Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 - An Emerging Definition of “Emerging”
Often when I begin a series on the emerging church people approach me with two questions: 1) “Am I emerging?” 2) “Are you emerging?” In both counts this is really a loaded question. I have a hard time answering it because I don’t know what they are really asking. It takes some further explaining before I am ever comfortable with such questions.
In the last post (”Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?“), I discussed the difficulty in finding a one-size-fits-all category for emergers as evidenced by the variety of leaders who claim the name. There is no one emerger that we can go to that represents the entire so-called “movement.” I then attempted to encourage people to see two primary strands of emergers—those that are simply emerging and a sub-set of those who are part of a more definite group of more liberal minded emergers called Emergent (closely associated with Emergent Village).
For this blog, I would like to narrow our definition of emerging by denying the label certain characteristics and giving a brief description of what I believe it means to be emerging.
What Emerging is Not:
The emerging church is not a church. It is important to realize that to label the emerging church as a church is misleading. Most people want to “go” to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about. While there are “emerging” churches out there, the label emerging expresses something much more than a local assembly. Therefore, even though you may see people, including myself, call it the emerging “church,” this is not the best label and can be very misleading.
The emerging movement is not a movement. A movement implies a unified and organized group intent on bringing about change based in a set ideology. The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. In fact, those who are “emerging” would take the label of a “movement,” in this sense and at this point in time, as an insult that represents the antithesis of what is going on. Therefore, even though you may hear many, including myself, refer to the emerging “movement,” it is not really such.
The emerging “church” should not be associated with the seeker-sensitive church. This is a very common misconception that I find. The seeker-sensitive church is a label used to describe those churches who seek to tailor all their church services and activities for the unbeliever. They try to create common ground with those outside the church. This common ground is found in the way the service is conducted. It might involve the type of music, the length of the sermon, type of entertainment, corporate professionalism, the casual dress, or the times of service. All the primary events are done in order for the unbeliever to feel comfortable while the Gospel is proclaimed. Seekers-sensitive churches want the bridge that one crosses from the culture to the church to be as small as possible.
Emergers, on the other hand, don’t have this philosophy. While many of the elements may look the same (casual dress, times of service, etc.) the reasons for this are completely different. It has to do with how the emerging community views culture. Emergers do not necessarily see the culture as evil as other traditions might. They don’t give people a taste of culture to lure them in and then attempt to change them, but they are the culture. This might help:
Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):
1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.
2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.
3. Emergers: We are the culture.
Remember the song ”We are the world”? Well emergers sing “We are the culture.” In this case, biblically minded emergers would distinguish between the apostle John’s definition of “world” (i.e. “Love not the world nor the things in the world”) from “culture.” The “world” is the expressions of a sin infected culture. Emergers would see God’s work in the culture just as much (if not more these days) as in the church. Therefore, they are one more step away from the fundamentalist philosophy of radical separation. They are not seeker-sensitive, but emerger-sensitive. Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.Â
What Emerging Is?
Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking. This way of thinking is held by those who explicitly call themselves emergers and by many who don’t. It represents an articulated and unarticulated dissatisfaction with the current way that the body of Christ is perceived by the outside world and, indeed, truly is.
This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation. These theological questions come with no assumed answer. In fact, most of the time they are not meant to be answered. Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliché answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.
It is important to understand that many who are and have been dissatisfied with the church are apathetic to their own disdain. Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.” These may qualify as dormant emergers. They share in the emerging ethos, but have yet to emerge as emergers. It would seem that these dormant emergers, who at present probably out number the active emergers, are being awakened by a like minded call for change—sometimes radical change. They are finding affinity in their naggings and are beginning to rise to the occasion.
Another group is actively seeking to do something about it. They call for and enact change at various levels—change in practice and thinking. Among these are those who are self-identified as emergers. They have come “out of the closet,” expressing their dissatisfaction with others.
So What Does Emerging Mean?
In short, the emerging ethos represents a growing mindset which is, consciously or sub-consciously, willing to legitimize and take seriously anew the type of questions being asked, doubts being expressed, and the distrust and dissatisfaction that the a postmodern (emerging) culture has with the traditional church (and Christianity) because they identify with them.Â
Those that seem to identify with the postmodern mindset too closely, believing that traditional Christianity may not have the answers, are more on the Emergent side. Emergents call for radical change in doctrine and practice. Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.
But it is not really that simple. There are many ways to call for change and many areas in which this change can occur. Next I will talk about how people can call for change—how people can emerge—in five different ways. (I know I already said that, but this needed to be said first!)
If this has served to obscure the issue for you, this is not such a bad thing. One of my main purposes with this series on the emerging “church” has been to show that confident categorizations of what it means to emerge can do more harm than good and really misses the point.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 - An Emerging Definition of “Emerging”
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up - Part 4 - Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? - Part 5 - Are You Emerging?
- Am I Emerging?
Jamie Arpin-Ricci on 18 Feb 2008 at 10:32 am #
An interesting follow up. I look forward to see where you are going with this.
As for the emerging church being a “movement”, I think it is still a fair description, if qualified. You are right that it is not a unified, organized, singular movement, but it is clearly a movement in the sense that it does represent a generalization drift or shift towards aspects of change. But you are right that it is not what is commonly referred to as a movement.
Your section on “What Emerging Is” focuses too much on the postmodern element of the phenomenon, with a strong emphasis on epistemology, in my opinion. While this certainly represents a significant portion for many in the emerging church, I think it is one of several emphases. (Scot McKnight’s “streams” approach is helpful in this respect).
I think you have underplayed the practitioners as a result. They don’t get the “press” because they don’t always explicitly identify with emerging.
Again, I look forward to where you are going with this.
Peace,
Jamie
Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Feb 2008 at 11:14 am #
o “Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking.”
Thanks CMP. I think this is a helpful summation.
o “These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation.”
I enjoy conversations. I enjoy theological questions. This is good.
What is not good is this: Emerging people are too eager and too ready to seek offense where no offense is intended when folks question the premises behind their emerging questions. Emerging folks sin when they they become overly sensitive and enraged at folks probing and sincerely examining the presuppositions underlying their questions. When emerging folks become sinfully angry at questions that question their questions, then they stifle the “conversation” that they claim to seek. The person or people who Socratically questions their questions is then sinfully mocked, scorned, disdained, and ultimately excluded from their “emerging conversation.”
o “They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change.”
o “They have come “out of the closet,†expressing their dissatisfaction with others.”
Again, this is fine. Being dissatisfied is perfectly legitimate. However, what is all-too-often a grossly hypocritical behavior by emerging folks is that they sinfully seek to caricaturize and belittle those who express theological dissatisfaction with their dissatisfaction.
In short, be dissatisfied. That’s fine. But be mature enough to acknowledge and accept that there will be dissatisfaction towards your “emerging” dissatisfaction.
Otherwise, emerging folks are just loud-mouth hypocrites.
Are emerging folks trying to structure their “conversation” so that only they can judge and criticize others as they express their “dissatisfaction in a 1-sided manner? Or do they humbly realize a 2-WAY conversation where their “dissatisfaction” and their foundations for their “dissatisfaction are carefully examined?
C Michael Patton on 18 Feb 2008 at 12:14 pm #
Thanks Jamie,
What do you mean by this: “I think you have underplayed the practitioners as a result. They don’t get the “press†because they don’t always explicitly identify with emerging”?
JohnT3 on 18 Feb 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Michael if I can start with some qualifiers or platitudes. ïŠ You are one of my favorite teachers and I have always enjoyed any class you taught. I don’t agree with everything you teach however, I really enjoy you mind and am glad you are a brother of mine in Christ.
Where I have a problem with the “Emerging Ethosâ€, is that there appears to be a setting aside of absolute truth. If you believe there is an absolute right or wrong in certain circumstances you are accused of being closed minded. If I may offer my definition of an open mind – An open mind is like an open window that has a screen on it. The screen keeps all the garbage out while letting in the fresh air.
As well as a preaching style that is at best superficial and more like a sales pitch. My pastor has adopted a preaching style that he calls is one of the benefits or good points of the emerging movement. I respect my senior pastor but since he has adopted this style it is mare akin to walking through a puddle in the parking lot than being washed by the water of the word.
I heard a preacher give a sermon that was expository at times and as deep as any higher level college course I have set through. It was a room of almost 1500 to 2000 people from very age to every cultural group from society. He preached for almost 1 hour and 15 minutes and almost everyone I talked to would have sat for more. What would that tell you? The preacher said during his sermon that anyone who preaches is like a waiter in a restaurant. God cooks the meal and preachers are to bring the food to the table without dropping it our messing it up.
There is absolute truth in the bible and to believe contrary to it makes you absolutely wrong. The Apostles Paul and John in their letters want us to contend for the faith and to test whether something is from God or not.
Let me make another point clear. I am not saying nor do I abdicate that we need to be sheep that blindly follow some teacher or pastor because of their title. Paul said that if even he came with a message different form the truth you already knew then he was to be accursed. 1 John 4:1 shows we are to test every spirit.
Lively discussion and even debate in my mind are important for spiritual growth and to challenge us to help us present a correct answer when we are questioned why we believe what we believe.
Anyway before I get to long winded let me wait until later to say more.
Jason J on 18 Feb 2008 at 2:02 pm #
Truth Unites,
I am in agreement with your post. It seems as though we are in the vast minority.
Random Thoughts:
From what I can tell “emergers” seem to want to appear pious in their asking of questions; they certainly don’t want anyone to actually answer them. The highest form of humility, for the emerger, is making truth obscure; and the greatest arrogance is being ceratain of something.
This is an interesting time to be alive. I would have never thought such an assault on the truth of the Gospel would be tolerated as much as it is these days.
Are we too tired to continue to stand up for the truth? Nah, just lazy.
Jugulum on 18 Feb 2008 at 3:24 pm #
Michael,
Thank you for this series; I think it’s going to be very helpful toward clarifying & refining our understanding & analysis of the emerging phenomenon.
In the Theology Unplugged series, you and Rhome called the emerging church more of a “tendency” than a movement. That was helpful. The terminology you used here, “ethos, or way of thinking”, is even better.
The key new thought I’ll be taking away from your post is the distinction you draw between the seeker-sensitive movement and the emerging ethos. Namely, emerging people are not asking questions and expressing doubts for the sake of appealing to outsiders–rather, their desire to talk about these things comes from the fact that they identify with them. That’s key.
TUaD,
Hmm, good observations. Emerging folk do need to exercise restraint and discernment in how they react to those who question their questions and doubt their doubts. They must diligently avoid caricature of those they see as “traditional”; they must not disdain the wisdom of the “old guard” who are not following them in their discussion. It’s a big problem in their movement–and it does seem that some aren’t even interested in getting past the smug faux-humility with which they ask their questions…to start finding answers.
I would add:
It’s got to be quite a challenge for them to do so. They face not just discerning wisdom (rooted in God’s revelation) that answers their questions or shows problems in the presuppositions behind the questions–they also face dismissive disdain. They face a sea of critics arrayed against them–a sea that includes both loving maturity guarding the treasure of the gospel against hollow, wise-seeming philosophy, and knee-jerk, unsympathetic closed-mindedness that doesn’t stop to understand or answer their questions.
I think Michael was quite right when he identified where many emergers are coming from: “Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.— And they sometimes still face rejection simply for struggling.
And of course, some of them are also more interested in feeling victimized than in reconciliation to the traditional church, more interested in asking questions than in finding answers, more interested in compromise and syncretism than in genuine contextualization, more interested in attacking confidence than in resolving doubt. And some, who really aren’t like that, still struggle with maintaining the right attitude. (I’m reminded of a post by Matt Chandler, Ned Flanders and Me.)
I have no doubt that God will edify the body of Christ through this situation. I do not know precisely how that edification will manifest. I pray that all of God’s children, as we approach this situation, will not fall prey to the many ways that Satan would seek to tear down the body–even using us as his unwitting instruments.
kolabok21 on 18 Feb 2008 at 5:14 pm #
I’m following along and get the point but man your way deep dude. If I may and probably a poor analogy, this has the same fever pitch that Barrack Obama has on America (age group 18-29). Let’s face it the guy’s charisma is turning people to a new direction, just like the calling of the emergent way, a new (maybe redefined, repackaged) direction.
I’m not sure if I can make a conscious decision for or against. Perhaps you can recommend some books that would take an unbiased look at the whole shebang.
From what I have gathered from several of the posters here that hold clearly to the historic orthodoxy position, this ship (emerging) can run aground and leave the people with a sense of false security. Maybe I grabbing straws here, but I do not believe they get would I would label the damnation/salvation via faith /repentance message every Sunday. Now that being said I do not suggest that is the bread and butter of Christianity. But we certainly should be in the business of bringing the Gospel message to a lost and dying world. Is this the emerging way? Or another you’re best life now pitch?
Bryant
scott gray on 18 Feb 2008 at 6:22 pm #
tu…ad–
do you have first hand experience of bristly emergents? or is this an emerging strawman? how about a story about an interesting example?
cmp–
is one of your five emerging types ‘emerging agnostics’ or ‘emerging pantheistic mystics?’
peace–
scott
Martin Scott’s Blog » Blog Archive » Emerging: definitions and crises on 19 Feb 2008 at 1:41 am #
[...] Patton has an interesting discussion on ‘An Emerging Definition of “Emerging” here. A few points from his blog [...]
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy? on 21 Feb 2008 at 12:22 am #
[...] Part 3 SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy?”, url: “http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/16/what-is-orthodoxy/” }); [...]
britphil on 14 Apr 2008 at 11:38 am #
Hi Michael
I am glad I have been enlightened as to the fine art of irenic argument prior to replying to this section of the ‘real emergers’ rather than after it. I will try my hardest to remain on the irenic pathway throughout my response but if I wander and stray like a lost sheep (oops sorry…bit of Book of Common Prayer highly unemergent Anglicanspeak there) I trust that you will graciously forgive me!
“Most people want to “go†to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about.”
Initially yes perhaps. But many many people also go and really like and appreciate what they find - that it is such a refreshing change from what they have had to uncritically accept and put up with for the past ten years or more, especially in that you are allowed to think and explore for yourself rather than being spoonfed from the front.
My own view is that many established church leaders do their best to discourage their members from going to an “emerging gathering” because they are actually afriad that their members might like what they discover and want to go again…and again…and again even!! In fact I am strongly of the opinion that much of the anti-emerging rhetoric is based largely on fear…always a poor motivation in my view.
“The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. ”
Name me a denominational/doctrinal (especially amongst evangelicals) movement that is!! It is obvious from this site alone that even the Calvinist fraternity are hardly unified! They may all adhere to the TULIP principles but there are huge differences between the irenics and the non-irenics, just to cite one example alone.
“Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):
1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.
2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.
3. Emergers: We are the culture”
I appreciate that you accept that this categorisation embraces some stereotyping but I can’t let you get away with number 3 without some right of reply!
Some emergers may take “we are the culture” approach, but please do not tar us all with the same brush. It is far too much of an over-simplification. Many of us “emergers” believe that the church needs to engage with the culture rather than scamper timidly away from it; to meet people where they are, not where we are, or even worse, where we expect or demand that they should be, or want them to be, and if that means being church within the culture then that’s fine by me.
That’s a very different thing to saying that we “are” the culture. What many of us do believe is that the church for decades if not centuries has taught that Jesus said “come to church” rather than “come to me” There is far more emphasis it would appear to me for the church to “go out” than for people to “come in”. I would strongly contend that the reason why so many churches are dying and closing (as has been highlighted on this site) is that churches have slowly stagnated and fossilised, slowly died and then the inevitable happens and they close. The main contibutory factor being a stubborn unwillingness to accept that the church needs to engage with the culture rather than remain totally separate from it if it is to be relevant and effective.
I also think that your definition of evangelicals as people who want to “change the culture” is wildly idealistic and over-optimistic. Most evangelicals are perfectly happy within their own culture and would be horrified at the very thought of rising to the challenge to change the prevailing culture and the effort that would take. I am not sure that that many evangelicals want to move out of their comfort zone. I would be greatly encouraged if this was the case, I just do not see that much evidence to show that it is happening.
“Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.
britphil on 14 Apr 2008 at 12:13 pm #
I shall continue….(oh no I hear you groan…with your head in your hands in despair!!)
“Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone.
I think you may discover that we are trying to be sensitive to the many people who mainstreamers have deliberately and consciously de-sensitised themselves to and disassociated themselves from!
“This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation.”
And what’s wrong with that I may ask!!?? - is that the creaking of the floodgates I hear opening in response to that last statement!! It would seem to me that Jesus was forever engaging in deep and meaningful conversations with people throughout the entirety of his brief years of public ministry.- and note I said “meaningful” and not the type of shallow and superficial discussions that us evangelicals have turned virtually into an artform. I confess to being fully in the Brian McClaren camp here and I paraphrase “stop counting conversions and engage in conversations. If you engage in conversations then conversions will follow..I am convinced of it!” A massive problem with mainstream church is that we are far too obsessed with our programs and our structures and our bible studies and our prayer meetings and our business meetings to spend time having meaningful conversations and building up effective relationships with people. The church needs to free people up so that they can build these friendships and have these conversations but we will not do it! (and that is a heartfelt and passionate plea which I make no apology whatsoever for!)
“People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, ” - if this is to be criticised is a blog/chatroom discussing theology such as Parchment & Pen superior to a blog engaging with non-Christians! Could it not be argued that it is at least of equal importance as this site, if not more so in God’s eyes??
“Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliché answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.”
This has some degree of truth in it, but it is surely no worse than the off-pat answer, the “I am sure of my own rightness” approach which has epitomised quite a lot of conservative evangelicalism down the ages. Yes it may be a reaction to it, but in some instances surely the reaction can be justified? Is giving someone a “definite cliched answer” really listening to and respecting the position of the questioner?
britphil on 14 Apr 2008 at 12:23 pm #
“Another group is actively seeking to do something about it. They call for and enact change at various levels—change in practice and thinking. Among these are those who are self-identified as emergers. They have come “out of the closet,†expressing their dissatisfaction with others.”
I consider myself to be amongst this grouping and am not afraid to,say so. Changes are necessary, not just in thinking, which I think many, including some on this site are happy to concur with, but in practise, where the rubber well and trulty hits the road. That is where manypeople balk and refuse to go much further in my experience.
and finally part 3…
“Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.”
I for one fully believe that traditional or orthodox Chritsianity has answers to offer to most if not all of the important issues. (difficult to know what that actually means as the “important issues” are not specifically identified). That does not for one moment automatically mean that I believe the changes ought to be “mild”. Far from it in fact. The changes ushered in by the Reformation that so many on this site hold dear were by no means “mild”. I passionately believe that no les sthan a reformation in church structures and practice (as opposed to doctrine) is essential if the church is to be effective in engaging in its mission.
Which brings me to my final point. The “M” word..we had the “L” word last week, but another word which is in danger of dying a slow death in in my view is the word “Mission”. I have been on this site for about 10 days now Michael and have loved it. However, one thing really concerns and disturbs me. There has not been one single discussion starting blog, or even mention, from yourself, neither is there a category which covers the topics of either Mission or Evangelism. There is a category on Evangelicalism, but when I entered it, it contained numerous threads on Evangelicalism but not one on the subject of evangelism itself if I am not mistaken.
The other issue this raises is the whole Calvinist approach to Mission and Evangelism. What is it? I see no mention of it, almost a reticence to tackle the subject. I appreciate that it goes right to the very heart of Calvinism as a set of doctrines/beliefs, (ie if only those predestined are elected to salvation…does that mean we have to evangelise at all if God has already chosen those he is going to save?) but that is not an acceptable reason for a reluctance to give the subject the discussion time it fully merits.
I shall retire now to await what I imagine will be a spirited response from the p&p blogosphere. I would like finish on an irenic note in that there is nothing I have said in any of the last three posts which I would not say if you were sitting beside me and we were discussing it face to face.
Over to you now folks.
C Michael Patton on 14 Apr 2008 at 12:28 pm #
Hey Phil, thanks for commenting. I think you might be misunderstanding the posts as I was not evaluating, right or wrong, with the emerging church.
In fact, I agree with so much of what the emerging church is about. As I say in the last post, emerging, to me, is just a revitalization, in many ways, of evangelicalism.
Even the idea that “we are the culture” (as distinguished from the johanine concept of the “world”) is very good. It is an understanding that culture is, in and of itself, amoral. It is infected with sin to varying degrees, but culture is part of the common grace of God. It is not our job to simply broadbrush and condemn culture as if all of it is wrong.
Hope that makes sense. I think once you read the next posts you will see this.
In a very real sense, I don’t speak as one outside the movement, but one from the inside who does not necessarily feel comfortable with the label or some of the more extreme elements. As I have said before, there are some emerger who I consider myself more emerging than.
britphil on 14 Apr 2008 at 12:59 pm #
Michael…
Great to hear from you..
Whatever you do please do not read parts 2 and 3 of my response or else you will be tempted to find a sword to run on! If yopu do, you will sense the same exasperation that Jesus did when he uttered something along the lines of “How long have I got to put up with you people?”
I can assure you that it was not an attempt to fall out!!
I will not reply again until I have read parts 4, 5 and 6. I promise!!
I know…you did warn us….read the whole lot before replying!!! Phil raps his own knuckles in admonishment.
“In fact, I agree with so much of what the emerging church is about. As I say in the last post, emerging, to me, is just a revitalization, in many ways, of evangelicalism.”
“Even the idea that “we are the culture†(as distinguished from the johanine concept of the “worldâ€) is very good. It is an understanding that culture is, in and of itself, amoral. It is infected with sin to varying degrees, but culture is part of the common grace of God. It is not our job to simply broadbrush and condemn culture as if all of it is wrong. ”
“As I have said before, there are some emerger who I consider myself more emerging than.”
Now these statements don’t just float my boat…they virtually launch the ocean liner onto the open seasl
I almost feel as if we are sharing the same cross-atlantic flavour soda!
C Michael Patton on 14 Apr 2008 at 1:07 pm #
lol. You are great!
britphil on 14 Apr 2008 at 1:35 pm #
You’re pretty awesome yourself if you would allow me to say so!
I hope you do not mind if I occasionally reduce the content of the conversation to jellybeans and soda.
Having been brought up in a working class neighbourhood of Liverpool UK (think Bronx and you won’t be that far wrong) two things you learn very quickly…you need quick wits and a keen sense of humour to survive and don’t take yourself too seriously as your balloon will soon be punctured!