Today, Len at NextReformation quotes a 1999 article by Ginny Hunt (the article, in its entirety, can be found here):

Sociologists have discovered that in virtually all forms of social organizations, from friendship groups to nations, a small self-perpetuating group grabs most of the power. This tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few persons is called the law of oligarchy. Through His various words and actions that we read in the Bible, Jesus condemns oligarchy in social, economic, political and religious spheres of life. Kraybill wrote, ?Designating Himself as a waiter and criticizing the scribes? drive for prestige touches the social area. ? His hard words about economic stratification where rich dominate the poor?The comment that His disciples should not be like the kings of the Gentiles who lord it over their subordinates strikes at oligarchy in the political sphere. Jesus? harsh words and acts against the oral law and the temple demonstrate His rejection of oligarchy in religious institutions.?

The article proposes rejecting oligarchy for allelon-based ways of organizing (allelon being the Greek word for “one-another”). Here are five principles for allelon-based organizing, based upon Jesus’ way of handling power:

1) Power should be used to help others become powerful. This is the opposite of what usually happens. Power usually begets more power, but in the Kingdom of God, the citizens seek to use power to equalize power.

2) Power should be distributed as widely as possible among individuals and organizations. The law of oligarchy says that power usually concentrates in the hands of a few people. While there will always be varied degrees of power within human organizations, we ought to work to diffuse and decentralize power where possible.

3) Hierarchy in social governance should be reduced to a minimum. Kraybill uses the analogy of a ladder to demonstrate social hierarchies. He says the ladder should be flattened out. As that happens, coordination and cooperation replaces domination.

4) Authority for leadership should be freely given by the led. Leadership should not be imposed on a group nor self-appointed. Leadership naturally arises when it is freely given by the ones being led to the leader in response to the leader?s servant posture.

5) The Christian perspective looks down the ladder. The normal human tendency is to climb the ladder as quickly as possible, but the followers of Jesus work to serve the powerless at the bottom.

As I read the article, I couldn’t help but notice the irony that the organization called “Allelon” has been moving away from these sorts of principles (which were at the heart of Allelon in the beginning). Allelon used to be almost exclusively about fostering conversation. But over time, it has become about a particular ecclesiological/theological agenda (which I happen to affirm), has become centered around the personality of Alan Roxburgh, and has been trying to move into publishing. Does this sound familiar? It is the same trajectory that Emergent has been on. The New Monasticism has begun to move in the same direction as well.

I am the coordinator for the Twin Cities Emergent Cohort. I’m no longer the outsider decrying the “system.” I’m an insider now. I value Emergent and the relationships tied into my involvement with Emergent. I love what we’re trying to accomplish. And I don’t believe that the reason for this is that intentional.  I don’t believe that the shift towards oligarchy has been premeditated, intentional, or desired.  But it is what has happened, subtly. So, I’m conflicted.  However, I have two major critiques.  I offer them as a loving insider, not as a raging outsider:

1. These groups have moved from decentralized networks that foster conversation to conversation brokers to oligarchical institutions (though, to be fair, institutions that strongly value dialogue, process, and sharing).
2. Such groups play too much into the consumer mindset–fostering brand identity, celebrity spokespersons, and publishing deals.

Emergent (and Allelon) are both moving away from the empowerment of the many (through conversational events) to an oligarchical orientation. They actively seek the respect of strong institutions like seminaries, denominations, and the like. And they seek to have a strong voice in North American Christianity through publishing deals. These things aren’t “evil” per se. But it is deceptive and sneaky to say that Emergent Village is simply a conversation. It is an institution. That’s not so bad, except that the strong gravity of institutions like Emergent Village and Allelon has exerted a centralizing force on the emerging and missional movements. In other words, instead of organic, decentralized conversations, conversations are happening in the orbits of groups like Emergent and Allelon. Let’s all be honest about the fact that this has happened instead of pretending that nothing has happened.

Such groups have played into the consumer mindset. Both have become brands with clearly identifiable (celebrity) spokespersons. And it is those celebrity voices that shape the “conversation.” In other words, we have an oligarchy. I’ve gotten into a spat or two with Tony Jones about this phenomenon within Emergent. When I first started griping about it, I wasn’t friends with Tony. Now I am. And it makes it all the more difficult to criticize the centralizing effects of Emergent. For the most part, I really enjoy my involvement with Emergent. I enjoy the friendships and the events. But I’m still as uncomfortable as ever with the way in which the conversation orbits around a handful of people.

So, now when I critique Emergent, I’m critiquing myself too. I get that. I’m no longer interested in merely lobbing stones. Instead, I want to make some general suggestions:

1. Those of us who are active participants in Emergent (or Allelon) should be honest about what our organizations are and not “spin” things to make them sound better.
2. We should recognize that we’re at a point where such organizations are beginning to dis-empower, as well as empower, folks in the broader emerging/missional church movement.
3. We should all be willing to speak to the newly forming power structures within our movements. Have candid conversations with those folks whose voices have become dominant in the conversation.
4. We must kill the Buddha.
5. Believe it or not, there are ways of fostering conversation, holding events, and accomplishing great things that don’t center around particular personalities, or strengthen particular organizations. When you plan your next event, try to think through whether or not you’re contributing to the centralizing impulse. This is something I’m thinking through as I plan the Justice of Jesus Conference for the spring. It would be too easy to invite particular celebrity voices. And while more folks will show up if I invite celebrities to speak, it can communicate the message that these folks are at a higher level of Christianity or are more important. I need to have solid speakers who have earned the message they’ll share, but who will still be seen as mere mortals. It is a delicate, fragile dance–but one worth dancing.

Most of this is as much our fault as it is the fault of those “inside” the oligarch
y.  When I planted Missio Dei, my desire was to foster decentralization.  But my own understanding of how I should lead made it hard to be decentralized.  Even more challenging, though, was that everyone in Missio Dei looked to me to lead them in a way that undermined decentralization.  In other words, the shift towards oligarchism has come because we wanted it.  We want people like Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren and Alan Roxburgh and Shane Claiborne and Jonathan Wilson Hartgrove etc. to come and define “Emerging Church” and “Missional” and “New Monasticism” for us–because that is easier than us having to figure it our for ourselves.  And so, we invite them to come tell us how it is, instead of inviting them to come chat with us. And so, we end up with Oligarchy by will of the people.

My goal here isn’t to promote the destruction of these groups. I’m not about that. But neither do I think status-quo is an option. How do we constructively promote a retreat from the centralizing impulses while, at the same time, a continued fostering of conversation and networking? What do you think?

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.