The problem the "emergent church" is trying to confront is an age old one. How do we root out apathy within the believing community?

However, I always take issue with approaches to church that begin with the negative, i.e. the church is dead so we must revive her. The only way for the church to be dead is for God to be dead. Via the resurrection of Christ, the church is eternally alive.

That said, I have, as of late, begun to have compassion for the concept behind the "emergent church," though the claims are still misguided.

I, too, want the church to be relevant. Better yet, I want people to see the relevancy that is always there. If we say the church is not relevant, I fear we have reduced our vision of the church to whatever corner facade we "grew up in" or attend(ed).

I am beginning to be more and more convinced that the decline in effectiveness of the American church is directly related to the decline of reading in American culture. Americans, in general, do not read. Therefore, the Bible remains largely unread. If we do not read the story, how can we become a part of the story?

Actually, we may live in the most exciting chapter of the story. Satan has been defeated and evil put to flight. Yet we live not as conquerors, but as the vanquished. We do this through ignorance.

The emergent churches seem to have a strong emphasis on reading the Bible. Granted, it often devolves into biblicism, yet they are more successful at motivating their constituents to read (seemingly).

There can be no doubt that Christianity in America in wanting, but I cannot see a specifically emerging church self-consciously set apart from the one handed down via the Creed as the answer. Unfortunately, this "movement" is inherently sectarian, and to have a successful post-Luther reformation, we must be thoroughly ecumenical, that is classically Christian.