Getting 100 people around a table for discussion requires a large table or imagination enough to understand "roundtable" as idiomatic. The event planners of the Sandy Creek-Charlestonian Roundtable knew quickly "roundtable" would of necessity be an euphemism. Others offer their thoughts and I really am not up for an "around the room" styled post.
My thoughts range from hopeful to cautious. I am hopeful conversation void of particular code words may eventuate. When Dwight McKissic noted his opinion inerrancy and cessationsim cannot co-exist, I wondered to myself if this may signal a discussion about the practical use of the term for theological conversation. For example, our group spends more time pontificating about inerrancy and then treating the ethics required by such a high view as both impossible and impractical; after all, we are still wanting to be sure the "takeover/resurgence" is secure. The word inerrancy may have had a context and a day. I am not sure the day is gone. It does not in any way mean an end to a high view of Scripture but rather allows for a more honest dialogue when dealing with the text. In this case, we must confess a penchant to talk about inerrant interpretations rather than an inerrant text.
I am cautious. Many note a concern to dissent too vocally and too harshly for fear of losing a voice. Many want the role of prophet in the vein of a Jeremiah or Ezekiel but not necessarily the conflict associated. Weak spiritual constitutions did not win the day beginning in 1979 and they certainly will not make much headway if there is to be ongoing "reformation." My reference to weak spiritual constitution is less about one’s spiritual maturity and more about the "spirit" or "passion" of a person. What will happen when it is determined the structure is systemically malfunctioning? What will we do when we realize cooperation and connectedness may be done with more precision and efficiency that does not require the size/kind of bureaucracy currently in place? Rather than be viewed as "pulling out" or wanting to begin "something new," how will others be convinced the resources of money and people for the cause of the Kingdom may more efficiently handled under a more "advanced" network?
In the end, the "spirit" of the meeting appeared to be in the capable sphere of the "Spirit of God." One important aside from the meeting. Sermons do not need be more than four minutes long to be powerful and imaginative. Dr. Storms offered a great "devotional" close more akin to a sermon than what most would consider could be done with such time constraint. While Dr. McKissic’s message may have required 10 minutes, we were drawn into a certain, "prophetic imagination" to borrow from Brueggemann.
The time ended with a "Where do we go from here?" One need to note the third personal pronoun, "we." Indeed there were some who expressed frustration with experienced narrowness, a sense I share, there were no calls for new acronyms and institutional frameworks. If those who may have feared such a meeting could take the call as need for further reformation it may be more a compliment than an afront.
My fear – "positions" will only be entrenched for fear of a loss of power.