Four reasons.
- My friends, Brian (no, not McLaren) and David, convinced me that the (EC) was not synonymous with Brian McLaren's epistemology and liberal leaning theology.
- I met Ryan Bolger and he took my questions seriously and answered them graciously.
- I see that these people are serious about being missional, which is the same thing that the Jollyblogger finds attractive about the EC.
- I did some reading. A by Bolger and Gibbs, an article by Mark Driscoll and a second article by Ed Stetzer.
Once you substitute the word "missional" for "McLaren", I predict you will stop bashing it too.
You know, I've found myself in the position recently I never thought I'd be in - actually defending the emerging church.
Mostly it's because people read one book or hear a quote from McLaren and base their conclusions on that alone. They don't realize that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs and approaches within this movement(and I hesitate to even call it that).
I've actually been listening to Driscoll's series on 1 Corinthians and have found it to be very solid and challenging. Imagine that...
Posted by: brian | April 12, 2006 at 11:22
I was one of those people who listened to what others said about the EC. I read some McLaren stuff (letters, essays etc) and was instantly turned off.
Others more informed than I helped me realize that the EC had different camps, and that McLaren's deconstruction of orthodox theology was just one of the those camps ... but that his voice did not speak for other groups within the emerging movement.
Once I was over that hump, I discovered that I agreed with a lot of what they were saying.
Driscoll is definitely worth reading. I read his blog regularly. I wish I could go to the upcoming seminar on missional churches. Keller is speaking. Washington state is not exactly in close proximity to Virginia, however.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | April 12, 2006 at 16:54