(Ir)religiosity

• Tweet
• Sharebar

• Tweet

About six months ago, Emergent Village asked anyone and everyone who cared about the future of the organization to participate in a survey.  The purpose was to discern what direction the organization should take in the future.  There where four possible scenarios (you can read the descriptions in full as well as the entire letter of the board of directors here).

1. In 2011, having fulfilled its mission, Emergent Village has ceased operations.
2. In 2011, Emergent Village functions as a provocateur/prophet on the ecclesial landscape by linking and convening thought leaders and organizing a significant two-part event each year.
3. In 2011, Emergent Village has decentralized into many emergent neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods are local or regional cohorts which organize and present monthly meetings, events, websites, etc.
4. In 2011, Emergent Village has grown into a vibrant network. It supports and convenes cohort leaders and denominational network leaders, maintains publishing partnerships, and is a key partner in producing an annual national Christian faith, art, and social justice festival.

The clear winner among those surveyed where the last and second options, with the last being the winner.  Earlier today, EV posted a letter stating the direction of the organization over the next several years.

[W]e need to continue, but not institutionalize. We need to promote self-organizing neighborhoods yet maintain a kind of “village green” or commons for their to be cross-pollination and interaction among these different neighborhoods. We need to provide safe space for newcomers to the conversation and space for new ideas and provocative challenge to be shared as well. The question for us has been how to integrate these inherent tensions, insights, and agreements in a coherent plan.

The “coherent plan” consists of four main points that will be pursued (again, the expanded version can be read here).

1. To streamline, decentralize, and reduce expenses by discontinuing the role of National Coordinator.
2. To re-emphasize the importance of the website in creating space and supporting the network.
3. To decentralize by depending on friends of emergent—individuals, non-profits, and for-profits—to continue to seize new opportunities.
4. To reconfigure the board in 2009.

I am happy and impressed with this decision.  In the past I have been worried have institutionalization, centralization and homogenization, which, in my view undercuts the beauty of the network.  The statement from EV clearly asserts that his in not the intention.  Rather, the mission is to create intentional, organic space in which persons can interact and “cross-pollinate” (I love that image) while remaining faithful to the context space created in their particular locales.  It seems to me that this is the best and most effective way to participate in Missio dei not as another institutional monolith among many, but as an organic, grassroots, network allowing local freedom of expression and diversity.

I would encourage everyone to read the entire statement here.

What do you think?