerging systems model servant leadership
5) The Emergent Church Must Exist at the Edge of Chaos
1, 2, 3 — These don’t seem particularly noteworthy. I mean, I guess it is if you’ve had the unfortunate experience of living in a ‘system’ that is unable to adapt, learn, and communicate. Any living tradition could be described by these terms, so I’m not sure what Emergent gets us by being characterized by them. It seems to function more as an indictment of the places Emergent folk have come from rather than a positive statement of any kind. Kind of leaves me with a so-what? feeling. Adam, what might be helpful is trying to characterize how Emergent might decide between various accounts of adaptation, learning, distribution.
4 — It seems like it’d be more interesting to ask whether using a term like ‘leadership’ makes sense given the Christian narratives of discipleship [or what discipleship means for church structures or whether you can have discipleship without hierarchy], rather than qualifying leadership with servant, which really seems to be a statement about being wary of hierarchy.
5 — …but also that the edge of chaos, this liminal position, is also the edge of peace. This liminality is never guaranteed, but is that for which we strive for in this life, so the statement that “The Emergent Church Must [strive to] Exist at the Edge of Chaos,” must be read against the dangers of arrogance and being indistinguishable from the world.
“no matter how hard Emergent churches try to think they are more than just “candle and coffee” services, they aren’t”
And that’s really in the Spirit of Christ Mike. Nice work.
I’d read the book if I were you – I think you’ll find the distinction you’re struggling with quite well explained.
“And that’s really in the Spirit of Christ Mike. Nice work.”
I’m not trying to generalize and say they all aren’t…but, I haven’t seen a difference other than the arrogance toward churches that aren’t “Emergent”. We have to remember that Christ DID call us to obey his commands and not become “don’t ask, don’t tell” grace-filled churches…that grace means becoming accountable for the things we do wrong. That’s true grace.
But, not trying to judge others here. I’m just struggling with what “Emergent” people are calling others who aren’t. I think there’s a happy medium. The distinctions tend to say the same thing every time and I am sure that this author does an excellent job of explaining it. I have read so many books on “Emergent” and “emerging” and “postmodern” and “missional” that it’s sick…I am now finding that I need to go and read more on Jesus and scripture because I feel like (ME INCLUDED) we’re not doing what Jesus called us to do in the Great Commission. We’re becoming too much like the world and not enough like Jesus as Paul laid it out in his letters.
I think that’s why I identified with Dallas Willard’s “The Great Ommission”. He says a lot of convicting stuff that I feel like I need to work on and the church (general) needs to work on.
Sorry if you thought I was being mean-spirited. It was not my intent for anyone to take it that way.