More on the comments from my critique within the emerging church post…
Tony said, “I would red-flag the thought that “many in the church will revile us.” If they are as “bad” as that, do you really think they even care if an emerging church movement exists. I don’t understand this persecution mentality that pops up here and there in emergent threads (there’s one at the Ooze about how a church “has arrived” because they’ve been called a cult). If you’re legitimate, you’re legitimate; and the Holy Spirit will testify to the hearts of others about that.”
Well, the fact that they’re starting to speak up and speak out about the emerging church, means they do care. And the fact that the church contains hardliners in her number, means we must find a way to relate with them, even if they do revile us. We need to find ways to respond in love and grace, when we are showed none. Right now, it is most common to see someone responding out of the hurt and bitterness due to their experience with the established church. Although for about the past year I’ve seen very positive steps towards being for things rather than against the establishment, the negative side of the movement is still dominant.
This is not entirely a bad thing. Sometimes negative description is the only way to communicate what you’re about. The problem comes when you can never move past what you don’t want to be to get to what you strive to become. So many enter into the conversation about doing and being the church from a place of pain and frustration, there is a tendency to dwell on the negative. It is the obsession with the form and structure you are moving away from that is the danger.
Tony also wrote, “I’d be wary of language that insinuates that other groups of believers are your “enemies.” Sounds too much like political rhetoric.”
I just want to note that I said they will revile us, but I didn’t mention our response. As I more or less said above, our response should be to love those who hate us.
Leave a Reply