Me? Emergent? Who?
HT to CartoonChurch.comAs I've said a number of times, the difficulty I have with criticism of the 'emerging church' or the 'emergent movement' is that there is not one satisfactory definition of just what constitutes the animal. Ask ten different self-professed 'emergees' to define it and you'll get ten different answers... at least.
Here is an article from Dan Kimball's blog that I found most thought provoking. He asks a question of critics: Just what information are they working with?
Where we are concerned, do any of these critiques sound to you like CCA? (1) drawn to ambiguity; (2) rejecting the notion that God's word is clear; (3) and that is it understandable; (4) the rethinking of or wholesale rejection of precious doctrines; (5) thriving on disorganization; (6) distrusting authority; (7) dislikes preaching; (8) recognizes few doctrinal boundaries; (9) few moral boundaries; and (10) feeds intellectual pride
There is one more allegation in the article, that is that 'everything is being questioned and deconstructed'. I think one of the markers of our society in these times is a propensity to ask questions and a desire to deconstruct - and I am seeing people come to Christ through this very process!
So, what do you think of Dan's article? The debate?
Technorati Tags: Interactive Sermon, Emergent, Emerging Church, Ecclesiology
Labels: Ecclesiology, Emergent, Emerging Church











