I’ve been carrying this blog as an internal dialog for a while, and a recent conversation with a colleague has inspired me to share it here.

My good buddy Tripp Fuller, of Homebrewed Christianity fame, and I started the Triad Emergent Cohort (Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC) several years ago. It was a great venue for what was a largely new and burgeoning conversation about emerging trends in theology and church practice.

It was also a venue for recovery – mostly recovering Baptists – who were suffering an identity crisis along with vocational uncertainty. As a participant, I credit this cohort with keeping me sane during a time of vocational upheaval.

Recently the emergent cohort phenomenon as a whole has itself suffered a bit of an identity crisis. I have since moved to Raleigh, NC — that at one time had the first emergent cohort in this region. It had disbanded by the time I got here last November. While Tim Conder and I have discussed a revival of the group, life, work, books, and such have slowed any progress.

I have no idea what my former cohort has been up to, if anything.

Like any “movement,” (motion is inherent in the word) emergent is evolving. The cohort model was an effective piece of structure that helped many people find a home. A home that gave them the space to ask questions, cross boundaries, heal, rant, and so on. Yet, as the movement has evolved, so to must its structures. Yes, Emergent has structure. There’s nothing wrong with it either, and we shouldn’t fear it. What we should fear is idolizing those structures. (soap box)

Call me silly, but I still think local groups of committed people are the engine for any movement, and I believe that is still the case for emergent. However, these groups need a purpose beyond therapy and conceptualization, and they need a communications network and all the possibilities that come with it. These sorts of groups are also transient, and perhaps that is the very way they remain organic.

Where do we start? Think local and start talking to people. As I have listened and read my context, I have recognized some things. (Results may vary!)

1. Many established clergy know that they have to feed the machine or starve. This doesn’t preclude them from living out of their own emergence. What does prohibit them is lack of opportunity to do so. Cohorts could create opportunities for clergy to practice emergence. Notice I said practice rather than discuss. This will go a long way in keeping current creative clergy persons engaged in the church. Traditional churches are largely closed-off to creativity. Any reimagining of practices, structures, or processes can create panic in many churches.  Clergy suffocate in such conditions. Cohorts could be a venue for exercising creativity in the liturgy (artistic multi-sensory worship off church premises on a week night), formational programs (pub groups, etc.), and in missional engagement (community garden for local soup kitchen or farmers market).

2. We have a back-up (in our moderate/liberal Baptist system anyway) wherein young theologically trained clergy are jobless. This is ironic since our leaders talk about being “concerned” about the lack of young leadership in the church. The truth is there is a generation and a half worth of creative hexagonal pegs, and everything out there is a 50’s model square hole. Add to that the fact that the only positions still deemed acceptable to newly trained creatives are youth and associate ones; where they are patronized to death for being naive starry-eyed little youngsters; and kept a safe distance away from the reigns of power. (soap box) Cohorts could create opportunities for young clergy to freely exercise their creativity and be taken seriously. (see above) They would be able to network with other clergy, and with people from the community.

3. Mainline university ministries are in rapid decline as denominational structures continue to come up short on giving, and cut their personnel costs. There are little to no emerging theological voices on the local campuses. While InterVarsity has, at times uncomfortably, been engaged in Emergent, it too has wrestled with just how much it is willing to emerge. The dominant voices on campus are the para-church fundamentalists. While they have the right to be there, we know that they do not speak for all of us. Cohorts could engage clergy, Div. schoolers, and anyone else in campus-related ministry projects. A cohort could develop a volunteer network of people to operate a campus ministry that over time might be viable enough to sustain itself financially.

I am not sure what your context is in need of. Are you asking?

I get it. We’re busy. We’ve got churches to lead and families to feed. I feel those pressures constantly. However, these things I’ve listed above trouble me deeply. I also believe that we cannot deny our place in history as stepping stones along the way to a new threshold. One we’ll likely not see.

Cohorts can still be a useful structure within the present emergence. I believe their purpose in the movement has evolved from recovery to action. In some ways they can be laboratories for reimagined forms of ministry, worship and practice to take place. They can be spaces where clergy stay alive and fresh, and where young leaders spread their wings. They can be this and so much more.

This is slanted pretty heavy toward clergy and church leaders because of who I am, and the conversational contexts that have informed this post. One great reality about emergent cohorts is the potential for anyone to participate. These are not closed communities, though they can be when they’re one-dimensional evangelical recovery groups. Organizing them around projects & practices will go a long way in opening them up to broader participation.

I’d love to hear thoughts from other folks about cohorts. What would be effective in your location? What would keep you alive and engaged in the greater emergence happening within western Christianity?