As far as your statement about all of us being part of the family of God is concerned, I simply say this: The kingdom of God has a very narrow entrance and everyone has to go through Jesus Christ to actually enter. Those who do enter this way are part of “God’s Family.” Besides all that, all families have that crazy uncle who everyone tries to avoid at the annual summer picnic …

Finally, I have to laugh out loud at your “pointing out of my Scofield and Dispensational views.”Why laugh? Well, because I do not have such views! Are you still in Bible College or something? Seriously! Do you have a pre-fab list of arguments you just peel anytime someone who questions/disagrees with emergent-ish arises? I do not adhere to these things at all. Where did you come up with this?

Also, I’m not sure if you merely misspelled “C.I. Scofield,” or simply do not know what you are talking about, but there is no “l” in “Scofield.”

Thanks for the comments, but I have no desire to have a “conversation” … like this one.

Also, emergent-ish is just a phase, and I assure you it will pass just like the rest of them have through history. Seriously.

Great question, bro. Kluck does touch on this, albeit briefly. He talks about how he entered his thirties, adopted a child, and life change. He basically says that all that emerging/emergent stands for really became less and less relevant and interesting to him as he grew older and life started introducing him to things he hadn’t considered before hand. He even writes the following as a reason “rebellion” and “starting a movement” looked less and less relevant: “There were logistical reasons as well, like what to do with our three-year-old while I was sipping a latte and trying to do church in a coffee shop” (64).

This is a very good question, Justin. It’s one I don’t think many in emergent circles think about too much. It seems that the movement was built specifically for a moment in their lives, but they didn’t realize that their lives were going to change and they soon would outgrow their own creation.

I think that’s a fair question to ask.

For the leadership:

Is this hinting to the fact that the Emergent church could have been born out of frustration instead of a calling? I can’t help but think how many of the founding members should have stayed in their own churches (ahem Nehemiah), submitted to its leadership and demonstrated Christ crucified instead of being egotistical in thinking they could do a better job on their own. Perhaps.

For the congregation:

What happens when they are in the eleventh-hour, the coffee-buzz has worn off and the conversation has gone stale? Not to be cliche but what is their rock? What is the foundation upon which they stand?

Talking about Jesus and pursuing him are two very different things. To pursue him is to surrender, submit and defend Christ crucified. And that is the hardest thing to do.

Is there nothing more annoying than a snot-nosed kid asking the question of “why”? I struggle with how appropriate it would be if someone were to walk straight into Mars Hill on Sunday morning and start flipping tables.

There’s not much structure here but these are my thoughts on a whim. I’m hesitant to even comment on this in the first place. Maybe I’m only adding to the static.