I recently entered into an interaction with a pastor - I would not call it a conversation or a dialogue, but about 7 or 8 emails passed between us.  This pastor had some concern over my "involvement" in the "emerging church movement".  As our interactions progressed, I suggested that we make it a more "formal" discussion.  His response was to set three prerequisites for our conversation - three fundamentals that I needed to accept before he would even engage in conversation.  This is extraordinary.  As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, why would we feel the need to limit our conversation in such a way?  And since his critique of me involved some of the points he wanted me to stipulate, there seemed no point in continuing the interactions.

Just today I read Dan Kimball's blog entry, responding to criticisms he has received about a chapter he contributed to a recent book.  Dan is a great thinker and one of the leading Emergent leaders.  What I appreciated most about his post, however, was his humility in the face of a public barrage of criticism, and I appreciated his willingness to engage in debate and discussion.  Read his excellent post here.

In my mind, there is a big difference between abandoning your faith, and being willing to question it.  It is this distinction that conservative, traditional-evangelical Christians don't seem to get.

i

No comments yet. You can be the first!

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it