I will reflect theologically on the DITB project by bringing the three primary themes from the data into conversation with the three types of frames that I mentioned at the beginning of chapter two. I make this move because a key assumption that I brought into this project—and one that has only been deepened as a result of it—is that all knowledge is interpreted knowledge. Human being, as Kegan notes, is the action of constructing meaning from experienced data that is received through one’s filter. As the individual human moves through time and space, in communal relationships, both the individual and society evolves.
I said, in the introduction, that the typical Lutheran suburbanite lives under extreme societal pressures to be a self-actualized, successful individual who navigates between a myriad of cultural choices as a radical individual with the power to choose. How can the Lutheran leader of suburban congregations cultivate spaces in which these suburbanites can find help to navigate these turbulent waters? What have we learned from the DITB project that might provide some insight into this question? In this, the final section, I will focus on my personal experience of leading the RT, my theological reflection upon it, and its possible implications for the missional church.
We have come to the end of this journey. The research team no longer exists. My writing is done. You, dear reader, and I have finished our interaction. Hopefully, we have found a fusion of horizons that has expanded each of our theological imaginations.
I come to the end of this leg of the journey in a fixed moment in time. I will move beyond this paper and change, while the text of the paper becomes a temporal frame of my theological imagination at its moment of completion. You will encounter this paper at another moment in time, and it will intersect with you in that space, and invite you into a dialogue of its own. My prayer is that the dialogue is fruitful.