The Emergent Church

[kanham]

Adam,

I don't think people see the emergent church as a threat. I personally think it is the marketing words and concepts that accompany the idea that are hard for any older person to understand. Think about a group of people who grew up through the 60's and 70's when the President was a liar and a cheat and they heard the military mislead the public about a war in Vietnam and maybe what seems reasonable to you, understand we don't understand, sounds a lot like that it depends on what is is.

I have no problem to a degree with what the emergent church is saying, I was preaching and teaching it to people long before I new there was a movement and didn't seem to have any problems. What I don't understand is why people who think that way don't understand why people react to it as they do. What did you expect? There life experiences is so radically different why would you expect anything but?

I also struggle with the idea that to be all things to all people means one should think about supporting an emergent ministry. In my neck of the woods being all things to all people would be a cowboy church. When Paul went to the synagogue he didn't talk like he did on Mars Hill. I personally think that people in the emergent church think they understand moderns and so they think they need to tell the moderns how to understand them. I'm just not sure that is really true. If they understood moderns it would seem they would work much harder to present things in a way that a modern could understand. 

Also what Mclaren said about homosexuality, or more accurately tried not to say even though it would seem that anyone can read between those lines, is an issue. How do you expect a Modern who thinks of supporting this movement isn't going to be concerned? Think of a Modern who has grown up with clearly defined borders (who is our enemy: U.S.S.R., Communism) is going to look for a source to give them a clearly defined border? Bell didn't help IMO when in Velvet Elvis he asked if a person could be a Christian if he didn't believe in the virgin birth and explained all the reasons why it could have been copied from the culture of the day. I don't mind bringing up those facts but instead of defending or explaining he just said is that OK. It would seem to me that if that is the movement I'm not going there.

One can't say look to this person or that to understand the emergent church until I don't like what he or she says and then ignore that person. A modern doesn't work that way. If you don't want to change moderns stop expecting them to think like an emergent in the discussion.

Understand that they will continue to ask the same questions not because they don't hear or listen to what you say but because they process information and distill it and expect that at some point it must be defined and I will be blatantly honest, I think that is not a modern/post modern thing but actually the way we were made. Even the emergent church has to define itself at some point. People need something concrete. Nebulous marketing speak works for a time but at some point we humans, no matter our birthdates, need some foundational facts. The early church councils didn't come up for no reason and the early church didn't vacillate because it wanted to. They didn't create them because saying I'm a Jesus follower wasn't enough. It emerged from its Jewish roots because it had to. The church has to define itself and to not do so is to risk the historic context of the church.

I'll be honest, I think it comes down to dollars. The older generations, those moderns who have their list and think that giving matters because it is one of their bricks give to the church. Their life experience taught them that you support a good cause and you support the institution because it will eventually win over evil. The younger generations who have no connection and have a truckload of distrust don't want to give to the system. How does one support such a ministry? It would seem that the emergents need to follow another Paul example and become tent makers and realize that is OK. Go totally emergent and don't make it a goal to one day be able to support a salary full-time.

[Skip]

Kandam,

I would agree. [praise]

To build on your comments --
I see Post-modernism as setting up false dilemmas.
Here are two:
-- Modern or Post-modern
-- Emergent Church or Non-emergent (Modern) Churches

First of all, I would contend that there are many more ideas than just Modernism floating around in Christianity.
Second, there seems to be a basic problem, IMO, with the idea of segmenting off the Church into Emergent and Non-emergent. As if it wasn't bad enough to have doctrinal sects, now Post-modernism seems to be ready to accept ideological / cultural sectarianism as well. I hope that is not the intention, but it is the implication, fueled what is seen as the refusal of Pomos to engage in real communication with non-Pomos.
Finally, "Whatever works for you" is not, IMO, a Christian principle. It may be that the "Whatever works for you" philosophy is a natural regression of Christianity in a persecution-free society -- a generous toleration that exceeds the bounds of orthodoxy.

I am reminded of the Christian missionaries in India who find that some Hindus have added Jesus Christ to the gods that they worship -- which one could call "very Post-modern", for they believe in Jesus Christ within the context of their Hinduism...

[OldDad]

"Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

[ellisadam]

Adam,

I don't think people see the emergent church as a threat. I personally think it is the marketing words and concepts that accompany the idea that are hard for any older person to understand. Think about a group of people who grew up through the 60's and 70's when the President was a liar and a cheat and they heard the military mislead the public about a war in Vietnam and maybe what seems reasonable to you, understand we don't understand, sounds a lot like that it depends on what is is.

I have no problem to a degree with what the emergent church is saying, I was preaching and teaching it to people long before I new there was a movement and didn't seem to have any problems. What I don't understand is why people who think that way don't understand why people react to it as they do. What did you expect? There life experiences is so radically different why would you expect anything but?

I also struggle with the idea that to be all things to all people means one should think about supporting an emergent ministry. In my neck of the woods being all things to all people would be a cowboy church. When Paul went to the synagogue he didn't talk like he did on Mars Hill. I personally think that people in the emergent church think they understand moderns and so they think they need to tell the moderns how to understand them. I'm just not sure that is really true. If they understood moderns it would seem they would work much harder to present things in a way that a modern could understand. 

Also what Mclaren said about homosexuality, or more accurately tried not to say even though it would seem that anyone can read between those lines, is an issue. How do you expect a Modern who thinks of supporting this movement isn't going to be concerned? Think of a Modern who has grown up with clearly defined borders (who is our enemy: U.S.S.R., Communism) is going to look for a source to give them a clearly defined border? Bell didn't help IMO when in Velvet Elvis he asked if a person could be a Christian if he didn't believe in the virgin birth and explained all the reasons why it could have been copied from the culture of the day. I don't mind bringing up those facts but instead of defending or explaining he just said is that OK. It would seem to me that if that is the movement I'm not going there.

One can't say look to this person or that to understand the emergent church until I don't like what he or she says and then ignore that person. A modern doesn't work that way. If you don't want to change moderns stop expecting them to think like an emergent in the discussion.

Understand that they will continue to ask the same questions not because they don't hear or listen to what you say but because they process information and distill it and expect that at some point it must be defined and I will be blatantly honest, I think that is not a modern/post modern thing but actually the way we were made. Even the emergent church has to define itself at some point. People need something concrete. Nebulous marketing speak works for a time but at some point we humans, no matter our birthdates, need some foundational facts. The early church councils didn't come up for no reason and the early church didn't vacillate because it wanted to. They didn't create them because saying I'm a Jesus follower wasn't enough. It emerged from its Jewish roots because it had to. The church has to define itself and to not do so is to risk the historic context of the church.

I'll be honest, I think it comes down to dollars. The older generations, those moderns who have their list and think that giving matters because it is one of their bricks give to the church. Their life experience taught them that you support a good cause and you support the institution because it will eventually win over evil. The younger generations who have no connection and have a truckload of distrust don't want to give to the system. How does one support such a ministry? It would seem that the emergents need to follow another Paul example and become tent makers and realize that is OK. Go totally emergent and don't make it a goal to one day be able to support a salary full-time.

Kanham,
Your words here are very wise.  I appreciate them and thank you for taking the time to write them.  For the record, I don't think every church should have an "emergent ministry", btw, though I'm sure there are those who do.  And I am going to continue my career in professional ministry, accepting a check from a church.  I am a youth minister.  This is what is connecting and working there.  You would also be surprised (actually you probably wouldn't be) at how many adults and especially college students (who care nothing about the terms "emergent" or "emerging church") are resonating with EC-type ideas when I present them in various venues.  I think there is a place for people like me on church staffs, and I think there will be even more of a place as time passes. 

Thanks again for the post. 
AE

[Skip]

...http://www.challies.com/community/archives/001187.php
links to some blogging done by Ron Gleason.
...

Wow.
What an article. I just had to stop [at the end of] part 1 and say, "Wow."
What a great article.

[ellisadam]

"Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

[Arkstfan]

Regarding
http://www.challies.com/community/archives/001187.php

Interesting.

I agree with the sermon I heard yesterday.

We should never teach a lesson that a Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, etc would feel comfortable with because we should always be proclaiming death, burial and resurrection.

The author of the piece is quite foolish in his admonition because he is confusing issues.

Without question there will be snakes out there who will find a home for their heretical or approaching heretical views in the emergent style.  There will also be the foolish who will accept them and in large part will do so because "traditional" church has scorned them despite teaching truth simply because the traditional could not accept the idea of mixing song styles, meeting in homes, lacking a corporate structure etc.

[ellisadam]

oh, and did anyone listen to the Pagitt inteview I posted?  I'd love to hear your reactions if you did.
AE

[OldDad]

Adam,

I'm reading Reimagining Spiritual Formation at the moment - is Pagitt's interview substantially different from his book?

OD

[ellisadam]

OD,
I would say it's substantially different.  It doesn't disagree or contradict, but he deals with different things for the most part.  It would be worth your time.  There is also audio on Pagitt's site of an interview between Pagitt and a guy named Bob DeWayy the day before they were supposed to have a debate about the Emerging Church.  Really interesting stuff.  I haven't been able to find audio of the actual debate, but they interact quite a bit in the interview.  I think you'd really be interested in that one.  All of Pagitt's audio can be found here:
http://web.mac.com/pagitt/iWeb/Doug%20Pagitt.Com/PagittCast/PagittCast.html
AE

[boringoldguy]

I am a youth minister.  This is what is connecting and working there.  You would also be surprised (actually you probably wouldn't be) at how many adults and especially college students (who care nothing about the terms "emergent" or "emerging church") are resonating with EC-type ideas when I present them in various venues. 

I haven't any doubt that the emergent or post-modern  talk "resonates" or "connects"  with lots of people, that it "works."   I think it would "resonate" or "connect" or "work"  with nearly anybody -  modern, post-modern or what have you.   That's because it appears to me to be what kanham has said it is -  marketing talk.  (I think that's ironic in a way -  what is more typical of modernism than contemporary marketing practices,  which turn emotional manipulation into a scientific discipline.?)

My doubt is whether these techniques or slogans or whatever they are will have any staying power.     We know that the so-called "emergent" movement addresses itself mainly to young, white, tolerably educated, middle and upper-class urbanites and suburbanites.    In other words,  this stuff resonates mainly with people who haven't yet encountered any problems or challenges that money (or their parents) can't solve.

How will this business hold up to the real challenges that are coming toward them down the road:

1.  Failing health;
2.  The sickness and death of friends and family;
3.  A child who insists upon pursuing an immoral way of life and won't be deterred;
4.  Career disappointments;
5.  Financial reverses?

I have my doubts that the stuff I've been reading will be of much use when "emergents" face these challenges.     It's at those times that people need eternal certainties, and not the the vague intangibles that I see from the emergent conversation.

To put it bluntly, from what I've seen,  this "emergent" business is fine for the drawing-room or the dinner table,  but it won't be much use when life becomes unpleasant.  

[Phil Wilson]

I am a youth minister.  This is what is connecting and working there.  You would also be surprised (actually you probably wouldn't be) at how many adults and especially college students (who care nothing about the terms "emergent" or "emerging church") are resonating with EC-type ideas when I present them in various venues. 

I haven't any doubt that the emergent or post-modern  talk "resonates" or "connects"  with lots of people, that it "works."   I think it would "resonate" or "connect" or "work"  with nearly anybody -  modern, post-modern or what have you.   That's because it appears to me to be what kanham has said it is -  marketing talk.  (I think that's ironic in a way -  what is more typical of modernism than contemporary marketing practices,  which turn emotional manipulation into a scientific discipline.?)

My doubt is whether these techniques or slogans or whatever they are will have any staying power.     We know that the so-called "emergent" movement addresses itself mainly to young, white, tolerably educated, middle and upper-class urbanites and suburbanites.    In other words,  this stuff resonates mainly with people who haven't yet encountered any problems or challenges that money (or their parents) can't solve.

How will this business hold up to the real challenges that are coming toward them down the road:

1.  Failing health;
2.  The sickness and death of friends and family;
3.  A child who insists upon pursuing an immoral way of life and won't be deterred;
4.  Career disappointments;
5.  Financial reverses?

I have my doubts that the stuff I've been reading will be of much use when "emergents" face these challenges.     It's at those times that people need eternal certainties, and not the the vague intangibles that I see from the emergent conversation.

To put it bluntly, from what I've seen,  this "emergent" business is fine for the drawing-room or the dinner table,  but it won't be much use when life becomes unpleasant. 

BOG, I've found that it works well in these circumstances because for many people the level of involvement in people's lives extends through out the week (again, not to say that it doesn't happen in "non-emergent" churches). There is a huge level of support that happens. I experienced this when I lost my job and the support I got from my church, which isn't emergent per se, but has a lot of the sensibilities. Community is a huge part of the ethos of many in Emergent, as it should be for followers of Christ. And support in times of trial and struggle is a necessary part of that.

[charlie]

One of the descriptors of the emergent church movement is "missional", and this makes me wonder about the value and effectiveness of this paradigm in third world missions. I seriously doubt it will make better inroads in those areas, or whether the 10-40 zone of world missions will be transformed for the better by adopting this approach.

Of course, missions also includes second and first world evangelism, which includes post-Christian Europe and the United States. Bottom line, if this is needed to reach the young urbanites and disaffected European intellectuals (i.e. our neighbors), then so be it. All things to all people, right? Even so, even the great Paul only hoped to reach some. If our efforts don't yield results that we were hoping for, the important thing is that we allowed God to move through us. Perhaps we modernists should simply be working alongside the pomos and catching the souls that slip through their nets, and vice versa.

The marketing of the EC movement is pretty crafty, though. It is reminiscent to me of similar deconstructionist approaches used by C S Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Its ostensible rejection of definability is probably the one feature that I find personally exasperating. Basically, the more I read about it, the more it seems to be whatever its proponents want it to be. Go ahead and have them list its various qualities. And just when you think you've caught them in a fatal error of logic, WHAM!! Rule number one, baby! Logic is incurably modern, and therefore backwards to the pomo mind. Nice try, grandpa, but whatever you think is wrong about us is just another example of misunderstanding on your part.

[boringoldguy]

Phil:

I wasn't really getting at that.

There comes a time when community and support and friends just don't get the job done.
You have to make hard decisions about what you're goint to do.

Like this:

"Dad,   I'm going to do XYZ,  and I know you believe that God disapproves of that and you think it's immoral,  but if you love me you'll support me in it."

"Community" won't be any use then.   And you don't need "support."    You need certainty,  and you're not going to get it from these people.

[Phil Wilson]

Phil:

I wasn't really getting at that.

There comes a time when community and support and friends just don't get the job done.
You have to make hard decisions about what you're goint to do.

Like this:

"Dad,   I'm going to do XYZ,  and I know you believe that God disapproves of that and you think it's immoral,  but if you love me you'll support me in it."

"Community" won't be any use then.   And you don't need "support."    You need certainty,  and you're not going to get it from these people.

you don't think community is of use then? I think that's when community is most valuable.

[charlie]

BOG, I've found that it works well in these circumstances because for many people the level of involvement in people's lives extends through out the week (again, not to say that it doesn't happen in "non-emergent" churches). There is a huge level of support that happens. I experienced this when I lost my job and the support I got from my church, which isn't emergent per se, but has a lot of the sensibilities. Community is a huge part of the ethos of many in Emergent, as it should be for followers of Christ. And support in times of trial and struggle is a necessary part of that.

I'm not BOG, but community support is not a uniquely emergent value, no matter how well they emphasize it. If anything, it is ancient. It is through community that God first communicated the values that he wanted us to have. Consider the Passover and how God specifically mentioned what to say when your children (not just yours, but all the kids around you) ask what the deal is with the unleaven bread, etc.

[boringoldguy]

Phil:

I wasn't really getting at that.

There comes a time when community and support and friends just don't get the job done.
You have to make hard decisions about what you're goint to do.

Like this:

"Dad,   I'm going to do XYZ,  and I know you believe that God disapproves of that and you think it's immoral,  but if you love me you'll support me in it."

"Community" won't be any use then.   And you don't need "support."    You need certainty,  and you're not going to get it from these people.

Likewise,  when your friends go home to their families and

Your spouse is still gone
Your parents are dead
You''re sick and you aren't going to get well

The door closes,  the friends go home,  and you're there alone in the house with the devil.

Those are the times I'm talking about.    Community is good,  and Jesus certainly told us to help each other, and I'm certainly in favor of doing that.   But there are things we have to wrestle with alone.    How much good will this emergent business be then?

[Phil Wilson]

BOG, I've found that it works well in these circumstances because for many people the level of involvement in people's lives extends through out the week (again, not to say that it doesn't happen in "non-emergent" churches). There is a huge level of support that happens. I experienced this when I lost my job and the support I got from my church, which isn't emergent per se, but has a lot of the sensibilities. Community is a huge part of the ethos of many in Emergent, as it should be for followers of Christ. And support in times of trial and struggle is a necessary part of that.

I'm not BOG, but community support is not a uniquely emergent value, no matter how well they emphasize it. If anything, it is ancient. It is through community that God first communicated the values that he wanted us to have. Consider the Passover and how God specifically mentioned what to say when your children (not just yours, but all the kids around you) ask what the deal is with the unleaven bread, etc.

And I'm not trying to say that it is uniquely emergent, but people who gravitate to emergent type churches are not finding that where they are. I think that's a question that mainstream churches and Christians have to ask themselves. I agree that it's ancient and has been a part of the Christian disciplines for centuries, but maybe we've lost a piece of that.

I think that Emergent is as much a reaction against "modern churches"  as it is to individualized Western culture, and whether we think it's true, they see the church as an extension of that culture.

I don't think emergent is the answer, just as I don't think the modern church is the answer. Emergent is new and shiny. That's always going to attract people. There are some people who find fulfillment in that. There are some that find it in a megachurch. I'm not trying to support one side and denigrate the other. I sympathize with much of the critique Emergent offers, but what has attracted me about it is not that it says I have to be Emergent to be right. It has pointed me more towards Jesus and that's what's attracted me.

[Lee Freeman]

Phil:

I wasn't really getting at that.

There comes a time when community and support and friends just don't get the job done.
You have to make hard decisions about what you're goint to do.

Like this:

"Dad,   I'm going to do XYZ,  and I know you believe that God disapproves of that and you think it's immoral,  but if you love me you'll support me in it."

"Community" won't be any use then.   And you don't need "support."    You need certainty,  and you're not going to get it from these people.

you don't think community is of use then? I think that's when community is most valuable.

I agree. That's exactly the time when community would be of the most importance. If a kid has grown up in the right kind of church family/community she'll be less likely to do something she knows is objectively immoral, and if by some chance she does, she'll know the community won't support her immorality, and the community's disapproval coupled with loving counseling might just convince her to abandon the immoral behavior and repent her sins.

Certainly we'll each stand before God alone to answer for the conduct of our lives-we won't be able to pass off resonsibility to the church for how we acted or failed to act. However when faced with important or daunting moral choices it helps not to have to make such choices totally alone, to know your church family's got your back, so to speak. And that they'll bend over backwards to help you make the right choices; but it's also comforting to know that even if you do make the wrong choice they won't excommunicate you or shun you-they won't shoot their wounded; they won't encourage your bad behavior or give you a pass on it, but they'll encourage you to repent and make things right with God and the community.

What little I've read about post-modernism and the Emergent Church seems to encourage just such a sense of community-though as I've said, I haven't read enough to be able to say conclusively yet.

I didn't realize it until I read their sign again, but the North Wood Avenue United Methodist Church (one the "denominational" churches my church has met with) has an Emergent church service specifically geared towards teens and college students on Sunday mornings before the "regular" service. This church's theology is fairly traditional and conservative, yet they're apparently willing to try something new in order to connect with people they'd likely not connect with in their "regular" service.

Pax vobiscum.

[Skip]

Lee,

Just a reminder that BOG has given you up for Lent.
It would probably be good if you didn't jump into the midst of his discussions with other posters.

---

Actually, I think BOG is barking up the wrong tree to some degree.
I've already posted extensively to the point that Emergent Christianity is centered upon human relationships:
Consensual relationships, consensual truth, and mutual toleration are central principles.

So it's not the people / human relationships that are missing...

[boringoldguy]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

[Phil Wilson]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

I guess my question to you, BOG, is how can you make that kind of guess without knowing more?

[boringoldguy]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

Community can't do these things for you, and if that's all that the EC is about, it's going to leave a lot of ruined lives in its path.

[boringoldguy]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

I guess my question to you, BOG, is how can you make that kind of guess without knowing more?

Relativism, subjectivism,  whatever you wish to call this stuff, has never been reliable in the past,  and there's no reason to believe it will be in the future.

[Skip]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

Perhaps.
If that is true, then that might explain why the EC has little appeal to demographics that are already spiritually "tried", such as Baby Boomers, nor to demographics that already have a culture of relationships, such as Hispanics.

(Assuming that my demographic assumptions are correct)

[edit]
I see that just today I have exploded to a 4-point lead in the race against BOG to -666 manna...

[Phil Wilson]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

I guess my question to you, BOG, is how can you make that kind of guess without knowing more?

Relativism, subjectivism,  whatever you wish to call this stuff, has never been reliable in the past,  and there's no reason to believe it will be in the future.

And right doctrine always has? And again, I don't think all Emergents are relativistic, but in my way of thinking, being taught "right doctrine" hasn't prevented people from walking away or ruining lives.

[Skip]

Skip

My point is this -  the POMO stuff isn't going to keep people faithful when they are tempted.  Neither relationships or all this "my truth and your truth"  and all of that.  I don't believe it'll stand up to the tests that life really throw at people.

I guess my question to you, BOG, is how can you make that kind of guess without knowing more?

Relativism, subjectivism,  whatever you wish to call this stuff, has never been reliable in the past,  and there's no reason to believe it will be in the future.

And right doctrine always has? And again, I don't think all Emergents are relativistic, but in my way of thinking, being taught "right doctrine" hasn't prevented people from walking away or ruining lives.

Interesting; a very Post-modern / Deconstructive answer.
A relativistic answer; a relative comparison to what is perceived as Modern.
Justification by comparison to what is seen as the 'Modern standard'.

[boringoldguy]

Has right doctrine ever been reliable?

I don't know.  

How about

" I believe in the God the Father almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth
and in Jesus Christ His son
Conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified,  dead and buried . . . "

Has certainty of that ever been reliable?    I think so.

[Phil Wilson]

Skip, if you want to think of me that way, that's fine. Like I said, I find many things about the Emergent ethos attractive and some not. The relativism, I don't, but like Adam said, not everyone who identifies as Emergent is.

And BOG, I'm not denying the truth of that statement; I never have. But faith alone is empty. Action has to live behind it. Action developed with faith in community as God intended it.

[boringoldguy]

And I'm saying I don't believe that a community which takes the approach I'm hearing described can ever grow a faith that will support such action.    That's my entire point.

[boringoldguy]

It's hardly fair.  I started the day at -4.  Don't know what I'm doing wrong.

[ConnieLard]

It's hardly fair.  I started the day at -4.  Don't know what I'm doing wrong.

So many of your posts make a person smile, BOG.  You're cute in a curmudgeonly way. 

[Lee Freeman]

Lee,

Just a reminder that BOG has given you up for Lent.
It would probably be good if you didn't jump into the midst of his discussions with other posters.

You did. But pardon me.

[Arkstfan]

We know that the so-called "emergent" movement addresses itself mainly to young, white, tolerably educated, middle and upper-class urbanites and suburbanites.    In other words,  this stuff resonates mainly with people who haven't yet encountered any problems or challenges that money (or their parents) can't solve.

I'm 40.
Been through the loss of a child.
Watched my mother-in-law suffer the slow death cancer brings.
Comforted my wife as her father moved his girlfriend into her childhood home less than 2 weeks after his wife died.
Teetered on the verge of financial ruin.
Stood by my wife through several health issues.
Hospitalized myself with depression (not hospitalized by choice either).

Neither money nor my parents resolved my issues.

The emergent style resonates deeply with me because it isn't about the ritualistic almost empty church experience I had lived with.

Emergent isn't a cure all any more than "contemporary" was. It is another way of speaking  to believers and to those who you hope to lead to Christ. Our culture is changing and if we refuse to speak to those in it in a way that resonates with them we are ignoring the repeated advice of Paul.

[memmy]

Our culture is changing and if we refuse to speak to those in it in a way that resonates with them we are ignoring the repeated advice of Paul.

So true!