I think I know where you are coming from though in terms of your comment on Shaping… And I would agree. But, my experience is that Alan has moved from the hardline presented there and Kim’s input I thought was a nice balance point too.

phil@signposts.org.au

Maybe I’m reading the summit through the filter of the book, “The Shaping of Things to Come”. I sense the rivalry when the authors equate ‘missional’ with ‘incarnational’ and ‘incarnational’ with ‘non-attractional’.

In the early prophetic stages of most reform movements there’s obviously a need for dissenting. It takes a while to dissent with poise.

I’d be interested to hear how you felt that and what was said. Having been in this environment for a long time I may have become blind to it or numb to it, but I actually thought the guys were quite kind :)

I was in Melbourne at the same time but presenting in a Mars Hill-Areopagus like setting — an international conference of Tarot card experts.

Your reflection son the Forge event, especially the critique of attractional models, is precisely at the heart of my concerns that there is much “talk” about being contextually missional, but often it does not seem to be matched by going outside the comfort zones of the church-controlled building or event.

In addition, I’d suggest that you keep it noted in your memory banks to pick up a copy in 2006 of the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. There is a special themed edition coming out on the Emerging Church. John Drane is the guest editor. There are several case study essays. Also included is an essay I have co-written about the Community of Hope, but also includes some discussion points for Emerging Church people to consider relative to being missional, especially in the climate ECers say they are engaging with, and raising questions about how many ECers are reporting back on their encounters with the missional, theological challenges of new spiritualities; especially since new spiritualities are widely acknowledged as being an integral feature in “post-modernity”.

The attractional model runs the risk of perpetuating the misnomer that Christianity is normative and mainstream in our culture and that new spiritualities are just the fringe irrelevancies. The fact is the roles are reversed: new spiritualities are very mainstream and the church is on the fringe.

So to be missional folks will increasingly need to head into the arenas of seekers, rather than waiting for seekers to show up at church (whatever model of church we care to nominate).

Cheers