What's the Emergency? Emergent and Emerging Churches

I am beginning to agree with you. I've noticed something...there are certain things that really set people off on their opinions. This issue is one of those things for some people. When I've sat back and observed, I've wondered why people get so defensive, and sensitive towards it. Almost as if there is a fear. What is to be afraid of? All of the concerns of the liberalism are nothing new, so why get so jumpy, defensive, and possibly even afraid? I think that diminishes the witness of the church. The church is turning into a group that does nothing but react to things they disagree with. The world never sees or hears from Christians unless they are reacting to something. Why can't we sit down with, look into, and talk about positives and negatives? Filter out what is ubiblical, and manage the ideas that we can use.

Don't be jumpy people....there's nothing to be afraid of with the Emerging church.

At least, nothing to fear from the table I'm at!!! :laugh:

 

I think that there is a normal human tendecy to fear the new and unknown.

I got the impression that Aaron was honestly seeking information about something he was not familiar with.

One common pitfall is to jump to quick conclusions and have the mind set on a certain opinion rather than continuing to evaluate evidence presented to us.

 

I see the same attempt at a bad argument being made here as is on another thread currently running. It is the false idea that you are ignorant of what I believe because you disagree with me. And the EC is not as complex as they would like to think themselves to be.

The fact that is is dubbed as a conversation means it has a high ecumenical nature. And many in the EC embrace this. This is a false ideology and leads to compromise on doctrine to all inclusive. The conversation also implies that people are trying to figure out how to get Christianity to work for them. Here Christianity is beholden to the wills and whims of the seeker. The truth is the seeker needs to conform to the wills and whims of God (John 4:24). Worship and Christianity isn't about the seeker it is about God with no expectation of anything in return. The whole thing is idolatrous.

 

The reason is because this is not what myself, or others I know, are experiencing with churches that would be dubbed an "emerging", or "missional" church. So, if someone is making blanket statements, and I am constantly in fellowship and conversation with many others that know those blanket statements are not necessarily true....how do you think I'm going to respond??

 

I am a conservative Republican. And there are legitimate critcisms of many of those who go by that title who are in our houses of congress. I do not identify with everything those folks are currently doing. However, when the conservative Republicans are called big government spenders, while I do not agree with doing such, I realize a legitimate critcism is being leveled at the party. So What I do not do is complain about broad generalizations because the party as a whole is actually headed in that direction. I do not take it personally because of this.

In the same view those outside of the EC look at the movement as a whole which is legitimate. Rather than take the legitimate criticisms personally when they do not pertain to you or your church maybe you could have a "conversation" which is the basis of your view is it not.

The taking of criticism of the EC personally seems rather antithetical to the whole idea of having a "conversation".

 

I definitely understand what you are saying...but I'm not necessarily taking it personally...as if I feel someone is personally attacking me or my church. I even agree with the criticisms! Yet, I tend to speak up because I think that some are wrongly accused, or misunderstood.

I see what you are saying, though. Personally...I don't even refer to myself as "emerging". If you were to ask me what label I would use...it would be missional. However, I think in most people's eyes...it is all the same thing.

 

Yep. When I hear the word missional red flags pop up. The truth is even that word means different things to different people. I think that word essentlially describes a perceived need to have a focus outside of the four walls of the church. Which is clearly legitimate and needed.

 

Ah yes, when found wanting abandon any pretense of mutual respect and resort the very thing, when in pretense, you eschew. Next please.

 

Hey...I just want to be included at the table. We need to formulate what steps Driscoll needs to take so he can come back to your table.

 

When you speak to many if not most of the EC they pride themsleves in being vague and hard to nail down. The lack of clarity is certainly not biblicial. It appears to be used as a tool to fend off criticism, and is based on its ecumenical nature. I do not think Mark Driscoll is near as Emerging as he used to be. He appears to have matured over the years. In fact all that seems to be left of his Emerging foundation is disshreveled clothes and lack of formality.

 

I think this is a funny point. What would you describe as "disshreveled"? Jeans? The untucked shirt? This is all generational stuff. Call it emerging, postmodern, whatever.

I think it is funny. I love being able to wear jeans every Sunday. It is more comfortable. We have a guy who is older, more traditional, in our church. He always wears nice dress pants, and a dress shirt, and sometimes a tie. He is one of maybe 2 or 3, and sometimes he's the only one. It is awesome that he is bold enough to wear what he is use to wearing even though he's with believers that doesn't usually dress like that, and not stubborn enough to think everyone else has to dress like him. (I'm not saying this to say you are stubborn)

 

Well, certainly it appears the table you want is one filled with children who have fits if anything other than that which pleases their tender ears is said about their icons or ideology. I don't see any dialogue with you going anywhere unless you get hear echos of your own thoughts so with that I'll leave you to yourself and whomever else might have more interest than me.

 

Your point is well taken. I'll watch they way I approach the "conversation" more carefully.

I'd also say you should do the same...ridiculing someone like Driscoll is not a way to talk about things either.

 

Fair enough but I will say I certianly did not entertain the idea of ridiculing when I posted my rather salty thoughts, but if it came across that way then I will re-consider the force of my words. Ridiculing (warranted sarcasm aside) certainly isn't in my view an expedient method of discovery.

 

Types of clothing for the most part is irrelevent. With the exception of beach wear which seems to be popular in a lot of churches. But looking unkept may be considered postmodern but it is still dissheveled. Untucked shirts clothes unironed, hair that looks as if it hasn't has a comb to it in three years. Dissheveled and unkept

 

Yeah he looks very irreverent:


Talk about nit-picking...