Definitions Please

[Mike Wooldridge]

What are working definitions of "emerging church" and "post modernism" as they relate to Wesleyan theology and the CotN?

[Terri Knoll]

you'll get a better definition from other than from me :basic05

but James Diggs post really brings about some clarity. Meaning he says it how I think it lol

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=161243#poststop

[James Diggs]

Thanks Terri, :o I was going to suggest an article by Hal Knight as a good place to start. It is not the most comprehensive work but it is a good starting point.

You can read the article HERE (http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/pmol/emerging.htm).

[Sara Sheppard]

you'll get a better definition from other than from me :basic05

but James Diggs post really brings about some clarity. Meaning he says it how I think it lol

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=161243#poststop

I read that but I'm still confused.

I'm glad Mike asked this question, because I consider myself a pretty informed person but I really don't have a clue what people on here are talking about with these two terms!

Sara

[Terri Knoll]

I hesitate to put things in my own words so as not to offend anybody. I'll point out one thing James brought up. Some in the emergent (emergent meaning going forth) have opted to go to more ecumenical style services. They read from the Common Lectionary etc much as a Catholic or Episcopalian service (which I love dearly). An emerging mind would not say that is turning Catholic (ie not praying to Mary etc) they would say it is embracing traditions from before modern times without saying the old way is wrong per se. They don't see it as going away from the Church, they see it as going further in. This is just one example of emergent church...not all emergents go back to tradition. The emergents I know point out that God loves everyone and they embrace everyone. Not saying they condone sin, which alot have been accused of but Christs love embraces everyone. (Its actually alot easier to love someone if you truly believe God loves them no matter what...at least for me it is)
Some of them don't want the churchy legalistic society, so they start churches where a more laid back style is welcomed. Not to say that fundamentally rigid churches are NOT churches (don't even want to start that kind of debate) or that they are wrong in their doctrine (like hell, for one) just that there IS room in the Church for everyone. And since I believe God changes His mind sometimes (open theist lol, another one to get into) I am hoping and praying that Jesus' return relies on "not wanting anyone to perish"

I hope I make a little bit of sense. I know the issues are very strong and deep for those living them. The main thing I hope we all learn is that God does love us each and the same and our purpose (Calvinism lol) is to show others that Love.

blessings,
Terri

[Mike Wooldridge]

Thanks Terri, :o I was going to suggest an article by Hal Knight as a good place to start. It is not the most comprehensive work but it is a good starting point.

You can read the article HERE (http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/:opmol/emerging.htm).
The link took me to the NPH home page. I searched from there but couldn't find anything by Hal Knight. Do you have a more specific link?
Thanks

[Terri Knoll]

oops yep, same here, usually I read a link before I thank someone for it lol

I'll just take my thanx away then :o

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Emergent, would be what something is turning into, instead of what it has been. Is that correct?
The post modernist, think that the way the present day modern church is, is something that needs to be changed in some ways. right?
And, in the mean time, some express these beliefs in way that make some people feel that their current beliefs are looked down upon and wrong. It seems that this is why some turn away from hearing or discussing these two words.

Once the church is changed, from the way it is now, how long will it be, before many will want to be against it, in what has now become, it's modern form, and decide that we need to follow the post modern ways.
I personally, feel that the time that has been spent, discussing all of this, could better be used in praying, studying, communing with God, and possibly fasting--to make their main aim, as being more like Christ. That is what I endeavor to do.

How many times, really, will the modern church endeavor to become like the post modernists want it to be, then the next generation, will look at it, as needing to be changed, and start these discussions over and over again? Why don't we decide to follow in the footsteps of our Savior, and let Him lead us, each step of the way? I see no reason, what so ever, that this method should turn the youth off, in their feelings for the church.

[Terri Knoll]

I rest my case.

I so love you Anne. If not for the ones before us...where would our faith be? Thank you for being in the family of God.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Mike, the terms are not anything that you need to be concerned about, as long as you endeavor to live more Christlike all along the way. It is chiefly to give some young theologians something to discuss, when they would do better to just live daily for Jesus, and walk in all of the light, that He sheds on their path.
Look up the word "emergent." Then, think, what would be past what is considered past what modern is now. It becomes a vicious cycle, that could easily be repeated over and until it becomes so repetitive, that maybe, Christians will be sick and tired of it. But, before then, if Christ tarries, they will have come up with other words to use--that really has nothing to do with our salvation. Just lean on the things "that stand" and "will stand, when the world is on fire"--and you will make it through those pearly gates.

[James Diggs]

The link took me to the NPH home page. I searched from there but couldn't find anything by Hal Knight. Do you have a more specific link?

I am not sure what happened but here it is (http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/pmol/emerging.htm)again and I think I fixed it in the other post.

http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/pmol/emerging.htm

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Mike, the terms are not anything that you need to be concerned about, as long as you endeavor to live more Christlike all along the way. It is chiefly to give some young theologians something to discuss, ......

Respectfully disagreeing with that statement, Mrs. Anne. Theologians (young and old) are discussing the questions and trying to state the tension, with Scriptural integrity, involved in those questions and matters of faith that people ask today. For Mike (or any of us) to be able to talk with more clarity to others, it would be good to have a general grasp of what they are referencing.

One may disagree, but to say it is "chiefly to give some young theologians something to discuss," seems a bit disrespectful to them, the study of theology, and theologians in general.

Many thanks for all your years of faithful work in ministry partnership with your husband and may God continue to give you

Abundant blessings,

[Terri Knoll]

Respectfully disagreeing with that statement, Mrs. Anne. Theologians (young and old) are discussing the questions and trying to state the tension, with Scriptural integrity, involved in those questions and matters of faith that people ask today. For Mike (or any of us) to be able to talk with more clarity to others, it would be good to have a general grasp of what they are referencing.

One may disagree, but to say it is "chiefly to give some young theologians something to discuss," seems a bit disrespectful to them, the study of theology, and theologians in general.

Many thanks for all your years of faithful work in ministry partnership with your husband and may God continue to give you

Abundant blessings,

one of my favorite OT stories is of the Jews placing the stones for others to ponder over those that went before them. I so appreciate hearing the stories of how and why. I too thank them all.

blessings,
Terri

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Edith, if you will scroll down a little further, you will see that I had already addressed the meaning of those two words--but I just wanted to give my "real" feelings about it further up. I have not lost my mind, but I feel too much time is spent on these two words, and so much importance made out of them, that the important part of the Kingdom work is being neglected, to a certain extent, while these young people "chew" on these words. That is my opinion, and I am not planning to change it.
I may be treated like I am beneath a number of people on Naznet, but in God's mind, I am not. So, I don't worry about it, but I do laugh about it.

[Hans Deventer]

I personally, feel that the time that has been spent, discussing all of this, could better be used in praying, studying, communing with God, and possibly fasting--to make their main aim, as being more like Christ. That is what I endeavor to do.

Well, there's nothing against that. No one is forced to discuss post-modernity here. We certainly don't want to stop you from "praying, studying, communing with God, and possibly fasting" in stead of discussing theology on NazNet.

I have to admit I see little value in joining a theology forum with a view of theology and theologians like you have. You yourself don't want to change, do you somehow presume that this kind of talking will change the other participants? Like the reply you gave Dane. This is a Nazarene pastor that has been honestly wrestling with an issue and you give him a reply like this? (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=161331&postcount=2) Weren't you the once who complained about respect for our leaders? I don't see much respect there.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Hans, how was I to know that Dane is a minister? I do have a right to discuss my beliefs on the Theology board. It is very distressing to see our young ministers completely changing the meaning of God's word in some situations. I am going by what the Bible says, as plain as day. But, i think that most people that think they have blasphemed the Holy ghost, have not. I have reasons to believe that.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, how was I to know that Dane is a minister?

Ever heard of the membership list? Check out http://www.naznet.com/community/member.php?u=886

I do have a right to discuss my beliefs on the Theology board.

You have all the right in the world, but you yourself wrote that time could be better spend.

I personally, feel that the time that has been spent, discussing all of this, could better be used in praying, studying, communing with God, and possibly fasting--to make their main aim, as being more like Christ. That is what I endeavor to do.

So why don't you follow your own advice? I'd like to know.

[Hans Deventer]

It is very distressing to see our young ministers completely changing the meaning of God's word in some situations.

Anne, I'm not at all trying to put you down. But it seems that this is the reason why you can't stop writing on the theology forum, and keep getting hurt in doing so. That, as it seems to me, can hardly be a good thing.

I would suggest the following:


The change of God's word might very well be from how YOU read God's word. Even the old rabbi's taught that a verse can have many meanings, all valid. Don't too easily suppose that the way you read the Bible, is the only proper way and the rest is heresy. That attitude is actually a crucial one on the theology forum.


Second, the church is God's. He doesn't need me or you to keep it on track. There is this story about a pope who laid awake in the night, worrying over the church, when he heard the voice of God: "What are you laying awake about? Who do you think is the head of the church anyway? Go to sleep!" The church has survived for millennia without us, and I trust God it will do so when we've gone, till Jesus returns.


It does help greatly not to put people down so much. There is no need to put Nazarene theologians down, or theology in general. That doesn't help to establish credibility among those you seem so desperate to reach.

[Mike Wooldridge]

I have, and always have had, a curiosity and love of learning and thinking for myself. I hope that never changes. I'm not one who's satisfied with knowing "by and by." I'm also not just "marking time" here. It'll be my time to go soon enough. Until then I intend to live, love and LEARN. :q)

[Terri Knoll]

here's another good thread

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?p=161278#poststop

from the almost 10 years I have been reading Naznet, Hans and Dennis are among my top theological thinkers. They are great *speakers* and truly help you understand things that might get muddled with other things going on.
oh I love everyone on Naznet for different reasons, but since you asked I thought I would give my opinion on who reads clearest.

blessings,
Terri

[Kevin Rector]

As a self described "emergent type" I'll give defining the emerging church a go:

There are a lot of people who were raised in the church who are dissatisfied to various different levels with the discipleship and theology they received while growing up. Some things just didn't ring true.

Now these people come from all sorts of different places on the theological spectrum, but let me for a moment limit my discussion to Nazarene emergents. A lot of Nazarene churches got (and some still are) very legalistic and dogmatic. Authority wasn't to be questioned, behaviors were strictly dictated with the fear of hell the punishment for wandering. The bible was being read and taught in a literalist/fundamentalist way. We'd scare people into heaven because getting them there was the highest goal so the ends would justify the means, holiness was described by what you did not do rather than what you did do. This became onerous to myself and others like me (and we were raised when the church had already started moving away from these things in most quarters).

So, a lot of younger folks and some middle aged folks started talking about the nature of the church. The emergent conversation started essentially as a discussion of ecclesiology. Now the emergent conversation started before I came along but I found it pretty early on, and it resonated with me. there were these people saying things like, legalism is sinful. Love is the way. Let's re-evaluate everything and hold to what is good and jettison what is bad.

For many people this change is scary because if you have affixed yourself to dogmatism and that is where you find your solace then people coming along and declaring freedom in Christ seem to be radical wild eyed heathens. Most people who attack the emergent movement do so out of fear, and that's sad because perfect love drives out fear.

One more very important component is that grace and love must be the guiding attitude of those engaged in this journey. One of the things that really drew me to emergent discussions was that so many people with such diverse theological background could spend so much time talking about God without getting into petty fights or arguments about theological miscellanea. There is a general consensus in emergent dialog that where we disagree with another in the body of Christ we will do so graciously and without breaking fellowship, even if they will not be gracious to us (this is the ideal and like all human goals it is not always lived up to). I'll give an example, I've talked about 3 times briefly with Brian McLaren (the poster boy for the emerging church) and one thing that has struck me is how gracious he is to everyone, he always seems to find good things to say about everyone.

So if I had to give a quick definition of the emerging church I would say that:

The emerging church is composed of persons who seek to question and work through all aspects of their life and faith learning from those who have come before and using the tools and resources that work best in their own context with grace and love being the unassailable bedrock of this process.

[Tami Martin]

That's a really good - and understandable - explanation, Kevin! Thanks so much :)

But I wonder...shouldn't that
Let's re-evaluate everything and hold to what is good and jettison what is bad.
happen with every generation?

[Kevin Rector]

That's a really good - and understandable - explanation, Kevin! Thanks so much :)

But I wonder...shouldn't that

happen with every generation?

Yes, and I think that it probably does. The task of the theologian is essentially to talk about God for his or her time.

The founders of the Church of the Nazarene did this when they came together to highlight a holiness message they felt was lacking in the church.

John Wesley did this as he looked to revitalize the Anglican Church.

Martin Luther did this as he looked to deeply reform aspects of Catholic life.

It is happening and has happened often throughout history that a generation comes along and calls things into question. One of the things that is distinct though about the emergent movement is that it is a very ecumenical thing. It is not a person or group trying to change a denomination. It is rather a wide assortment of Christians from all sorts of backgrounds that are being unified by our quest for authentic good faith.

[Sara Sheppard]

Kevin,

Thank you for that explanation. it really does help. Then basically this is what I thought it was.

It raises a few questions for me, because as we all know, these shifts usually go from one drastic side to the other before "settling in" somewhere. I also grew up in a small, legalistic nazarene church. I didn't and don't agree with everything I was taught but I would say - given the choice of rules or no rules, I'd rather have a few. :) I'm 33, so I still consider myself "barely" in the young generation.

What I think I'm seeing is almost as scary as the legalism of the past though. I see a shift to the opposite direction that seems to say "just love people - be nice - do nice things" and that's enough. It is often "works" driven through service that is meant to be loving (i.e. feed the hungry). Which I firmly believe we should do. There seems to be very little talk in this circle about the lifestyle of a Christian and being different than the world. I'll be honest with you - a huge number of my non-Christian friends do lots of loving acts of service for other people...but not in the name of Jesus. They just do it because they are good people.

I often think of the story of the woman at the well (okay, okay, it wasn't the woman at the well but the woman caught with a man - not her husband).... We have this woman caught in sin. We have these religions group "christians today" ready to stone her. Jesus basically tells these Christians that they need to be loving her not throwing stones. But he does look at the woman and say "Go and sin no more."

In other words, I think the some of the nazarene churches in the past only focused their preaching and teaching on what Jesus said to the woman and created a million "lists" to go by. But, I see a swing the other direction that just seems to be focusing on what Jesus said to the group of religious leaders as "just be nice to people and we can all get along" with no real focus on also changing sinful behavior.

Am I totally offbase?

Sara

[Tami Martin]

I know you addressed this to Kevin, Sara, but I thought I'd chime in. I think you're right on (except for combining two different women - the woman at the well was different from the woman caught in sin).

But I also wonder if we are simply hearing about the extremes more. I mean, when the pendulum swings, it tends to swing pretty far one side or the other. But other than the weak ones one side or the other (those who are weak in the faith and need rules and those weak and carnal), I suspect that there are more in the middle who just continue to grow and settle where they need to be: right in the middle between the two poles.

[Sara Sheppard]

I know you addressed this to Kevin, Sara, but I thought I'd chime in. I think you're right on (except for combining two different women - the woman at the well was different from the woman caught in sin).



Ha ha...you are right...wrong woman but you caught my point. :rolleyes:

Sara

[Terri Knoll]

it's really not like that...and as I said earlier, emergents don't run away from faith, they actually press deeper in. First and foremost is our/their relationship with Christ. The deeper I have a relationship with my Jesus the more I am COMPELLED to perform those *good works*. My relationship with Jesus helps me ooze that something different that people want and are drawn too. To me that helps with evangelizing and several friends have come to know Jesus (all praise goes to God) in less than a year. I am NOT saying non emergents don't have that same ooziness, I am just speaking from my open, all in, love and adoration for my Lord that I HAVE to love others into the kingdom.

blessings,
Terri

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Sara, Ever since I have been reading things that you have posted, I have noticed how strong you seem to be spiritually. I often read what you have posted to Dwayne, and mention your steadfastness in the faith. I really do appreciate you, very much.
God Bless You for the wonderful stand you take for Christ and His kingdom!

[Kevin Rector]

Kevin,

Thank you for that explanation. it really does help. Then basically this is what I thought it was.

It raises a few questions for me, because as we all know, these shifts usually go from one drastic side to the other before "settling in" somewhere. I also grew up in a small, legalistic nazarene church. I didn't and don't agree with everything I was taught but I would say - given the choice of rules or no rules, I'd rather have a few. :) I'm 33, so I still consider myself "barely" in the young generation.

What I think I'm seeing is almost as scary as the legalism of the past though. I see a shift to the opposite direction that seems to say "just love people - be nice - do nice things" and that's enough. It is often "works" driven through service that is meant to be loving (i.e. feed the hungry). Which I firmly believe we should do. There seems to be very little talk in this circle about the lifestyle of a Christian and being different than the world. I'll be honest with you - a huge number of my non-Christian friends do lots of loving acts of service for other people...but not in the name of Jesus. They just do it because they are good people.

I often think of the story of the woman at the well (okay, okay, it wasn't the woman at the well but the woman caught with a man - not her husband).... We have this woman caught in sin. We have these religions group "christians today" ready to stone her. Jesus basically tells these Christians that they need to be loving her not throwing stones. But he does look at the woman and say "Go and sin no more."

In other words, I think the some of the nazarene churches in the past only focused their preaching and teaching on what Jesus said to the woman and created a million "lists" to go by. But, I see a swing the other direction that just seems to be focusing on what Jesus said to the group of religious leaders as "just be nice to people and we can all get along" with no real focus on also changing sinful behavior.

Am I totally offbase?

Sara

Sara, sorry it's taken so long to reply, I've started and scrapped about 5 replies as you have some really thoughtful questions and I want to give them the time they deserve.

It is entirely possible with anything other than love to go too far. I'm a firm believer that we have to live in the tensions of life refusing to be polarized by partisanship to ideals or ideas. Because we are about relationship to a living God, not relationships to an idea.

There is a shift to focus on love and that's fabulous. Love is what makes the world go around (literally). Love is the all in all. God is love.

I don't know any Christians, emergent or otherwise who would say that you should "just love people - be nice - do nice things" and that is enough (ie. none of us would say that person or people don't need God). No the Christians I know are Christians so that we understand that loving people is paramount, but it is only half the equation, we also must love God.

Yet, on a practical level, all that is good comes from God. Your friends are not good and neither are you and neither am I. They may do good things, and that is the light of God's grace in their life, even if they do not know it or recognize it. Said another way, you are mistaken in assuming that they do good things because they are good, only the Father is good and they do good things because God gives them grace.

Another thing to remember is that the best way to love God is to love his children. So when we speak of doing good and loving people that in and of itself is a profound declaration of our commitment to God. It is offering our lives as living sacrifice which is our spiritual act of worship. To love other is to love God (even when we don't have an intellectual understanding that it is so). In this way the worst heathen who does an act of kindness does so in God's name without knowing it. This doesn't mean the heathen is a Christian and I'll leave the disposition of his eternal soul to God.

I guess what I'm saying is that we need not fear the emergent church not talking about being different from the world because the emergent church is about loving the world, where the world is, without judgment. What this means in a practical way is that the emergent church is calling for us Christians to live radically different from the world where we will love more and deeper, this is the really and truly the greatest meaning of fleeing from sin.

I fear that this post has been rambly and that I have not been overly coherent. I completely understand what I'm saying, but I'm not sure that I'm saying it clearly so that anyone else can understand. Just let me know if you want any clarification.

[Genevieve Boller]

Kevin, thank you so much for that nicely worded and well-rounded explanation.

Here's a question for you or anyone else, because I still am not sure if I would consider myself "emergent" or not-- can one be considered part of the emergent church if that person grew up without church and without Christ?

To clarify, I have no real experience from my youth in regards to church or worship, and I never had any bad experiences with christians, so therefore I'm not reacting AGAINST anything. The fact of the matter for me is that I am comfortable in my family and my friends and, with the exception of removing those items from my life that the Holy Spirit convicted me to reject and change, I am still pretty much "in the world." I like the same movies, games, comfortable clothes, rock music, jewelry, etc. that I think I would like if I had never come to know Christ. I would give up any and all of those things if the Lord directed me to, though.

I believe with all my heart that God has called me into ministry (I fought it for 2 years before accepting His call) to reach people like me--the people I and my husband were before Christ, and the people that many other christians I know feel would very uncomfortable around (although it would be unintentional and they would try hard to reach out to them--but their discomfort would be obvious).

When we started attending church 8 years ago, the first and most important thing on our list was a church where we would feel comfortable, and where there was no hymn singing (no offense to anyone--I just think hymns really aren't that enjoyable if you haven't grown up hearing them at all), and where people were wearing everyday clothes. At that time we had just moved to a new area and more than once we walked into a church and turned around and walked right back out because we KNEW we did NOT fit in there (usually when we walked in we would see women in dresses, pantyhose, and heels, men in suits and ties, and everyone would be standing up singing some old, slow hymn that sounded depressing to our unchurched ears).

So, would I still be "emergent" since I'm not emerging from a church style? Or might "emergent" just mean taking part of the thought process and discussion of others who are emerging?

I hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question, but I am serious.

[Sara Sheppard]

Yet, on a practical level, all that is good comes from God. Your friends are not good and neither are you and neither am I. They may do good things, and that is the light of God's grace in their life, even if they do not know it or recognize it. Said another way, you are mistaken in assuming that they do good things because they are good, only the Father is good and they do good things because God gives them grace.

Okay...I get what you are saying here and I accept (and am thankful) that the grace of God is at work in us even before we accept that grace. My point is that...my friends are going about doing loving/"good" things even without any profession of faith in God or acceptance of Christ. In other words...doing good things and loving people does not require being Christian anymore than keeping a list of rules will make one a Christian.

My fear in what I'm seeing of the emergent church (to some extent - not 100%) is a call to be a service organization - in the name of Christ. But, I don't necessarily see a call to holiness in lifestyle - other than "love people". While I totally believe it is the call of the Christian to love others. I mean, Jesus told us too....who am I to argue.

I still believe that as we draw closer to Christ - there are going to be changes in our lifestyle. Are we going to continue to call people out of a life of porn, drunkeness, cheating on spouses or are we just going to say "love people" and assume the rest will happen? I don't think the call of a Christian is either/or. I think it is both. That is what I was trying to draw from my story about the woman caught in sin and the relious people getting ready to stone her. Jesus called the religious people to love more instead of judge. But, he did tell the woman to stop sinning as well.

I'm afraid in our swing away from "rules and the stop sinning message" to "loving" we have swung into fear of telling people that sin is still sin and it is wrong.

Sara

[Sara Sheppard]

Sara, Ever since I have been reading things that you have posted, I have noticed how strong you seem to be spiritually. I often read what you have posted to Dwayne, and mention your steadfastness in the faith. I really do appreciate you, very much.
God Bless You for the wonderful stand you take for Christ and His kingdom!


Thank you Anne. That is very sweet. However, I fail God at every turn it seems and He certainly has SO much work to do on me. Thankfullly His grace is so much stronger and bigger than my failures which seem to huge to bare at times.

Sara

[Kevin Rector]

But, I don't necessarily see a call to holiness in lifestyle - other than "love people". While I totally believe it is the call of the Christian to love others. I mean, Jesus told us too....who am I to argue.

I still believe that as we draw closer to Christ - there are going to be changes in our lifestyle. Are we going to continue to call people out of a life of porn, drunkeness, cheating on spouses or are we just going to say "love people" and assume the rest will happen?

Sin, such as porn, drunkenness, adultery (and anything else you can think of) is sin because it breaks the law of love. It is unloving. That's even in our Nazarene article of faith on sin. So sin is not sin because it's the breaking of a rule or law, it is sin because it is unloving. To be holy is to love. To love is to be holy.

So it becomes more an issue of education and discipleship. We want to educate people that do good deeds about the God that loves them and gives them their charitable spirit. We want to educate those who are sinning that there is a better way. I don't think this in any ways goes against the emergent ethos.

Furthermore I agree that as we get closer to God, he will continue to change us and that a changed lifestyle is an evidence of God's work in our lives.

Finally, I have heard the critique and perhaps it's a echo of what your saying that the emergent church is not overtly evangelistic enough. I don't personally think that's true it's just that the evangelism is typically more relational and less programmed (that's a generalization of course).

[Gina Stevenson]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But I also wonder if we are simply hearing about the extremes more. I mean, when the pendulum swings, it tends to swing pretty far one side or the other. But other than the weak ones one side or the other (those who are weak in the faith and need rules and those weak and carnal), I suspect that there are more in the middle who just continue to grow and settle where they need to be: right in the middle between the two poles.

About that pendulum ... calls to mind one of my long-time fave words, yet difficult to achieve at times ... balance ... with the pendulum right in that middle you mention, Tami. ;)

[Kevin Rector]

Here's a question for you or anyone else, because I still am not sure if I would consider myself "emergent" or not-- can one be considered part of the emergent church if that person grew up without church and without Christ?

Genevieve, you certainly sound rather emergent to me. But it's just a label that I wouldn't get too hung up on. There's no admission rules as far as I know the "emergent club" other than considering yourself a member. Truth be told I tend to call myself "missional" more than "emergent" these days.

[Sara Sheppard]

Finally, I have heard the critique and perhaps it's a echo of what your saying that the emergent church is not overtly evangelistic enough. I don't personally think that's true it's just that the evangelism is typically more relational and less programmed (that's a generalization of course).

Kevin,

That would not be a critique I have. In fact, from what I can tell, people in this "group"...not sure I like that word, but anyway....seem to be very evangelistic in terms of getting people in to church. I'm just afraid I'm seeing more of a "coffee club" mentality once they are there as opposed to life changing.

We'll find the balance eventually...just in time for the next change I'm sure. ;)

Sara

[Kevin Rector]

Kevin,

That would not be a critique I have. In fact, from what I can tell, people in this "group"...not sure I like that word, but anyway....seem to be very evangelistic in terms of getting people in to church. I'm just afraid I'm seeing more of a "coffee club" mentality once they are there as opposed to life changing.

We'll find the balance eventually...just in time for the next change I'm sure. ;)

Sara

Yeah, the coffee club is a danger, but this is no new danger to the emerging church. I've witnessed plenty of church groups that are more social club than church.

One of my personal mottoes and my personal mission statement if you will is: "Love people, let God change them." I really think that the emergent approach to discipleship which may come off as a coffee club is rooted in the understanding that as we love people, and as we love God, those people will get closer to God, and God will change their behaviors to be more Christian. The emerging church takes the efficacy of the Holy Spirit very seriously. Put another way, I don't have to change you (which is good because I can't) but God does (which is good, because he can).

I definitely still give gentle nudges (and when I've won their trust, full out shoves) to people to help move them in the right direction whenever the opportunity presents itself. After all the Holy Spirit does use people for his ministry as well.