emergence

Amongst us now is the Emergent church movement. Like most eras in time, what defines it is complicated and smothered in the grey. In a great comparison to the Reformation era we see many questions being raised. Conversations arise and scholars are made, but young in the spectrum of 2,000 years yet alone all existence in time.

With a new year does not mean a conversation is new. With the birth of Luther or Wesley did not mean the Church or "real" Church began, not at all! It was with Christ, we are commentaries and our conversations have been going on for ages. WE should not be so arrogant to believe just because I enter this dialog it has now started. It is literally older than dirt. It started with God, beginning and end.

So we pose a ''I think there for I am'' standard of time? What about the Church fathers and saints... Errasmus or St. Francis. By saying this is new do we disregard there trials and sufferings of the Gospel?

What seems to be occurring could be a small thing in the spectrum of time and a fabric of it could hold true of what seems to be the core of a paradigm switch. The emergent Church seems to want to ask questions and uphold truths. The problem is the far end of the spectrum that is feared. That there is no truth and we cast all orthodoxy aside, in my simple mind could be a path towards post-Christendom that is also perhaps feared. But that is just the extremist view. What the core of it appears to be is orthodokandia the heart and passion of our orthopraxy. To say we have our orthodoxy perfect and praxy fail is a spiritual down fall. James "Faith without works is nothing."

Because this movement has been so prevalent means there is some credibility, correct? Perhaps its' not this that disturbs others... but the post-modern pull, Which is a totally other bag of fun...