« Youth for Tomorrow | Main | Knowing God »

February 27, 2006

Comments

What concerns me most about the Emergent Church movement is that it seems to not be concerned at all about the Gospel. Jesus is mentioned but is not their focus, the Gospel is sometimes brought up but the concept and meaning are ignored. I agree with many of their concerns, but the concerns and emotive response seem to be most significant to these leaders, not Christ and Him Crucified.

(extended worship, religious symbols, liturgy, extensive prayer times, extensive use of Scripture and readings, etc.)

Can a generation raised on the short attention span of MTV be attracted to such a service?

Isn't it a bit dangerous to generalize? to decide that there is a lumpen mass called "Emergent Church", all the same? How is the gospel stinted in the account given by Melinda of Dan Kimball's work? Melinda references the "broad range" of Emergent thinking, and I think that's a bit more accurate than Chris' dismissal--the reason I'm commenting here is that I think Christians should question, yes, but not attack, nor generalize. Far too many of us dismiss others upon learning their "denomination".

I wonder how long it will take for STR to become part of the emergent church. Everyone there certainly seems to hang around the "leaders" of the movement enough. ;)

I think the "MTV generation" idea is grossly overstated, as if people before that point had long, leisurely attention spans and spent hours contemplating things. No generation for over a century has had an attention span very long at all because we're shallow people.

That doesn't mean that somehow we're incapable of changing or learning, does it? Should we change what is good to fit people's weaknesses and incompetence or lift them up and teach them to be better than what they are presently?

The comments to this entry are closed.