Interesting and Ay Yi Yi

There is a new very interesting book out called "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be".

With the books or blogs so far that have been written from an anti-emerging or anti-emerging church perspective, many of them (but not all) are unfortunately somewhat extremist and highly over-the-top in what they report on. I am often amazed at the hyper-caricatures made based on a sentence or two from someone's writing and then an unfortunate very large broadbrush is applied to everyone who has anything to do with the emerging and emergent churches. However, out of all the critical books so far written on the emerging or emergent church, this seems to be the more readable and overall balanced. Their tone is somewhat more gentle than others and they didn't just focusing on only one or two people for all of their conclusions. They do say some negative, or maybe a better word is cautionary things about me in it and things I have written.

I always want to be very open to criticism or listening to people who may have concerns with something I wrote or speak about. We should always be open and willing to listen or read criticism to see if there is truth to what someone is saying they are concerned about. We are all learning and growing and I have had people point out things of concern, I ended up agreeing with them and made changes. Other times I just disagreed with them and didn't change, as it became a difference of opinion. But criticism can be a very good thing. We are stretched when we are challenged by other people and it causes us to look more closely at what we are saying or believing which is a healthy and needed thing.

(You can click below here to read the rest of this post. I am copying my friend Scot McKnight in how he breaks up his posts so it isn't one long one on the page).

I love being challenged and I love discussing differences between people. My very good friend Doug Pagitt recently shared on the latest issue of Next-Wave magazine in an interview that I didn't endorse his latest book due to theological differences. I've been in touch with Doug and we will probably set up a Q and A time going back and forth together at some point in the future to post why I felt I couldn't endorse his book. So there will be differences of opinion about things, sometimes very minor, sometimes minor, sometimes major, sometimes very major. Some disagreements between people may be philosophical, some theological - some both. So in every challenge or disagreement, you can't lump them all together. I believe you always have to specifically examine each one and try not to make generalizations.

Anyone who writes books will have people disagree with what they write. That is part of the whole thing when we willingly make our thoughts or beliefs public and write a book. So, I do not mind having people disagree with me, provided that what they are disagreeing with is  true to what I actually believe or wrote. When someone writes something that is not accurate about my beliefs, depending on who the critic is, I will sometimes try to communicate with them to make sure they understand what I believe (if they reported it incorrectly).

I don't see this as really isn't being overly sensitive or too defensive. It is wanting to guard what you really do believe from being inaccurately misrepresented or misunderstood. Doctrine is very important and what people believe is important. The practice of doctrine is very important as well, of course.  Orthopraxy needs to matching with one's orthodoxy. One without the other can lead to trouble.

Back to the book "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be". I read it through and I had a very, very pleasant and nice correspondence back and forth with Kevin (one of the authors) via email. I won't comment here about the specifics I shared with Kevin. But I did express that at certain times I felt they painted a one-sided perspective of what "the emerging church" believes about something when there are also other views within it. I did also share with them about some places where they wrote some things about friends of mine in the book whom I felt that they misunderstood by what they wrote about them.

Kevin's response has been so gracious, and he commented back to my comments. I can't imagine that this type of correspondence to me, isn't what would please Jesus. We have had some very wonderful back and forth dialogue. I both disagreed with some of what they wrote and I also agreed with some of what they wrote. I personally see such wonderful, beautiful exciting things about what is happening in the emerging church world, but like the authors, I also have concerns and strong disagreements with some things in the emerging church world. 

This is actually a very interesting book to read and depending on where you are in the whole emerging and emergent discussion may have you getting upset at some parts which you will feel "hey, that is not true about this person."  Other parts you may feel "that is a really good point they are raising....".   Some parts you may feel "that is stretching things to a pretty extreme conclusion"....  other parts you may feel you agree with the book and realize "I never really have stopped to considered the longer term outcome and ramifications if I go down that trail."

In looking at the endorsements on the back of the book, I respectfully do wish that D.A. Carson would not sadly fall into the over-the-top generalization he made with his endorsement of the book where he said:

"... the emerging church movement, which taught an entire generation to rebel... "

That kind of statement is the exact kind of over-generalization that makes me think "ay yi yi". Taught an entire generation to rebel?

I also corresponded with Kevin and shared that I am not too sure that the sub-title of the book makes sense to me. The sub-title is is "by two guys who should be" (referring to being emergent). I am not defending emergent here, but from what I understand of the authors, they are pretty hard core Calvinists. Being a hard core Calvinist means you are pretty locked into a very distinct theological system of beliefs. Also, just being a certain age or engaged in culture is not what makes one emergent - it is far beyond that. So from these things, I would not think that from what I read of these two authors that they naturally "should be" emergent at all. The sub-title maybe should have been "by two guys who shouldn't be". But that is petty, but it is the sub-title of the book. But, despite that, if I was to suggest reading through one fairly anti-emerging or emergent church critical book - so far, this is the one. Even though you will probably strongly agree and disagree with parts of it. I think that they did raise important questions in this book. I didn't always agree with all their answers - but the questions are good ones to be asking ourselves .

I hope as Christians have disagreements and there is criticism in the church, that we state it in honorable ways that would please Jesus. We do need to defend doctrine, we do need to take stands. I just hope we do so with honor, with knowing the facts, with respect to the others we disagree with. I hope that no one is closed to criticism. We need to open to it and listen to see if perhaps God is speaking through someone who disagrees with you. This isn't just about being open to criticism about emerging church things, this is about being open to criticism or concerns raised in our relationships, or on church staffs, or with people in churches, in our families etc.

I am sitting here in the coffee house and just chatted with Duggan who is one of the people in the They Like Jesus but not the Church book. He just went off to go golfing. I am here prepping for the sermon this Sunday which will be on "heaven". But I am looking at this book and thought I would post some caffeine-soaked thoughts about it.

Comments

[Tammy]

This is off topic a bit because I haven't read the book nor do I know a whole lot about the emergent church. I just started to read your blog because we visited Vintage Faith on Easter Sunday with our daughter who lives in Santa Cruz. Her roommate attends your church and we believe he's an answer to prayer by being in her life. She was raised going to church and probably fits the bill for the emergent church or they love Jesus but not the church. We all enjoyed the service as did she. As long as Jesus is the focus I don't have a problem with it. She said she plans on going again and we pray she does. I think she would grow there and be a blessing. I will keep reading your blog and perhaps your books to know better where you're coming from. As long as there's nothing radically off or wrong with your doctrine I'm ok with our daughter going there. Santa Cruz needs something emerging and if it's the church... Hallelujah!Let grace abound!

[Sean Nelson]

Hey Dan... I really enjoyed this post. I have to confess, I was once one of the critics, and worse, I was just going off of other people's opinions. Anyway, I really appreciate your patient style and approach to criticism. This is something I wish my movement could catch onto. There's a lot of mudslinging and fatalistic conclusions being drawn out there. It's freeing to be out of that mindset. Thanks for sharing the review. PEACE!

[tysdaddy]

Interesting exchange, Dan.

I came across your blog by clicking on a link at the emergent village blog.

I am new to the emergent conversation and am still quite unsure about much of what the heck is going on. I've read Jones' The New Christians and found it poignant and revealing.

There's still much to chew on, and I'm chewing slowly . . .

[tysdaddy]

Interesting exchange, Dan.

I came across your blog by clicking on a link at the emergent village blog.

I am new to the emergent conversation and am still quite unsure about much of what the heck is going on. I've read Jones' The New Christians and found it poignant and revealing.

There's still much to chew on, and I'm chewing slowly . . .

[Jeffrey]

My advice to anyone not wanting to be thrown in the emergent mix is to make sure you are stating your theology on the atonement, the Bible, homosexuality, Jesus being the only way.... Why avoid saying what you believe? We shouldn't be embarrassed.

[Dan]

Hey Chris!

((This is Chris L., I assume!))

You are asking what specifically they wrote about me personally in the book I didn't agree with. Part of it was about their indication of seeing changing worship approaches as trendy vs. understanding the theological and educational reasons for making changes. They joked a couple of times about me and art/aesthetics (which I actually didn't mind) but it showed that they did not grasp that there are theological reasons and educational reasons for using different forms of teaching, how you set up the room etc. I do agree with them, if something is not intentional it can be trendy and then you are just chasing trends all the time. But that is different than having intentional and theological reasons for changing forms of worship.

The other main (and larger and more imortant) thing was not including different opinions within the emerging church when talking about the issues they did on the emerging church and homosexuality, pluralism, hell, the substitionary atonement. They only gave examples of the concerns they had about the vagueness of what some believe on these issues and left it hanging there. So the reader is left with the broader assumption that for those affiliated with the emerging church - the issue of homosexuality, the atonement, hell, using doctrinal statement, pluralism is somewhat up for grabs and in question.

Since I was included as one of the names in the mix, I wish they would have read my last book (which they didn't, I heard they just got it) or various blog entries or other things I have written. I am very clear about these very things and wish they would have included those of us who are not unclear on these issues and had examples of those in the emerging church who do who do make clear statements on these very things. They only gave examples of those they felt are vague or saying things they are concerned with - rather than also including those who do make non-vague statements about these things. So it painted the emerging church one-way.

OK, that's a little bit of it. As I shared with Kevin, what happens is then I get asked "Is that what you believe?

You still in Santa Barbara?

Dan

[Dan]

Mark -

You asked to have when I said "just being a certain age or engaged in culture is not what makes one emergent - it is far beyond that" defined.

I don't want to cop out and not answer, but it would be too long to get into it all. If you aren't familiar with Emergent and what that is, I would recommend reading Tony Jones book "The New Christians" to see what Emergent Village is about. Doug Pagitt's new book will also be out soon and you can then read more of the broader definitions of what Emergent is (not just saying it is about an age range of Christians engaged in culture).

Thank you for asking about that,
Dan

[Lloydie]

"Some times it is."

I didn't mean to sound like I'm painting with a broad brush, and I agree. But, sometimes it is a fight for Biblical truth in non-emerging churches, too. Why that doesn't seem to get as much attention is what confuses me.

"Emergent church = x * y"

As George W. Bush would say, that's fuzzy math!

[nc]

2 things:

First, on this comment thread, the statement "finally an emerging leader open to criticism" is the very kind of unfortunate broad-brush that Dan is speaking about.

Second,
D.A. Carson's comment...
the issue really is "rebelling".
That's the word some folks use to express how they are upset that people aren't laying down for the self-appointed gatekeepers of a particular subset of Christianity in North America. IMHO, the real substance of the "battles" fought is "control", who is going to "have a say" in shaping the consensus of a particular religious community.

I think his comment sadly says more about him and nothing about the emerging church that I know.

[Scott]

just wanted to say that you are very gracious in the way you respond to criticism, and i really appreciate that. far too many people get in shouting matches that cause divisions in the kingdom.

[donsands]

"It doesn't seem to be concern for Biblical truth as much "

Some times it is. And the Word of God is the battleground. Satan hates it, and he has a multitude of schemes and ministers of light, who will, if possible, deceive even God's elect.

We live in an age of great deception, and we are going up against THE subtle master of all of deception.
We need to be in the Word, and in the Church, and in the Spirit, or Satan will devour us, and we will never know it.

But, Satan is no match for God, and for His truth, when spoke with love.
Orthodoxy is essential, but "orthodoxy without compassion is ugly"-Francis Schaeffer.

[D Rho]

Way to go Dan Kimball!!!!

Finally an emergent leader/pastor who's open to criticism, and actually sees the good in what that offers. Emergent leaders tend to be hyper-critical about everything else but their own ideas.

For all you math geniuses out there:

Emergent church = x * y

Where x is the value of religious tradition. And where y is the value of pop culture.

It's that simple.

[Lloydie]

Dan,
Great post here. I've not been able to figure out why Christians have a tough time with all things Emerging:

1) Many emerging churches use worship forms that have existed for centuries, and some just bring those forms up to date.
2) Many emerging churches are conservative doctrinally.
3) A lot of traditional churches have added far more to liturgy and even doctrine throughout their history than most emerging churches I know. The difference seems to be that those traditions (Biblical or not) have been around for decades, even centuries, so that many denominations now get a pass for practices that, if an emerging church did them, would be criticized.

So, I guess I don't get all the hate. I know these guys may not use as strong a word for what they've written, but there is something else underlying all this criticism, like jealousy or misunderstanding or fear. It doesn't seem to be concern for Biblical truth as much as concern for church not looking or sounding like how they think it should.

I'm sure they're great guys, I suppose, but to me, most emerging stuff is akin to translating the Bible into a different language so that people can read it. I don't see what all the anger is about.

[Mark]

"just being a certain age or engaged in culture is not what makes one emergent - it is far beyond that"

like what? you're annoyed that people generalize the emergent church but it seems like no one will define what the "far beyond that" is.

[jon]

CArson saying "... the emerging church movement, which taught an entire generation to rebel... " . I agree that is too strong. For me i thought personally the emerging church taught me to ask the 'right' questions, like on gospel, atonement, reaching out, being missional, kingdom of God and alot more. I was already tired of christianity although i went to bible school and getting ready for the ministry, but that all changed, and i would say that the emerging church saved my faith! Nevertheless i like this post, honest and positive and with a dab of endorsement. Cool.

[Mike Morrell]

What a great conversation, Dan. I've shared some similar thoughts here: http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/why-were-not-emergent-an-inviation-to-kevin-ted/

[Adam/Mustoe]

Dan, thanks for the response. I guess to me, lets draw a parallel to the word "evangelical". Could we really sit down and define that? I think we might be able to draw a list of "core values" or doctrinal/creedal statements. I'd even call myself one. But would I want the association that comes with the broader use of that term. Do you feel like maybe this is what is happening with the use of the word "emerging"? I feel bad for you, always having to say things over and over. But I guess it comes with the territory of writing books with that word in the title huh?

[Chris]

Hey Dan... I wasn't sure whether to hit you up here or send you an email personally. I thought this would be more effectively, especially if I get a response that answers my question. Please note that I do understand if you don't wish to answer it directly, I just think that if you do it will be edifying to more than just me if it is done here than in an email. Anyway, you mentioned that there are criticisms in the book regarding things you have said and that you have since dialogued with one of the authors. Without going to much into the specifics, unless you feel so inclined. Could you let us know what the criticisms were and your response to them, be it truth in the critique, disagreement, or complete misunderstanding. Thanks Dan.

Chris (former attender of Graceland)

[Dan]

Hi Ben!

I need to look at what Mark said in that video on emerging vs. emergent. I haven't watched it for a while.

In answering your question, I do personally see a distinction between the broader term of "emerging church" and "emergent".

Emergent is really defined and used by Emergent Village and a term in the glossary of Tony Jones new book. He uses "the emergent church", "emergent Christianity" "the emergents" and "Emergent Village" in the book, which is the very best book to read to understand Emergent Village and I highly recommend to understand "emergent". I would read Tony's book for the definitions of these terms in how he uses these words specifically.

"Emerging Church" to me (which is not a term listed in Tony's glossary of terms), is more broad and in the beginning of its current usage was initially focused more on evangelism and reaching emerging generations. Through time that term got expanded and Emergent Village was birthed etc. and then all the confusion of emerging and emergent set in to where the words are almost interchangeable. I blogged about the origins of these words about a year or so ago.

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html

I know people who will be comfortable in saying they are "emerging" (as in mainly focusing on evangelism and mission to those in our emerging culture) - like I believe Mark D. is, but not comfortable with saying they are "emergent" which are those who align themselves with the values and philosophy and friendship network of Emergent Village.

I heard someone once say that all emergents are part of the emerging church, but not all of the emerging church is part of Emergent Village. Kind of makes sense and I would say that is true.

Semantics and defining emerging vs. emergent sounds somewhat silly, but we keep coming back to these terms a lot and what they mean. That's my best shot at it.

[Roger]

Carson's endorsement should have quotation marks for "rebel". That would have been more in line with his presentation on his book on the ECM.

[benbronson]

Dan -

Thanks for the post. Let me start by saying that I've been subscribed in my rss reader to your blog for a while now, even though I don't fully agree with everything you say. I'm always encouraged by your pointing people to Jesus, though, which is the greatest work of any minister (1 Cor.2). I see in the comments that someone posted a link to Driscoll's view of emergent vs. emerging on YouTube, which he also shares in his book "Confessions of a Reformission..." My question to you is, do you agree with his view and stance on this? Many people I talk to seem to lump emerging and emergent together. In your eyes, is there this clear separation?

[Dan]

Hi Adam (Mustoe)-

Yes, the goal of the book Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches was exactly what you said. You had a pretty extreme range of beliefs happening in that book and that was the point. So that is why it is frustrating when people still paint a stereotype - or say they know there is a broad range of beliefs, but then after they say that, still only on a few as they talk about "the emerging church". It propogates the whole thing and to me, is why there continues to then be confusion.

Alas.... but now back to more important things in scheduling out the teaching schedule for our church and laying out the summer series we are doing - walking through 1 Corinthians this summer.

Dan

[Mustoe]

Dan, didn't you contribute to "Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches"? Wasn't the whole point of that book (which I read, and own) to show that there is not one monolithic "emerging church"?

[Dan]

Hi Kinney!

Thank you, that means a lot!! Hope we get to meet and hang out one day!

Dan

[Dan]

Hi Brendt -

I actually didn't notice that one line - but what one of my primary criticisms of the book was that I did share with Kevin was exactly that. At times there was a very one-sided generalization made of "the emerging church' (the term they used throughout the book) and they didn't include other beliefs within the emerging church that would be in contrast to the ones they highlighted. So by reading it, you would then assume "This is what the emerging church believes..."

I wish they would have given other viewpoints - and ones that they probably would have even agreed with themselves as what is represented within the diversity of what is known as the emerging church. To me, it would have been a much better book if they did accurately representing the holistic emerging church. I did share this with Kevin, so I am not stating this publicly without already having told him.

Thanks for the post.

[preacherman]

Dan,
I want you to know that I am always praying for you and your ministry. I think it is wonderful the impact you are having on the Church and the difference you are making in the Kingdom of God. You books and blog have been a blessing to my life. Keep up the wonderful work you are doing.
In Him,
Kinney Mabry

[jon]

dan,
i have too many books on my wish list so i may come up and just ask for a brief summary of the book.

robert,
another difference between emergent and emerging (aside from driscolls explanation) is that one word ends in ing and the other ends in ent

[Brendt]

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

I have not read the book, but had it on several wish lists. The early press made it seem pretty even-handed, like the authors truly were NOT emergent (like the title claims) rather than ANTI-emergent. One quote in a more honest review -- one that praised the book -- convinced me otherwise, and nothing's come off my wish lists faster.

DeYoung states that the argument that "all emergent leaders can't be lumped together" is null and void, and says:

**** ... when people endorse one another’s book and speak at the same conferences and write on the same blogs, there is something of a discernible movement afoot. ****

This assertion is fascinating -- in the way that you can't take your eyes off a multi-car crash. Rather than making silly over-generalizations, and then trying to defend them, DeYoung has magesterially declared -- once and for all -- that there is no over-generalization.

Game. Set. Match. Vomit.

[Elliot]

Dear Jeff R.,

I haven't read the entire book yet, but from the several chapters I have read they aren't just making straw-man claims. They are quoting emergents and using their own words. They are not pulling quotes from context but frame them. All the sources are there and references from the people they are talking about. So this is not a fabrication of something that doesn't exist as the very people are quoted using their own words. How is that a straw man?

I would encourage people to read the book as it compiles the sources to give a broader picture of the emergent church. We want to see God's church move forward. But this book is protecting the church from moving forward down a path that is unhealthy. We want to see the church move down a healthy path forward, not an unhealthy one.

Elliot

[Jeff_R]

Dan -

You're too kind. As you point out, these guys are attempting to "claim land" they have no right to. They believe because they are youth-oriented in their ministry and relatively young themselves, that makes them "targets" for being emergent.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Further, they set up strawmen in their arguments so persistently and so transparently, it's a bit surprising to me that they should receive acknowledgement, much less meaningful engagement from those seriously interested in moving Christianity forward.

Again, you bear much more charity toward Carson that I can muster given the same (and in his case, even more inexcusable) lack of evenness and reflection in his comments and characterization.

I didn't find anything compelling or convicting in the book and thought it a thoroughgoing waste of time adding nothing to the debate. These folks don't understand what's happening in any serious sense and have chosen to respond to their own misunderstandings, rumors and gossip rather than seek truth.

Then again, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong...

[donsands]

"I hope that no one is closed to criticism. We need to open to it and listen to see if perhaps God is speaking through someone who disagrees with you."

I am not very well balanced here. I can be told I'm off track, but it has to be gentle for me. When someone comes and tells me this or that, and is nasty, I either get back in their face, or I retreat. Depends how nasty they are.
When someone comes to me, who really cares, and is straight with my error, or bad attitude, or whatever, then i can turn from my sin, or shortcoming, or at least try to turn, or begin to turn.

From my side, if I see someone who looks like a harmful example for the Body of Christ, and I feel a urge to say something to him, I'll usually go and pray with another brother who is more mature and more compassionate, and then approach this person. if it's a public ficure, then i'll simply blog about it, and alwsy speak the truth in love, and be willing to be confronted and questioned in return.

Thanks for the review Dan. Not sure why Don Carson would say soemthing like that. His book on the ECM was excellent and well balanced I thought.
perhaps you could shoot him an e-mail at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, and ask him where he was coming from. Just a thought.

Have a great week. Keep preaching the Cross (1 Cor. 1:17-18;Gal. 6:14). All for Jesus!

[Lisa]

I do struggle understanding the emerging and emergent church differences and get asked a lot about it in our church and from parents of youth. I fully resonate with much of what I understand the emerging church to be. But like Mark Driscoll says the emergent church and Emergent Village seems to be a revised form of liberal-speak. That is fine for them if they are joining the liberal and mainline churches, but not for me. It seems like this book is saying the same thing. It helps to know others feel the same way.
Dan, what are your concerns with the emerging church that you mention here? Is it the ones that are in the book - should I read the book to see?

[Robert]

Lisa, that was great and I appreciate your help. I think he explained it very well.

[Lisa]

Robert,

Mark Driscoll describes the difference between emerging and emergent here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI

[Sarah Chia]

Dan,

I really appreciate this review. I think it's cool that I can come over here to an emerging blog and get a favorable review of an anti-emerging book.

I would place myself somewhere in the middle. I'm not totally sold on a lot of what I've seen/heard, but I definitely resonate with things that the emerging church is doing.

I have an older friend who is interested in the emerging/emergent stuff, but often her sources are very extremist, so I'm glad to have a resource to refer her to.

Thanks!

[Robert]

Will someone please explain the difference between "emerging" and "emergent"?

[ken]

dan, just the other day someone was asking me about the nooma videos by rob bell, wondering if they were "opening a door" to some really bad stuff from the emerging church. they had read some awful stuff one a particular website, so i checked out the site and found it to be an awful place that attacked guys like rob bell, brian mclaren, doug paggitt, you, and several others.

anyway... i went off on a tirade, since i get so upset about how people attack you guys in the emerging church. i used to pastor 15 minutes from mars hill, and i have high levels of respect for rob and his ministry. and i took a class with you (that you taught) two years ago, and was deeply impressed with both who you are and what you believe.

but after reading your post today, i realize i should have been nicer with the response to my friend's question. after all, you're one of the guys getting slammed at times, but you have such nice thoughts here about how to respond to criticism while i went ballistic and i'm not even the guy being challenged.

all this to say... thanks for a good reminder in this excellent post... in the future, i'll try to be more diplomatic, and listen for kernels of truth. i don't know that i am a truly emergent leader myself, but i am sympathetic to the movement and hope it stirs renewal in God's church here in America, as well as around the world.

[Jeffrey]

Question: Can you share what any of the theological reasons were which caused you not to endorse Doug Pagitt's book?

I haven't read Doug's interview yet on Next Wave. Maybe it says there.

[Jeffrey]

Sounds like a good book. I hope they distinguished between the emerging church and the emergent church. I see myself emerging, but not emergent (ala Mark Driscoll). Thank you.

[Geoff]

I've read your blog/books and I just wanted to say thank you. Your approach to criticism has always been encouraging to me. The balance you bring to conversations truly is needed in any discussion relating to the Church.

In my ministry I face criticism too and I know it can be difficult.

The bottom line for me is that all people "bring something to the table" and even though we may not agree all the time, I'm well aware that what draws me closer to God may not draw someone else.

Thank you Dan for your ministry and willingness to be molded. I for one appreciate your cautionary, insightful words.

[Jordan]

Hey from Canada!
I Just stumbled upon your blog. I have enjoyed reading your books and have benefited from your methods and ideas on how to better minister to a new generation.
Thanks for the heads up on this book, i'll have to check it out. And thanks for how your approach to criticism, it's a good lesson for leaders, to continually be challenging their assumptions in our quest for truth! In a world that seeks after power and status, where everyone wants to be right, it's refreshing to see leaders who are teachable and open to differing opinions! Blessings!