Since my injury things – particularly typing – have taken a bit longer. That’s why I’ve been slacking. So I’ll try to catch up with 3 Things.

1. JT has some interesting bytes about a move from some prominent leaders to jettison the term “emerging church”. I don’t know that it’s a necessary thing, but I certainly understand being upset when a term you used to describe yourself becomes a superficial label for people you completely differ with on everything important (think “evangelical”, or “graphic designer“).

But has the term really become meaningless? I didn’t read Kimball’s book, but as I was introduced to the term it was all about method and attitude. It wasn’t about theology. It could encompass missional, emergent, new reformed, and any other theological movement. In his recent comments, Kimball says,

If you were to have asked me about what the core of the emerging church is, I would have responded with “evangelism and mission in our emerging culture to emerging generations”. And from that, other things were of course included, alternative worship, discussions on  ecclesiolgy etc. as a means for fruitful growth of disciples of Jesus. But evangelism for me was underneath it all.

I agree with him that the worship and ecclesiology seems to have taken precedent, but that always happens. Once you get some momentum, posers (in the sense that they want the recognition without earning it) will find the easiest way to jump on the bandwagon.  I think that the term can be salvaged, but even if it can’t, Kimball and others will keep the movement going.

2. Over the last few weeks we’ve been going through the beatitudes at Garnett. I honestly can’t remember the details of how Wade handled “poor in spirit”, due to my recent trauma; today, though, he used it to mean “materially poor” while talking about meekness.

Whenever I hear people define it this way I wonder what the do with “in spirit.” If “poor in spirit” simply means “poor”, why the descriptor?

Based on Jesus’ whole message,  it’s much more likely that the term refers to those who are spiritually destitute.  Those who realize that their spiritual well-being relies entirely on God’s grace. Those who have hit bottom.  This probably applies most to those who are materailly poor, but Jesus doesn’t seem to make that connection.

Do you qualify if you’re poor, but blame your lot in life on everyone around you and become indignant when you don’t get handouts?  Do you qualify if you’re wealthy, but are joyfully generous and rely on God, knowing that your money could be gone in an instant? I know that these aren’t the norm, but they ought to make you think about what kind of poverty Jesus was talking about.

I think there’s a reason he added those two little words.

3. Just pretend I wrote something here, I’ll add something later…