Just sitting in the Melbourne Airport waiting for a flight back to Brisbane after the Australian Emerging Missional Church Summit held by the Forge network over the weekend. Was a good gathering of the clan – people engaging with a missional approach to church.
So how did it go?
1. With over 500 people there it was an excellent opportunity to make connections across denominational, age and style barriers. No one had name tags on which meant we went in blind. No ‘big names’. Meal times were long enough for lots of conversations.
2. Input from Alan Hirsch, Michael Frost, Tom and Christine Sine, John Smith. Nothing radically new – more a chance to articulate what has been practiced and thought for a while now. Michael did have a go at the romance discourse of praise and worship. The Sines gave us their dream of alternatives to individualism and consumerism, with a plug for shared living as in the new monasticism coming through.
I attended the forum on the future of the Church, with Michael Frost, Ruth Powell (NCLS), Tom Sine, Carolyn Kitto and Steve Addison. The most interesting comment came from Steve, responding to unease about the success of the Pentecostals. He suggested that from his studies of similar movements in history, the future leaders of the AOG and their peers are likely to mellow out and provide a mainstream contribution to the future of Australia.
It’s interesting to see the flavour the Forge crew put on the emerging church movement. There’s a fair amount of antagonism towards ‘attractional’ church coming from Michael and Alan, the authors of “The Shaping of Things to Come”. There’s not a lot of interest in the engagement with postmodernity found in other quarters. Alternative worship is seen as just a tinkering with the gathered worship model.
Maybe this approach is what the Australian Church needs to get over some of its addictions to ‘doing church’, employing staff and inhabiting buildings.
Duncan, Ive posted a comment in response on my home blog. In short, I think a robust challenge to the attractional model is necessary at this time.
Interesting Duncan.
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
antagonism is a very interesting word to use, because it doesn’t just imply disagreement, tension and disenssion, but also hostility, rivalry and competition.
It was good to meet up Duncan. Funnily enough I didn’t sense much antagonism towards established churches.
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 🙂
Yes I used the word antagonism deliberately. Perhaps not antagonism towards particular people. But towards approaches to church that are seen to be doomed and destructive.
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.
Interesting Duncan. As I actually remarked to someone on the way home that this forge conference was much better in terms of attitude towards the established church.
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
…or flying interstate and sipping lattes while contemplating one’s metaphysical navel