Blogs are the Devil

Currently reading this book. My Mom bought it for me. It's in that Emergent church genre, which has it's upsides and downsides.

Here's some stuff I wrote to my Mom about this movement:

So yeah, I'm really into the various kinds of things involved in the movement - an emphasis on social justice (which a lack of seems to me to be almost the primary indictment on the Israelites in the Prophetic books), honest concern for people's physical needs (as well as spiritual needs...we don't want to overreact, of course), the reestablishment of community and geographical proximity, etc.

Although, part of me is quite leary of the Emergent movement. I always have a fear of reactions. It seems rare that reactions, at least corporate reactions, don't become over reactions. I have an overall distrust of movements, anyway, I think. And yet, paradoxically, I find myself longing to be part of a movement of people (and not just young people, which may be another reason I'm leary of movements) passionate about bringing Christ's Way to the world.

Here are my initial thoughts about some of the fears you have about this movement:

1. Concerning the fact that the majority of this group seems to be made up of post-college folks: This also concerns me. It seems to me that any "community" movement that leaves behind both the old and the young is not truly establishing community. If the youth are not informed by previous generations, they are living hand to mouth, so to speak. My guess is that most of the people in the movement would agree with these sentiments, but if they all leave behind their traditional churches, I'm not sure many from the older generations will follow them.

2. Regarding the fact that the majority of this group seems to be made up of "intellectuals": It seems to me that no real revolutions have come about in society except by those labeled "intellectuals." An exception may be the occassional peasant/slave revolts that occur in societies, but in general it seems as though REform is brought about by those who have an idea about the correct FORM. In other words, it seems like real change usually rests on the shoulders of those who have greater knowledge concerning the way things ought to be. I don't know a way around this.

Plato believed that philosophers should be kings because they were the ones who could see the truth the best. Would we want to be part of an unintellectual movement?

You said this: "I just like to love people and do good not evil all the days of my life. Not that heady. I like to learn theology and I like to learn more so I can know what is good and what is destructive i.e. evil..."

This is exactly right, I think. Any reform movement that isn't intellectual runs the risk of acting without understanding, which is the most dangerous combination.

However, I do see the strong need to not alienate those who are not "thinkers." But this actually seems to me to be one of the strengths of the movement. There seems to be a desire to reach everyone - the young, the old, the poor, the dirty, the intellegent, the uneducated. In fact, the universal nature of the mission is part of what attracts me to these kinds of folks. They're willing to get their hands dirty.