Here's another great article from Chris Armstrong encouraging all of us to read more great church history biographies. I have included a passage from his article that I found particularly interesting. Please read it and let me know what you think. Specifically, do you think his assessment of the Emergents (as he calls them) is correct? Do you believe Emergents agree with both the peculiar people thinking and the intrepid translator thinking? Here's the quote:
"Christian churches, say the Emergents, need to look like Christian churches—down to the crosses, candles, and even (if necessary), the stained glass; and they need to teach like Christian churches—including a hearty dose of good 'vintage' doctrine.
So our Emergent friends would likely agree with both parties in this dispute: the church needs both to find new ways of translating the gospel to directly address the questions of the day (per Niebuhr), and to refuse to buckle to secular culture by knocking the sharp edges off of Jesus' radical kingdom message and pretending that 'we Christians are really just like the rest of you folks!' (per Hauerwas)."
1 comment:
Perhaps I need a better definition of Emergents because those I know who call themselves "Emergent" don't have much use for a church -- stained glass and steeple or not.
Post a Comment