Editor's note: This article is a response to the story in the last RELEVANT Leader Newsletter called "Why I Am Not an 'Emergent' Christian" by Traynor Hansen. You can read it by clicking here.

As I read Traynor Hansen's heartfelt meditation on emerging Christianity, I feel compelled to respond. I respond not to start a war of words, but to merely offer a different angle on the emerging movement.

With that said, I want to commend Traynor on his commitment to his local congregation, in spite of the difficulties. He is right to critique those who abandon their local congregations for something that they may "get more out of" or enjoy more. We have far too many church shoppers looking for more smoke and light effects. He's also right to point out the importance of our spiritual heritage and tradition. We too often neglect our history at our own detriment.

While I whole-heartedly affirm his views, I think they are misdirected. Emerging Christians, in his implied opinion, have left traditional venues for a type of church that's more hip.

This is a big problem in the body of Christ. Christians are hopping pews like it's their job. But can't this phenomenon be equally applied (if not more so) to the megachurch movement? I would assume that most megachurch members are former members of churches that they didn't like. Take all the longtime Christians out of the megachurch, and I'm afraid you'll find a small remnant of new believers left.

Second, I believe Traynor created a false dichotomy between the more traditional church (in his words: "my real family") and the emerging church ("local buzz churches"). Are not all communities of faith that profess and follow Christ part of one family? To exclude emerging churches from the family of God is a bold and daring line in the sand. Most of the emerging Christian leaders I know are very gracious and very generous toward traditional churches. I'm sure Traynor doesn't actually believe that emerging Christians are not part of the family of Christ, but the conclusion could be easily drawn from his article.

Third, as I previously mentioned, Traynor is right to be wary of our historical amnesia in the contemporary church. "The problem is that our generation is cutting itself off from our spiritual parents. We are emancipating ourselves, and losing so much of our heritage in the process." Yes! Absolutely! But I again must say that this critique is misdirected. The emerging church is in fact, in many ways, preserving the historic church. Emerging Christians are leading the way in reclaiming the historic creeds in corporate worship, reviving ancient spiritual practices of the saints and promoting simpler, more ancient forms of ecclesiology (i.e., the emerging house church and simple church movement).

Many emerging Christians also find significant inspiration in the Celtic Christianity of St. Patrick's era and other ancient monastic rules and orders, ushering in a fresh and exciting wave of social action and Gospel proclamation. Many emerging Christians also are committed to exploring and understanding the Jewish roots of our faith, so that we may better understand the Scriptures and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Fourth, Traynor briefly mentions fresh programs in a detrimental way when referencing the emerging church. In fact, emerging Christians are militantly anti-program. We are about kingdom mission. Period. Which brings me to the most important point that must be known about the emerging church movement: The emerging church is not about flashy programs, weird art or new age spirituality. Emerging Christians exist to be the church. They gather not to merely finger paint and meditate (although, who doesn't love a good ol' finger paint!). They gather as a mission outpost to the world.

You may notice that within such a vague "mission" is a boatload of room for theological differences. Therein lies the beauty (and the beast) of emerging Christianity. It can't be pinned down to a theological position. It can't be pinned down to one person. It can't be pinned down to a typical form. There are emerging communities meeting in bars. There are emerging communities meeting in cathedrals. This becomes problematic when people, attempt to evaluate emerging Christians.

We are so used to denominationalism, various factions of the body of Christ that can be explained by a numbered doctrinal statement and observed by a uniformed ecclesiology. Emerging Christians have no emerging denomination. (Hence, the use of the term 'village' in Emergent Village.) We have no uniformed doctrinal statement, and we have no uniformed style. At the least, and at the most, emerging Christians are part of a conversation on theology, mission and church.

As Scot McKnight writes: "A fundamental conviction of the EM (emerging movement) is the gospel should be lived out—proclaimed and performed—by a local community in a way that fits the local context" ("Future or Fad?: A Look at the Emerging Church Movement," in Covenant Companion, Feb. 2006).

Critics of emerging Christians don't understand their commitment to contextualization. The methods of emerging Christians strongly resembles those of a missionary in a remote land. Context is key. Emerging Christians look for ways to utilize the culture for the kingdom, rather then waiting for the community to conform to a cookie-cutter method of Church.

Emerging Christians are serious about mission, theology, prayer and Jesus. Though we may look and act a bit weirder, this doesn't mean we don't belong in the family. What's a family without a few eccentric relatives?

Drew Moser is the pastor of VOX Ohio (www.voxohio.org), a friend of emergent and a frequent blogger. You can read his blog (or just look at the pictures) at www.drewmoser.blogspot.com. If you'd like to dialogue on the emerging church with him, you can email him at drewmoser@gmail.com.

Click here to unsubscriber from this newsletter.