Examples of terrible logic

Read this This article was sent to my husband and has created much discussion between us about it. This article was written by a very well known and respected man who has been a primary influencer in the church for many decades, but I think that in this case there is some concern with the logic and the direction in which is he taking us. Upon reading this article there were a few main points that stuck out and I think need to be addressed. The article starts off talking about how Paul used a different approach when addressing the people at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17)and his goal was to create a new way to introduce them to Jesus. That sounds like a good thing, right? Well then the article goes on to talk about how there are a bunch of new churches that are adopting this “Mars Hill philosophy of ministry" as if it were a bad thing. This group is then labeled "Emergent", however a clear definition of what the "emerging church" is is not present and leaves many to assume or imply their own definitions.The only implication of the "emergent church" is the reference to Mark Driscol, otherwise know as the "cussing pastor" However, he does not represent the whole of the emerging church. That would be like saying that all Baptist are like those crazy people from Westboro who protest the soldiers funerals and say hateful things about gays and other people. To lump all "emerging churches" into the cussing and liberal theology pool is a vast misunderstanding and a dangerous assumption. "In recent years the emerging church movement has attempted to “do church” (or be the church) in a new way amidst our postmodern world. Their purpose is “missional living,” that is, to get involved in the world in hopes of transforming it. This style of ministry engages the culture in a “conversation” rather than preaching to people like a prophet." What then is the problem? Or if this not the goal or objective then what is? The Bible talks about how we are the Church and so this idea of us "doing or being the church" is a good thing and an example of us living out what we were called for. Jesus's entire ministry was all about "missional living". He had every intention of how He lived and interacted with all those He came in contact with to transform not only them but the world. Look at the very people He choose to engage with, the adulteress woman, the Samaritans, the tax collector, prostitutes, and all those considered "unclean and unworthy". He is the poster child for "misssional living" and if we are supposed to follow His example wouldn't that mean that we too are called to live like this? Maybe it's just me but I fail to see the problem with "conversation" rather than "preaching like a prophet". I want to be taught and I want to dig deeper into the Bible and for me having a conversation or discussion where you can think, question and wrestle with scripture is much more appealing then not having an opportunity to engage the scriptures. The whole idea of conversation is very Biblical in that's exactly what the Rabbi's did with their disciples and what is taught in the Jewish culture as midrash. Now I also realize that in most church on a Sunday morning that a conversational type of preaching or teaching is not realistic due to the size of the church (this is where small groups come in and the significance of them), however, I also realize that a style where the preacher/teacher is engaging and relating is much more received and applicable then when the preacher/teacher is barking at them. Regardless of how you want to label it we do live in a postmodern society and the question then becomes how do we relate who Jesus is and why we need Him to this changing culture. I'm afraid that many, like the author of the article, have failed to see the need for the changing of how we as Christians relate to the world in which we live. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that we have to be okay with what the world says is right or that we water down the Bible, but I am saying that we can not use the same approaches that were used 50 years ago to relate and reach today's people. God never changes but the way in which He related to and reached His people did change because they changed and to reach them He took a different approach, i.e sending Jesus. This notion and mentality that we can reach people today using door to door or Billy Graham style ministry is the main reason that we see such a decline in our churches. Society has changed and yet our methods of approach have not and this is one of the reasons why people see the church as out of date and unrelatable. This is the reason why the churches under the so-called label of "emergent" are growing and thriving while the rest of the "traditional" churches are dying off. These "emergent" churches are relating to the people and are seeking out ways to engage and make the Bible applicable through small groups and a community mentality. They are making the "church experience" exciting and alive instead of routine and boring and they are igniting a passion whereas many churches are surviving on apathy. Let's face it, how many people who go to the "traditional churches" are excited or given the opportunity to experience the Living God? For many people, primarily in the 18-35 age range, the emergent church is appealing despite if they agree with them politically or not because of the opportunities to be involved and engage in the church. I guess the question then becomes what is the "traditional church" so afraid of and if this is not the approach they see as right then what is? If "missional living" and "being the church" is not what they see as needing to be done then what is? My question is how is the approach that's been used for 50+ years working for you?