Kyle posted some
comments/questions about my Launch Conference notes that I think deserve being addressed.
First of all, I need to confess that I definitely don't have all the answers. I never have and I don't think I ever will.
I'm drawn to the postmodern/emerging/incarnational approach to ministry. And I wish I could say I was 100% there because I think that this movement really
is meeting the needs of people in my generation.
At the same time, I've begun to discover that there's still value in some of the older approaches to ministry (funny--by older, I mean 25 years...). There are millions of people in this country who would get a little freaked out by the idea of becoming part of an "intentional community." I, personally, understand the value of that kind of community, but for many people when someone says "Community," what they hear is "Commune."
Anyway, I say this because over the last year or so I've realized that it's not that "seeker" is "out" and "emerging" is "in." Both are "in," depending on the context and the culture that a particular church is trying to reach. Heck, even old-school, mainline, traditional is "in" for some people.
So, let me address Kyle's
comments/questions:
1. Yes, the Launch Conference definitely came from a "purpose-driven, seeker-attractive" perspective. In fact, Nelson Searcy was open about the fact that he used to work at
Saddleback with
Rick Warren and continues to use the purpose-driven aproach with
The Journey Church.
2. I, personally, am not planning on planting a church in Northern Kentucky. I am considering planting a church in another metropolitan area in another part of the country. But that's still up in the air. I'm also in talks with an established church. I had three reasons for attending the conference: 1) Learn about church-planting (in case that's what I do), 2) learn some things that will hopefully be transferable to an established church situation (in case that's what I do), and 3) get some clarity on whether or not I'm called to church-planting (which I'm still wrestling with).
3. It's true that there will probably be a different kind of spirituality in a "seeker" type of church than in an "intentional community" kind of church. But I think one of the reasons is because of the people that each type of church attracts. Regardless of what you believe, "intentional community" kinds of churches attract a certain kind of person. Likewise, "seeker" kinds of churches attract a different kind of person. And regarding a "core" vs. a "launch team," one of my upcoming posts will explain why they suggest going with a launch team rather than a core.
Like I said, I'm still on a journey. I'm still trying to figure things out. And I think that's why I still like the word "stretchychurch." The church fits all kinds--emerging, seeker, traditional, mainline, protestant, Catholic, conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, evangelical, etc., etc., etc.
The question isn't, "Are they doing it right?" The question is, "Are they helping people become followers of Jesus?"