I am increasingly skeptical that ‘conversation’ is a very helpful paradigm or description for what should be going on in Christian thinking and ministry. In other words, if we start with the New Testament’s perspective on humans having received words from God (kerygma and ‘teaching’) about the ways/doings of God, the dominant ideas seem to be one of heralds or ambassadors faithfully and authoritatively communicating a particular message (news, good news) that is saving when believed. And beyond this, there is a tradition of teaching that is to be successively and authentically delivered/handed on that will guide the doing (praxis) and serving (mission) of the disciples (believers/obeyers) of Christ.
In the current conversation, there seems to be this virtually never-ending quest to even figure out what the ‘message/tradition’ is (or might be). The apostles and the early church seemed to be confident that they knew what that message was, and that their task was to declare, explain, defend, adorn, extend and embody it. (In fact 'minister of the Word' means 'servant of the Message.')
I recognize that there were times when the early church (as it was ‘emerging’) had to clarify its understanding of the Message (e.g., Acts 15), but this to them was a do-able project, apparently accomplished in a few days at most, before the proclamation with explanation resumed.
Will the emergent ‘conversation’ ever turn into authoritative (yet still humble) ‘proclamation’?
Hebrews 1 tells us that "God...has spoken..." That's what's decisive for any concept of 'conversation.'