tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253529165034405240.post-39826730966146011822008-03-29T17:44:00.000-04:002008-03-29T17:44:00.000-04:002008-03-29T17:44:00.000-04:00Good question, Vince. And that series of posts are really cool. I really appreciated how he distinguished between "emerging" and "Emergent".<BR/><BR/>I'm not super comfortable with the labels, but if I had to put myself somewhere, it would be a shade to the right (like, by a letter or two) of Mark Driscoll. According to the posts, I would be considered emerging ecclesiologically (I'm heading up a network of house churches) and sociologically, but not much else.<BR/><BR/>Driscoll does have an interesting podcast on this issue that just went up on iTunes recently.<BR/><BR/>I think the message of 1-3 John is extremely relevant when it comes to the Emer<I>gent</I> church. The dudes he went after would have definitely been considered Emergent.aaronsaufleyhttp://aaronsaufley.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com