Michael Spencer writes to explain why he shouldnt be considered emerging, and in the process argues strongly for the intentional church-

internetmonk : "I have no desire to defend tradition for tradition's sake, but it seems to me some of the things we've taken as part of the normal course of what it means to be church have been there all along because, well they should have been there. They were biblical all along, and we didn't need to reinvent anything. We may have needed to rediscover some of the basic of our church traditions......

Baptism, the Lord�s Supper and the apostolic teaching: these all originated with Jesus, and were put into the hands of the apostles in order to form an intentional movement; a visible church identified with Jesus in culture and history. They are the building blocks of the church, and they do not exist meaningfully in a freestyle, individualized �relationship with Jesus.�

Explanations of the origins of the church that assume Jesus himself had no intentions of founding a church are simply implausible......

Jesus followers who wish to eliminate, reinterpret or reduce the church face the problem that nothing in the New Testament is on their side.......

I believe the church- the local, visible congregation- was the intentional creation of Jesus