Tony, thanks for your post "Lonnie Frisbee and the Non-Demise of the Emerging Church". Some thoughts of mine in response.
The twittersphere condensed the key thought of my post into something i didn't intend to say and there was some confusion.
And the title's question mark didn't come out on the URL so the date seemed more like a statement than question.
So I will say this with room for tweets and retweets. Some of them have been tweetshrunk to fit 140 characters.
I have not read "The Decline of the Emerging Church" by Bill Dahl but will read it on Next-Wave when it appears.
As for a Marxist treatment of the word "radical", honestly, dude, I didn't even know Karl Marx had a surfboard.
"Demise" and "emergent" were your words, not mine.
I do think 2009 marked a transition into maturity for most of the 50 movements and groups I considered.
I posted on 10 types of emerging churches that have evidenced the transition to a level of maturity and acceptance here.
Lonnie Frisbee movie? I felt the 3 issues were marital infidelity, the lack of transparency and the historical cover-up.
[ --------- this line deleted upon request-----------]
The second generation of leadership may NOT choose the "emerging church" label and probably wont.
Maybe your controversy among conservative churches has more to do with your theological positions than what kind of churches you are attempting to start.
I read your post from yesterday that recommends clergy refuse to do legal marriages. I thought it was unorthodox and threatening to marriages.
Your post on marriage was disturbing and controversial. So yes, there is controversy but . . .
The controversy you are stirring up seems unrelated to the main emphasis of the emerging church movement.
Thus the need for some of us to move on from the label and get on with the job.
Every blessing for 2010
Andrew
