I just got back from being part of the Rethink Conference which happened Thursday-Saturday. It was quite a complex, different and fascinating conference in terms of the amount of speakers they had, keeping things on schedule, and the diversity of topics and the diversity of presentation styles. I had a really wonderful time reconnecting with some people and meeting new people. Got to reconnect with Bobby Shuller and spend a couple hours together and talked about ministry, seminary, theology, the church in Germany, matchbooks and a whole bunch of things. Bobby has started a Sunday morning alternative Gathering so it was fun hearing how things have progressed since we last met.
For the Rethink Conference each of us had a 20 minute main session time and then had break out sessions. My favorite part was the lunch open forum time. It was a casual time in a very full room and I just opened it up for any question or comment. Not surprisingly, the very first question asked in the open forum time was one I get asked a lot. "What do you think of the categories being developed for the emerging church?" They were asking about the "Relevants" Revisionists" "Reformists" breakdown that I believe Ed Stetzer first came up with and then Mark Driscoll and others have used in breaking down the variety of those in what is known as the "emerging church". I am often put in the "Relevant" category. You can read about the various ways people are attempting to make sense of the differences in the emerging church world:
here here here and a compilation of summaries here
Between the open forum lunch time and the break out "Think Tank" that I also was part of and as people walked up to me at other times and asked questions, the same patterns of questions I hear quite often were asked. "What is the difference of emerging and emergent?" is a big one. But one question someone asked me really stuck with me. He said:
"What if you aren't comfortable with the degree of theological open-endedness and ambiguity that often exists in some of the emerging/emergent church world are at and can't find yourself fully agreeing there - yet at the same time what if you aren't comfortable with the staunch Calvinist and strictly Reformed type of emerging churches there are? What if you still are very missional in focus, yet aren't necessarily emergent or necessarily sold-out Reformed/Calvinist?"
It struck a personal chord with me and I honestly felt that is the question that probably summarizes what is behind a lot of the questions I get asked or emailed. What if there are a lot of people caught in this in-between sort of "what if" world?
I have been thinking a lot about that "what if" question since I was asked. It has been consuming my thoughts actually the past 3 days, as I hasn't heard it asked quite like it was. I don't think the answer is that it simply means being in the middle "Relevant" category. The problem (to me) with the "Relevant" category as I have heard it described is that it mainly says that it is all about being "cool" and simply changing methodology of communicating the gospel. That is partially true (changing the methods of communicating the gospel, not the "cool" part as "cool" is very subjective and very surface oriented). It goes beyond that. To me the description of the "Relevant" category doesn't fully mention or focus on the critical importance of what being a missional church is. Being missional means more than just changing how you communicate the gospel or about changing the music and aesthetics but an entire shift in how you go about leading and being the church. The "Relevant" category didn't stress how there is a desire to be understanding the origins and history of various theological systems and to more deeply understand how (and when) doctrines were concluded throughout church history. Or how critical it is to understand how our methodology does stem from our theology (whether we realize it or not) and to seriously understand the implications of that. The "Relevant" category doesn't mention the rethinking and changing of how we flesh out our ecclesiology in terms of leadership structures, evangelism, defining community etc. But at the same time that there is rethinking happening it doesn't mean moving from the historic creeds of the faith and core historic theology of the church.
When I was asked in the lunch open forum that very first question of whether I felt the "Relevant" category is where I am at, I said "yes" - I am closest to that one. But not quite in the simplistic and refined way as the definitions have normally been used to describe that category. To be, being "Relevant" (to use that term since it was used in the emerging church breakdowns) means much much more.
I had another lunch meeting during the conference with some staff from a very missional church and as we talked the same thing came up. We talked about those who hold a high view of the inspired Scriptures along with a passionate view and practice of evangelism. We talked about those who want to see the church focusing on justice and mercy and taking action on that, but also seeing conversion growth in the church. We talked about the church being in the world but the church still being holy. We talked about the need for community but not narcissistic community.
If anything, I left the Rethink Conference encouraged from the conversations I had there. And I am wondering if maybe that "what if" question is a really a common question. It is 2:05 AM. I end up writing these posts late at night after our Sunday night gatherings or other times I am up late. Hope it makes sense.
