I’ve just read Michael Lee’s article titled Why I Am Not Emergent and based on what he says there, I have to agree wholeheartedly and remove my name from the Emergent rosters. I mean really, I wasn’t convince by James MacDonald’s five reasons not to be Emerging and I even composed my own five reasons to be emerging. But man, Michael’s got some really good points here. I really hope the the five things he points out get changed soon, because I was really starting to have fun in the church that is emerging. Oh well, maybe it was just too good to be true.
Scratch that, I’m no longer Emergent.
by Brother Maynard | Nov 3, 2005 | Emergent, Emerging Church | 7 comments
- Why I Am Not Emergent at Addison Road - Scot McKnight gets it: Emergent Dress 1Subversive Influence…
This is why I like Scot McKnight’s distinction of emerging church and Emergent Church (the latter being the “institution” building up around the name).
This is too weird. This is the second time that my comment was meant to be posted on a different article, but ended up elsewhere. Hmmmm… Anyway, my previous statement was meant for your previous post.
P.S. Micheal Lee cracks me up
I’m glad I could provide some direction for you, Brother Maynard. If we allow this ECM threat to grow, who knows how much of the church it might infect!
Well, colour me enlightened…
Did michael mention that you have to have “Crocs” to be truly Emergent? ;)
This was absolutely hillarious…I’m linking to it!
Ye gads. My blood pressure spiked reading the Not Emergent article. Okay, I’m going to just breathe deep, and pray my heart will be more grace-full when I read these kind of critiques. But I’ll be saying those prayers at Threads, the emergent church I belong to – if I wasn’t there I’d be nowhere. Maybe some feel that not attending church is a better alternative than joining an emergent one…?
The evidence is just mounting; I think I had better renounce the whole thing before I find myself having slid down some slippery, slimy slope.