<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What type of Emergent Church are You?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/</link>
	<description>Church Planting, Technology &#038; Culture</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4086</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4086</guid>
		<description>The article is rather critical of the "reconstructionists", but then I'd expect that from someone in a formal denomination.

I think the revisionists definitely go too far (what's the point of reaching people with a gospel that's not really the Gospel?) but the relevants are probably limiting themselves in terms of the structural changes they are willing to make.  "Church" as it stands is a pretty middle-class, Christian-upbringing kind of place - there are a lot of people that won't fit in, no matter how "relevant" it is.

What's your take on this?  Is there really a big demarcation between the first two groups and do you share the article's concerns?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article is rather critical of the &#8220;reconstructionists&#8221;, but then I&#8217;d expect that from someone in a formal denomination.</p>
<p>I think the revisionists definitely go too far (what&#8217;s the point of reaching people with a gospel that&#8217;s not really the Gospel?) but the relevants are probably limiting themselves in terms of the structural changes they are willing to make.  &#8220;Church&#8221; as it stands is a pretty middle-class, Christian-upbringing kind of place - there are a lot of people that won&#8217;t fit in, no matter how &#8220;relevant&#8221; it is.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s your take on this?  Is there really a big demarcation between the first two groups and do you share the article&#8217;s concerns?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Goodmanson</title>
		<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4081</link>
		<dc:creator>D. Goodmanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4081</guid>
		<description>Aaron,

Thank you for your compliment but I only wrote the 'Tension' article.  The other more 'squishy' one was by a gentleman named Ed Stetzer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aaron,</p>
<p>Thank you for your compliment but I only wrote the &#8216;Tension&#8217; article.  The other more &#8217;squishy&#8217; one was by a gentleman named Ed Stetzer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4080</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4080</guid>
		<description>At first I was a little disappointed that you weren't going to be writing for the Reader anymore, but if this frees you up to write more articles like "Tension in the Emerging Church", then it is for the best.  Two very good articles, even if they may have been a little too "squishy" concerning the Revisionists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At first I was a little disappointed that you weren&#8217;t going to be writing for the Reader anymore, but if this frees you up to write more articles like &#8220;Tension in the Emerging Church&#8221;, then it is for the best.  Two very good articles, even if they may have been a little too &#8220;squishy&#8221; concerning the Revisionists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Goodmanson</title>
		<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4074</link>
		<dc:creator>D. Goodmanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2006 05:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4074</guid>
		<description>Jim,

Thanks for the catch.  I edited it.  btw- I'd recommend Ed's article [The first sentence includes a link to the full article] it goes into more detail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>Thanks for the catch.  I edited it.  btw- I&#8217;d recommend Ed&#8217;s article [The first sentence includes a link to the full article] it goes into more detail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4072</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 23:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodmanson.com/2006-01/07/what-type-of-emergent-church-are-you/#comment-4072</guid>
		<description>Drew, 

I enjoy reading your blog.  Please note that the paragraph defining "revisionists" is the same as the "reconstructionists."  What is the definition of reconstructionists?

Thx.

Jim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Drew, </p>
<p>I enjoy reading your blog.  Please note that the paragraph defining &#8220;revisionists&#8221; is the same as the &#8220;reconstructionists.&#8221;  What is the definition of reconstructionists?</p>
<p>Thx.</p>
<p>Jim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
