Want More Info?


Powered by Rollyo



« alt.emerging. UK National Gathering | Main | Small Is Beautiful | Cellular Simplicity »

November 27, 2005

Comments

bobbie

i am reminded of the oxford movement in the church of england - it had a great affect, but never became a 'thing unto itself'. i think it is possible for the 'ec' to be an influence on the body of christ without 'selling out' into a list of attributes and distinctives.

lisa

intriguing

bill

The trackback I sent must have fallen of the edge of the digital earth. But I posted an attempted reply to your exellent question at "Will the Emergent Church Become a Denomination?"

My take on emerging things and Emergent in particular is that it fits into the circle of life--as it were. Here's the conclusion.

Peggy

This was a helpful post to me, Kester, as I begin to sharpen the focus on CovenantClusters...which is very much the structure/node you speak of--enough order/structure for relationships to thrive and enough chaos/freedom for Spirit-inspired creativity and diversity to flourish--allowing the spontaneous emergence of whatever "sport" of Christian "grape" grows on the vine-that-is-Christ in any given place.

I wondered as I read whether it is possible to not name? "Christian" was a name given by those on the outside, wasn't it? We use names to describe; intentionality is not always relevant. I think that the using of a name is helpful. The possessing or holding onto any name so that it becomes an idol is more of the problem, it seems to me...hmmm....

If we call ourselves something internally, at the foundational level, but don't call ourselves something externally, where it can be perceived as a way to discern "in" and "out" and limit inclusion, is that going in the right direction. It is good to be able to clarify this, which was kind of running in the background of my thinking...but I wasn't sure why!

Thanks for inviting me here from Jesus Creed...it is good to build on our Wikiklesia collaboration, eh?

Blessings,

AbiSomeone ;)

Elling

One of the questions I often hear about doing church outside the established - and outside the buildings - is that it means a great privatization of faith. That it wont be that accessible to other people than those who are inside. If a person stranger to church one day wanted to find a church it suddenly is difficult for him/her to find. I guess thats a question that will be even stronger if you don't have a name either. How do you view this?

Kester

You're right Peggy - it's actually impossible not to name. But I'm concerned that people think carefully about what happens when you do inevitably name something.

Elling, given that something will always have some kind of perceived name, if not an actual one, I think that privatisation would only be a danger if the people were insular... Which is not the right Christian way.

Jesus said we should be known by our love. Which suggests to me we shouldn't primarily be known by our huge neon sign outside an expensive building, but by the warmth of relationships that we have built up.

Elling

...in wich i totally agree, kester. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Endorsed by...

See all Endorsements...
and reviews.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar