The Presbyterian blogosphere and twitterverse have been busy today conducting a postmortem on the NEXT conference. Check out these first reflections (and let me know if I’m missing any):
- #NEXTChurchIndy is the ongoing conversation on Twitter.
- Jeff Lehn
- MaryAnn McKibben Dana
- Rocky Supinger
Much of the conversation has been about the lack of diversity among the conference leadership. The “next” church, it seems, looks a lot like the old church. Indeed, with some notable exceptions, there were a lot of white male pastors from big steeple churches. (Full disclosure of the obvious: I am a white male pastor from a big steeple church.) Since this was also my impression at the smaller gathering in Minneapolis (which I was invited to because of my big steeple connections), I was surprised and disappointed that three out of four preachers were white men. There was, of course, more diversity in some of the other conference and worship leadership, which I don’t think should be discounted.
I think it is helpful to keep in mind that this was intended to be the beginning of a conversation, not a presentation of solutions or a vision of what the next church might actually look like. The fact is that this particular conversation—and we all know that it is one of many—was started by a group of big steeple pastors—many of whom have been colleagues, mentors, and friends to me—who thought it would be helpful to expand their conversation by organizing a big conference. And look what happened: 350 people showed up, including 70 seminarians, and through online videos and social media many more people are participating.
Yes, the next NEXT conference should model the kind of church and leadership we would like to be—not what we have been for so very long. Yes, it should have less of a traditional, big steeple conference/worship vibe. Yes, churches of all sizes and missional contexts should be represented. Yes, it should include more voices from the full theological spectrum of the PC(USA). Yes, it should be even more conversational.
But I think this was an important beginning—one of many beginnings. The very fact that it has provoked such good questions in the first 24 hours after its conclusion is a good sign of things to come.
And, I think it is actually significant that there were so many big steeple pastors involved in this particular conversation. Big steeple pastors—especially those involved in denominational leadership—are the least likely to be asking the kinds of questions that were asked at this conference because big steeple churches are closest to the center of the Christendom establishment we are emerging from. Seminarians have been having these conversations for a long time. Emergents—and Presbymergents—have been having these conversations for a long time. Faith communities on the margins have been having these conversations for a long time. Now this iteration of the conversation has brought in some big steeple pastors of churches that would survive just fine if the rest of the PC(USA) were to fade away—or go away—tomorrow.
That is no small thing. The next church that is emerging will take all of these people and many more. The conversation has expanded and will continue to expand.
Thanks for the mention.
It seems like events like this create a competition among participants: who’s going to be first to point out the lack of diversity? There’s a superiority implied in publicly stating what everybody can see, be it a moral or intellectual.
It happened at Theology After Google last year, and it happened at NEXT. It drives me nuts. That doesn’t make the observation any less true, though.
What you’re saying here is exactly what I found myself saying in defense of the organizers on Tuesday (one of whom, admittedly, is my Head of Staff): this is a beginning.
Nice work.
Thanks, Rocky. Clearly, great minds of associate pastors think alike.
Moral or intellectual superiority? Probably. But there is also a lot of legitimate angst in the church that bubbles up into discontent at these kinds of gatherings. I agree that this can be tiring, but also important to voice. I think the seminarians did a good job expressing these concerns at NEXT.
Thanks, John. Grateful for this. It killed me not to be there. I guess, though, here’s my main question after following a fair amount on Twitter. If you can I’d love your response: what was different from NEXT as compared to Church Unbound in Montreat or Presbymergent conversations overall? Is it just that what started in the grassroots has arrived at the big steeples? Or are the big steeples just jumping on the band wagon because it’s cool?
As someone about to embark on leading a NEXT/new faith community venture myself, I’m aware of one distinction personally that might actually apply to the conference, but it’s a longshot. I guess, as I interviewed for this emergent church gig, I realized that what might set me apart from others applying is the fact that I love the traditional church. I also love emergent church conversations and thinking outside the box. So I’m involved in emergent/new church ideas not because I don’t like the big steeples, not despite the fact that I love the big steeples, but because I love them. I’m helping start a new faith community that will look nothing like a big steeple because of the faith, theology, and discipleship I learned at a downtown urban congregation growing up. I’m rambling, so I’ll stop. I guess, though, my point is that I wonder if my personal journey might fit those who attended and spoke at NEXT more than those who attend or speak at a similar conference that’s more reactionary or on-the-edge?
It would have been great for you to be there, Adam, but I’m glad you were able to follow and participate in the conversation remotely.
I don’t think that the big steeple pastors are jumping on the bandwagon because it’s cool. Rather, I think what we are seeing is the Spirit moving the church to this conversation in a variety of ways. I think the NEXT crowd is asking similar questions in their own ways, based on their own experiences. A good analogy might be the different ways that people have entered the emergent church movement/conversation. If you think about something like Emergent Village, evangelicals and mainliners have each arrived at that conversation via different paths, so the conversation sounds a little different and is certainly predicated on different assumptions and experiences. The same will be true for how this plays out in the PC(USA). Many of the Church Unbound and Presbymergent folks are coming at this from a different effective history than the NEXT folks, and vice versa. So, yes, it may be that your personal journey has more in common with the NEXT iteration of the conversation. All of these ways are totally legitimate. Of the Emergent Village people, Brian McLaren seems to exhibit the most wisdom in not worrying too much about how people are arriving at the conversation and recognizing that it will take place in a variety of contexts.
Does this get at what you are wondering?
One other thing. After the smaller NEXT gathering before GA, I commented to Landon Whitsitt that this was pretty much the exact conversation from the Louisville Presbymergent gathering and that I was excited by the fact that so many high profile (and big steeple) denominational leaders were now talking about the same things.
Thanks, John. That is quite helpful. Sort of a one river many paths type thing. Makes sense. I look forward to seeing what’s NEXT next.
This all interests me as we move towards voting on nFOG in a few weeks in my presbytery. Sadly, the same people assigned (by our Presbytery Council) to find people speaking for and against nFOG are assigned to find people speaking for and against 10-A. I see nFOG as taking us into a new century/way of being church no matter our understanding of homosexuality. Does the relative lack of progress on nFOG mean NEXT conversations are still on the margin even as big steeple folks join in?
Yeah, I think the church’s lack of imagination as it is slow to embrace nFOG says something about how difficult it will be to expand this conversation throughout the church.
I must admit a bit of bafflement that 10-A is passing while nFOG and Belhar are failing. I recognize that they are different issues–I hope it does not signal a preference for a slight course correction.
This is more coming out of Next than reflection on next, but you might find it interesting.
Thanks for your thoughts, John. I was there, and agree with Rocky that the ‘diversity’ concerns get tiresome. I thought there was something fairly denomination specific about this conversation. It really was an effort to think about what was next for PC(USA). Is it heretical to point out that we’re talking about a historically anglo/european tradition- one that has made efforts to diversify, but will likely always skew that direction demographically. I liked Shannon’s response to some of those comments which was a really nice way of reminding those commenting that they were certainly welcome to invite those they thought missing. I also thought that perhaps the seminarians spoke a bit too much. Yes, I want to hear their ideas. But those ideas aren’t always grounded in the reality of having done parish ministry. It’s a whole lot easier talking about something than it is to do it.
John . . . thoughtful as ever and good to see you IN PERSON in Chicago. I very much agree with you in that it will take all kinds to emerge from where we are into where we go next.
What I will wait to see is how seriously any group that is generated by “big-steeple” folks will take these yearnings to discover what is next. Will the power, authority and influence be used to open up space EVEN at the expense of very power, authority and influence? At 40′ish, it is my role now, not to lead a movement, but to discovery from where the next movements are coming and bring any influence that I may have along side of that.
I trust that this listening is what has brought the NEXT folks together, but where it will lead is the bigger question for me.
I hate that I said “It drives me nuts” with respect to people pointing out how white these gatherings are. It doesn’t drive me nuts. It makes me uncomfortable, and that’s probably good.