I have been involved in a discussion surrounding Presbymergent for over a year now. The term is a combination of "Presbyterian" (as in Presbyterian USA) and "emergent" as in emergent Christianity. As most nascent organizations of like-minded people, it has begun as something with a lot of energy, a lot of ideas, and ideas of structure, but no real structure until recently. But in a pragmatic way of looking at the world, structure is something that tends to follow clear ideas rather than come prior to it. So my own Presbyterianism, a denomination named after its political structure rather than a founder (Lutheran) or a theology (Baptist) or ecclesiology (Catholic), causes a continual problem. Organizational structure comes prior to clarity of good ideas and that structure assumes that it has already been formed by good ideas; or, it has been formed with good enough ideas to persist.
So what happens if we still have the same political structure, but the ideas that formed it create problems with the culture that now exists? What happens is that new ideas have to fit within the confines of the political structure which is assumed to be at the very least satisficing to those who persist in the denomination. The evaluative question I ask is rather simple: what is working? But this is always rooted in clear ideas. And away the wheel spins once more.
Presbymergent is a group of more or less like-minded Presbyterians who recently gathered in the form of a co-ordinating group asking this essential question: what is working? I did not go to the meeting due to many other concerns with work that kept me home. Nonetheless I continued to listen and read what others were processing during the meeting. My question always came back to another one related to "what is working?" and that was, "why this and why now?"
So I pushed people a bit, critiqued a bit (and from someone from the outside looking in this is always problematic and seems a little intrusive), and engaged people who were there with this fundamental question. Thus, in a wonderfully open-source kind of spontaneous dialogue this afternoon with Landon, Chad, and Fritz, I reached a point of clarity not based on my thoughts, but on the thoughts of others. I had posted a twitter post yesterday that read "finish this sentence: presbymergent is…" After a good hour or so of pretty intense Socratic dialogue, minds met and broke through some pretty palpable cognitive dissonance with this little statement I cooked up to synthesize the discussion:
Presbymergent are faithful followers of Christ who seek continual reform of existing church structures through dynamic, open, and intentionally critical systems.
Let me unpack some of this since the terms are loaded with a lot.
1) "are faithful followers of Christ" indicates the source and reason for why people would engage in anything to do with the church. When we cease to be faithful to the revelation of Christs redemption, and when we cease to practice due diligence in following his witness through our words and deeds, we simply lose that which makes us distinctly Christian in the world. I am intentional with the word ""are"" as well. This is not a concept or an ideology. This is a group of people who make choices and act on them.
2) "who seek continual reform of existing church structures" means that there is simply nothing in this world that human beings conceive that is complete and there is nothing that humans say or do that does not change. Change is not a political slogan and never should have been. It is a fundamental and irreducible construct of human being and human sociation. When we resist change, we are not only losing faith in the calling to which Christ demands of us, we are resisting the very core of what it means to be human. The structures which are constitutive nd regulative of the Body of Christ are fallible and so, they are mutable. This is inclusive of not only political structures by which law, order, and social norms are established and reinforced, but of class, gender, sexual orientation, race, culture, ability, and linguistic structures that create assumed boundaries for social and theological construction. These norms are always in flux. Thus it can only be demanded that such frail creatures sustained by an undeserved grace from God, who seek to become more like God through the work of the Spirit that calls the people to God together and which founds the church itself, should understand that all human systems of organization are equally frail, incomplete, and change relative to the working of the living Spirit of God.
3) "through dynamic, open, and intentionally critical systems" is a call for basic principles of organization that are regulated in and through change. While it is simply a necessity that structures of organization exist that are clear and conducive to getting work done, creating immutable systems is restrictive of the principles of the first clauses in this statement. By "systems" I mean those of communication, team work, collaborative exercises, task forces, activism, etc. These are important organizational principles that should be open and collaborative in order to ensure that the idolatry of faith in an immutable politics is mitigated if not ideally expunged from the process.
I am employing a grounded theory approach to visioning. In itself it is imperfect and requires testing and development, but it is a clear starting point. What I think is important is that Presbymergent have a consensus vision upon which its members fundamentally agree. Once the vision is identified, then specific problems may be addressed that such a vision can pragmatically correct within any social, political, or geographic boundaries identified by willing and able actors. Reporting the outcomes of these ideas through the various means as noted in #3 above are precisely how those items that need to change in #2 above can be identified and influenced.
I welcome continued conversation around these ideas in order to move toward some kind of a consensus vision to which each of our local areas of influence may soon reap the benefit of our sustained flow of energy to follow Christ in this unique calling.
Related posts:
Thanks for this, Drew. Good thoughts. I like it. My only critique, though, is about the "are faithful followers of Christ." Or really, the "faithful" use. I strive to be a faithful follower of Christ, but I don't think I could ever claim to be. I'm definitely a follower of Christ, and with God's help I may be faithful. Personally, I wouldn't go any farther than that.
How about a "hope-filled" follower of Jesus?
makes sense. it might be better to take the qualifier out altogether.
Good stuff man. You and I seem to be coming at this from the same location, and I applaud your willingness to engage the CG of pmergent from long distance. I lacked that courage it seems, but you covered much of what I [probably] would have said/asked/etc.
I sort of drew back from Adam's comment, and then thought about it, and found that I fundamentally agreed. "faithful" is a fairly loaded word and one that could be interpreted a variety of ways. I find myself stumbling after Jesus most of the time, to be honest. Thank God I am at least stumbling in the right direction. Thanks for this.
Drew thanks for putting this together. I'm just trying to start in on this conversation, new to twitter, and tried to follow. But the pieces of information I was picking up were too fragmented. So I appreciate your effort to get something cohesive put together.
I fell into working in the church and the longer I work in the church the more I'm convinced that clear communication backed by strong relationships goes a long ways.
There has to be a starting point that people can agree on or everybody is just chasing down their special agenda. I coached high school football for a while and if everyone on your team doesn't know what offense you're running and buy into the system not much can get done. Also when things start to go badly in a game everyone has to know what your "Bread and Butter" is. When things get tough you keep it simple and do what your best at.
You have a good start to "Presbymergent is…" but now what is a tangible, concrete example that Presbymergent folks can point to and say, "Here's an example that is working. Here's our "bread and butter".
I'm a visual person and I like to learn through experience. What does a successful example of presbymergent look, sound, feel, taste, like? Obviously there will be masses of variety but what are a few really good examples out there?
I'm curious as a group of us in our presbytery are beginning to envision a new approach, getting it down on paper, and trying to clearly communicate our plan and goals through the existing structures.
Love your #2 description. I love to lean and push on the walls of institution in my church for this exact reason.
Thanks,
Thanks for the input and I hope this is useful. Since you are coming with the coaching frame of mine two things I share off the bat are be pragmatic and be useful. That translates into do what works, do what works well, and then describe how you know it worked and how you can do it better. In every team sport there are fundamentals of what works well based on a lot of experience and trial and error. But those basic skills don't crowd out unique talents and all that great stuff you "just can't coach". I hope that's what we recognize. We all have a share in the same bread and butter which we need to define, but we all have very unique contributions and positions in which to perform that vision. My hope and prayer is that we can grab onto that same vision to influence our local communities of practice.
I can't agree more. A newer member at my church is a professional artist. I find myself often wondering what amazing contributions this person could make if our congregation would allow this person a little freedom. Hopefully down the road we will find out.
I've been following the #pmergent stuff on twitter. I appreciate you pushing folks on the language used to be part of the emergent conversation. It shouldn't be dumbed down but to clearly "sell' others on a vision, help them take ownership/build trust (even if they just allow it to happen), it has to be accessible for a greater number of people to follow and understand. If not, it will be tough to "influence our local communities of practice" especially if $ is involved to get things started.
Drew, stumbled into this post after twitter from you to check out another. This is a very helpful thought process.There is a lot of loaded termanology but that always goes without saying. What struck me was the idea of structure. I am life long PC(USA) and now clergy, serving at various levels of the denomination. It is a journey and I am always asking mysef: What is working here? It is so easy to name the mile long list of what isn't, and no one else seems bashful in their complaining and whining either. But, what is working? I want to ask what is faithful to God's call for us as the church. That word "faithful" is tough, it doesn't have one definition. And if it is faithful now, will it be later. So glad to be part of these conversations.
thanks for the comments and the contributions as well! to the last point, that also makes sense and why i think 'faithful' is good not to have there, nor is any qualifier for 'follower of Christ' here. once you qualify that, you are make unclear assumptions and are therefore automatically exclusionary with the very thing that we should be open with! my question is also what works and therefore what does not. i want to get past whining and move the whining into specific achievable goals that will elicit change. i moved from postmodernism to pragmatism a while ago and found that if we can re-phrase ambiguity in terms of outcomes, more people will listen.
[...] As in Jim Bonewald''s case, my church is also a small congregation in a blue-collar part of the country (and churches with 150 on the active roll or less are about 50% of PCUSA congregations BTW). I also ask the same question but not only because of this. This is a continued conversation following the Presbymergent gathering in Louisville, KY last week. My initial response is here. [...]
Hey Drew,
You asked me to read this a while back (February?) and I did. But, just coming off the CG meeting I was kinda burned out on Presbymergent. For some reason I stumbled across it again and just read it, with some distance from the CG. I think I like this even more now. The focus is less on "ideology" as it is on "relationship" and "dialogue." As followed Emergent and the birthing of Presbymergent, it was these aspects of relationships in dialogue and then being open and engaging in continual reforming of structures that reflect back on what is happening in those relationships that first drew me to the emerging Emergent movement.
My one critique is not about your statement but about the structures that have developed in Emergent and now Presbymergent. My critique is that I'm not sure this is where Presbymergent is going. It is fast becoming an ideology and I think that is antithetical to the concept of emergent/post-whatever. Just wanted to finally answer your question, some 5 months later!?
Hope you are well.
Peace,
Eric
Thanks!
I totally agree with you. My whole angle with PMergent is to think of goals and outcomes that will bring change to the PCUSA in ways where we can form new relationships and adapt to changing environments. Let the Spirit breathe in the midst of what we want to do. Ideologies are hard to cling to if we keep our focus outward. I discovered that I am really not a liberal nor conservative but a pragmatist because of my anti-ideological posture. But to be "anti" is like another ideology itself! Pragmatism makes a good way around that problem by focusing on what works based on what we actually know. That's why I would like it all to be pragmatic…
Hey Drew,
You asked me to read this a while back (February?) and I did. But, just coming off the CG meeting I was kinda burned out on Presbymergent. For some reason I stumbled across it again and just read it, with some distance from the CG. I think I like this even more now. The focus is less on "ideology" as it is on "relationship" and "dialogue." As followed Emergent and the birthing of Presbymergent, it was these aspects of relationships in dialogue and then being open and engaging in continual reforming of structures that reflect back on what is happening in those relationships that first drew me to the emerging Emergent movement.
My one critique is not about your statement but about the structures that have developed in Emergent and now Presbymergent. My critique is that I'm not sure this is where Presbymergent is going. It is fast becoming an ideology and I think that is antithetical to the concept of emergent/post-whatever. Just wanted to finally answer your question, some 5 months later!?
Hope you are well.
Peace,
Eric
Thanks!
I totally agree with you. My whole angle with PMergent is to think of goals and outcomes that will bring change to the PCUSA in ways where we can form new relationships and adapt to changing environments. Let the Spirit breathe in the midst of what we want to do. Ideologies are hard to cling to if we keep our focus outward. I discovered that I am really not a liberal nor conservative but a pragmatist because of my anti-ideological posture. But to be "anti" is like another ideology itself! Pragmatism makes a good way around that problem by focusing on what works based on what we actually know. That's why I would like it all to be pragmatic…