Rick, so what's your honest take on Andy's article? I personally feel like the article has done a disservice to the emerging church "movement" by presenting the whole thing on the level of "what hairstyles 'cool' people have." Now most of CT's readers can dismiss the emerging church as all style and no substance. It seems like the EC has been trying to shake this "candles and incense" cliche since the get-go, and people (like Crouch) just won't let it go. Just my two cents,Steve K.http://www.knightopia.com/journal/
steve,i thought crouch was pretty even handed and found the hair comments funny. which one of us hasn't joked about the requirement of emergent pastors having dyed hair or, failing that, a goatee?however, i found mclaren's comment that there were only about two dozen churches really living out the emergent ideal puzzling. my guess is that he was referring to traditional, congregational structures that have made a conversion to an emergent approach or emergent churches that have been planted. if my assumption is correct, that means he is completely ignoring the non-institutional outgrowths of the emergent church such as home churches, intentional living communities and the like. any way i look at it, that comment doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment