I can't help but think about the effect that the Emerging Conversation/Movement has had on keeping my faith alive. This conversation has taken much criticism mainly because its definition and structure is elusive. Knowing that there are Christians struggling with their faith and having the guts to talk openly about their passion and their doubts has helped me make huge steps in building a more robust faith. I'm grateful for authors like Brian Mclaren and the long list of bloggers that have helped me emerge from my Evangelical background without giving up on the idea of faith completely.

I've noticed that "emergents" come in different flavors. I know categorization is not a very post-modern thing to do, but maybe a modern treatment of this group will help some people understand. This categorization is not mine and has been widely published and usually contains 3 categories. I've added a fourth here that I think is important and often overlooked (mostly because it includes me). I'm aware that many would likely prefer to leave out this 4th category, but I feel certain that those who take the movement serious will realize that it is going to be increasingly important.

Group A - "The Relevants" - These have focused on creating relevant worship styles. It was assumed that to reach post moderns we would have to make church "cool" (e.g. coffee, candles, fine art, hip music, ancient liturgical elements, etc.) I've been a part of a couple of these. Church purpose, structure, and doctrine remain very traditional for these people. The changes they suggest are merely surface level.

Group B - "The Reconstructionists" - These are more concerned with the structures and methods of church as a whole, not just with what we do in worship. The house-church movement falls in this category and includes those people that have grown uneasy with the mega-church trend. Often this group incorporates many of the worship and culture changes found of Group A.

Group C - "The Re-Envisionists" - These people are re-envisioning our faith and what the gospel is really all about. There is openness to diverse viewpoints, and a willingness to question traditional assumptions about theology and blur denominational lines. This is where the main criticism often comes as standard doctrines and scriptural interpretation techniques are deconstructed and reconstructed. Many of these people are very vaugue about the level of their deconstruction because they wish to stay under the umbrella of Evangelicalism are not exactly sure how far they are willing to push for change.

Group D (my addition) - "The Inclusivists" - I've added this category to define those of us who have no problem dropping the boundaries and reach beyond the framework of Christianity for help finding language to explain there experience of faith. I hope this growing segment of our society will bring a fresh spirit of pluralism, harmony and even different forms of non-theism or (a)theism to the conversation.

The point of all this is that human faith is emerging (or evolving) and these are some of the characteristics of the spiritual evolutionary process. This is NOT a linear process from A to D and Group D isn't the goal that needs to replace A, B, and C. Just like with the evolution of species, the church is evolving through the process of increasing variation and complexity. Something more distinct and cohesive may eventually emerge out of this process but more likely the results will be many more diverse and more complex forms of faith. The one thing we can be sure of is that it will keep changing. I think this can be healthy for our faith if we can learn to appreciate the diversity and rest in process of transformation that is the nature of God.

Just as humanity can't be seen as the end result of the evolution of species, no denomination or religion can realistically think of itself as the end result of the evolution of faith.