Now that the so called emergent "conversation" has been going on for some time, perhaps now would be a good time to ask a simple and obvious question: if this is the "emergent" conversation/movement (or whatever you prefer to call it), what exactly is it emerging into? In other words, where is all this going?

Do we get to a point where the Emerging Church has finished its emerging stage- kind of like a bird from an egg? And when we get there- do we call it something else? Or alternatively, does the emerging conversation just keep on going- moving from one topic to the next as culture continues to shift?

As is often the case in these kinds of questions, I think there are a couple of different ways to look at it.

On the one hand, the Emergent movement is more than just a perpetual shape-shifting phenomenon. The movement arose to meet the challenge posed at a particular period in history; when western society began moving from a modern to a postmodern perspective. And in that sense, the term emergent, like your classic carton of milk, has an expiry date; simply because at some point the transition will be complete.

These major paradigm shifts do not come along all that often. There is a reason why people are referring to the Emergent thrust as being part of the "new Reformation". The current postmodern revolution going on marks the first major philosophical shift we've faced since the last reformation took place- hundreds of years ago.

That being the case, once the Church can comfortably and effectively speak to a post-enlightenment, post-colonial, postmodern culture- perhaps the season where an Emergent conversation is needed will have passed; because we will have emerged- or to follow a previous analogy- more fully "hatched". I think there is something to this idea.

It's important to remember that while the western Church now speaks the language of modernity fluently and effortlessly, this was not always the case. There was clearly an emerging period for the modern-sensitized Church as well.

It was the pressure of the Enlightenment period that prompted Church leaders of the time (mostly in the Catholic Church) to become conversant with the concepts of modernity- familiarizing themselves with subjects such as objective observation and the scientific method. What began as a foreign language eventually became "the native tongue".

Today it would be silly to ask how the Church could better identify with and communicate with a modernist culture. It's already there. In fact you could say that the lesson has been mastered. The western Church has been remarkably successful in learning a language that a modern society has "moved and breathed in". But as Brian McLaren and others have already said, we've gone about as far as we can with a modern mentality.

And so, just as there was a distinct season pertaining to the Church's shift from a pre-modern to a modern paradigm, so too will there also be a "hatching season" for the latest culture shift- from modernism to postmodernism. And once that shift is made the "Emergent" conversation will have served its purpose. And likely, by that time, the E.C. is more likely to be the M.C.- the mainstream- not the emerging fringe. It's probably helpful to offer a clarification here. While many people, both from the Christian community and from the secular media, refer to the conversation as a Church, those intimately involved have always felt a little uncomfortable with this. That's because those involved in Emergent see themselves as being very much a part of the larger Church.

In fact, one of the main characteristics of Emergent is a more ecumenical understanding that we are all a part of the same family of God. So, an emergent Christian community certainly won't fight to remain "separate and distinct" from the rest of the Church. Excessive denominational categorization is a modern construct, not a postmodern one.

Okay- with that clarification made, let's return to the main question: will the emergent conversation one day finish emerging? Like I mentioned earlier, I think there is more than only one way to understand what we mean by the description "emerging". Yes, on the one hand, the E. C. is "emerging" as a response to a certain finite era in Western history.

But on the other hand, it is also rightly called the "emergent movement" because by definition it is a perpetually evolving, organic thing. The day that the Emergent movement "rests its case" and says - "okay, we're done" is the day in which the E.C. will have fallen back into a modern mentality. I think this is unlikely.

A couple of paragraphs ago I wrote ".once that (postmodern) shift is made, then the "Emergent" conversation will have served its purpose". But you see that idea in itself is born out of a modern mentality; where things exist only to serve a purpose- utilitarianism is another word for it.

Postmoderns understand things a little differently. Conversation is not good just for what it can "produce", but also because it's an expression of relationship. And relationship is just one of those "good things" that God has hard-wired into the universe. It need have no further justification than that.

And so in that sense, it seems fitting that the expression "emerging movement" stays with us. I'm sure we will get to the point where that name changes- but I certainly hope that the underlying characteristic does not. There is a humility that comes with being open to dialogue with other perspectives that is essential both for our effectiveness, and for our own spiritual health. I'm pretty confident that we have and/or are- learning that lesson.

"Joy in the journey". That's an expression we hear more and more these days. I hope as we continue with the conversation, that we remember that "getting there" has a meaning and a value all its own. And for that reason, I hope we learn to lose the desire to rush. I certainly think that once we more fully comprehend, and really begin to grasp the fact that Christ has re-made us into eternal beings, we'll realize that journey is in one sense- everything.