Response to James MacDonald

From Scot McKnight responds to James MacDonald's article Why I am Not Emerging:

So, when I turn now to remonstrate with James Macdonald, I do so as one who sympathizes with his task and his calling, not as an ivory towered professor who rarely finds time for such things as the local parish ministry. Here's my problem with James Macdonald's recent examination of emerging and then his second part: I don't think he has studied the movement deeply enough or widely enough to understand it. Therefore, his five point critique falls flat for me and it falls flat because it is not penetrating or fair.

I heard James talk about the emerging church earlier this year. Scot's response is fair; hope they are able to connect for that lunch.

Comments

[Ken]

I just read both the comments by MacDonald and the response by McKnight. So far MacDonald's criticisms strike much more of a chord with me than McKnight. I'll keep watching the debate but each of MacDonald's five points (the Five Points of Non emergent?) are concerns that I have had in some degree and McKNight's answers did not really tackle them.

[Darryl]

I like this type of interaction. I thought Scot's reactions were on point but I also thought that James wasn't just blowing in the wind, and he had a good posture. If they can have that lunch and continue the discussion, we'll all be the richer.

[Trish]

If you check back to McNight's site now you can read MacDonald's reply.