Thanks for the article link.  I’m encouraged to see McLaren embracing the important differences between “Emergent” and “emerging.”

One question I would ask him is this:  On the proposed tenth point, are we to disengage from historic Christian apologetics that were elegantly crafted by the early Church fathers and paid for by Christian martyr’s blood? 

A yes answer reveals a Euro-centric attitude toward orthodox Christianity; a no answer embraces the Majority-world view I have encountered while meeting with Christian leaders overseas.

Jeff, perhaps some of NT Wright’s work, or perhaps even Andrew Perriman, would interest you for some positive material.  The popular level books (think ‘a new kind of christian’) sketch out broad strokes of what emerging christians might look like.  The more scholarly work by people like Wright, or Walter Brueggemann (see, for example, his brilliant and massive ‘theology of the old testament’) elaborate more clearly on what a rethinking of our theology might look like.  Then of course, these are just examples, and cannot embody all ‘emergent’ thinking.  But as McLaren says, crystal clear clarity (redundant, I know) might be overrated.  Jesus’ Kingdom parables were particularly provocative, not particularly clear.
My two cents.

A helpful resource in the ongoing emergent/emerging church debate is this transcript of a seminar by Phil Johnson on the very subject.  I have some serious theological problems with the movement and Johnson does a good job at putting meat on the bones of my concerns.

http://audio.gracechurch.org/shepnew/2006notes/Emerging,%20Johnson.pdf

Summarized, Glen’s article makes the following three critiques of the emerging church movement (henceforth, ECM):
- It breeds suspicion of authority
- It undermines the perspicuity of scripture (that is, denies that it is easily understandable)
- It sows confusion about the mission of the Church.

In response, I would say the following:
- Certainly, some ‘emergents’ take the whole ‘suspicion’ thing a little too far, but a decent amount of suspicion is desirable (remember, the Reformers were suspicious of the religious authorities of their day...), so I don’t see that this is something to be too worried about.
- Although Protestants (and others!) like to argue that scripture is easy (or at least, pretty easy) to (sufficiently) understand, the fact that so many who make that claim interpret it so differently is enough of a counterbalance to take the claim with a grain of salt.  I’ve met a number of Mormons who think the Bible (and the book of Mormon) are perfectly clear: the rest of the ‘so-called Church’ is actually the Apostacy (everyone uses that one!).  To the best of my knowledge, ECM theologians (NT Wright as the prime example) don’t advocate nihilism or obscurantism, but rather thoughtful engagement in the historical and critical enterprise.  Is that really so dangerous?  I think blind allegiance to a ‘what scripture obviously says’ mentality (where that actually means blind allegiance to what my pastor says scripture obviously says) is MORE dangerous…
- Well meaning Christians disagree about the mission of the church.  The article says “the true mission of the church is embodied in the gospel message...” yes! but what is the gospel message?  Some would preach a ‘gospel of sin management’ (phrase from Dallas Willard), whereas the ECM movement emphasizes the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’.  And on that, I would claim that there is great clarity in the ECM.

And as for the criticism that in the ECM, there is “very little stress on the church’s duty to proclaim a message of repentance and faith in Christ that calls men and women to forsake the world,” well, I disagree.  In fact, I think a serious rethinking and reappropriation of what is meant by ‘repentance’ and what is meant by ‘faith’ is at the heart of what most people in the ECM are trying to accomplish.

That’s enough for today.  Just tryin’ to keep our assessments balanced. 
Cheers,
-Daniel-

Glen, thanks for your time and your input. I’ll try to keep this short. 
First of all, you didn’t respond to my first 2 or 3 points… so I’ll assume those comments were helpful. 
Second, it seems you’ve defined the ECM in such a way that murkiness is intrinsic to it.  Plenty of people in the ECM would argue (with much clarity!) for a certain understanding of the Gospel (e.g. that it is about God’s Reign/Kingdom vs. a simple get-out-of-hell free card). 
Third, there is nothing wrong with a little ‘murkiness’ when it comes from a stirring in the water because someone really wants to understand something. 
Case in point: you said “If a person cannot come up with a reasonably clear understanding of “faith” and “repentance” from the teachings of the Bible.  We are all in big trouble.” Well, any student of theology has heard of the ‘pistis Christou’ debate from the problematic expression in the main Pauline corpus.  Could it mean ‘faith of Christ’ (as in, Jesus’ faithfulness) rather than ‘faith in Christ’ in certain circumstances?  This is an important question, and although it may not cause us to question our faith, there are important issues to be sorted through.  Also, ‘repentance’ has come to mean something (feeling sorry for something) that it never meant in scripture.  When John the Baptizer preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, that meant something specific to people exposed to groups like the Essenes that it doesn’t to those of us who have only been exposed to a certain brand of evangelicalism.  Long story boring, some things are complex, and it’s ok (even good!) to dig into them, with the awareness that it might change much of our worldview (again, I cite NT Wright’s scholarly work as an example of this).  If you call this ‘murkiness’, fine--but again, I don’t think it’s anything to be afraid of.
Am I making sense?
All the best,
-Daniel-

McLaren said:

“Many still do not have a good definition for what the emergent church really is.”

This is possibly because most of those who call themselves “emergent” really don’t know what they believe as to their views of scripture.

I know this is a late post, but my email is backed up and I’m just getting it - sorry!

Glen wrote… “I have some serious theological problem with the movement...”

Thank goodness!  I was beginning to think all Christians were supposed to think the exactly the same thing, and that there wasn’t room for a difference in interpretation when it came to understanding the Bible.  (just being sarcastic - don’t take it personal The problem is that many of us have been told what to believe about the Bible, instead of reading it with an open mind for ourselves.  We’re all products of whatever “religious box” or denominational system that we grew up in.  So, if I grew up a Southern Baptist, and belonged to 4 Southern Baptist churches during my lifetime, and learnd from half a dozen Southern Baptist Pastors, my view of the Bible and Christianity is distinctively “Baptist”.  Which is not a problem, until I starting thinking that other Christians (Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc) have got certain interpretations of scripture “wrong” because it’s different than what I was taught. 

If you think this is a stretch, how about an experiment.  Someone earlier was concerned about inconsistencies when it came to doctrinal “hills to die on” like “repentance”.  I’ll give you an easier topic - salvation.  Too bad we couldn’t get Mother Teresa (who most believe lived out the teachings of Christ better than any other public figure, in spite of what many evangelicals would think of her theology), Adrian Rodgers, Charles Wesley, John Calvin, and Carl Barth all in the same room for two hours, and give them the topic of “salvation” to discuss, I’d venture to guess they’d be at each others throats (hopefully not, but it illustrates a point) and calling each other “heretics” before the meeting was over.  My point?  Our “theology” isn’t as black and white as many would claim.  And maybe it’s not as essential to our “getting into heaven” as we may have been taught it is.

Bill - you have some very keen observations in your responses, and there are many Christian leaders out there who share your view (like me Heard this once and it kind of somes it up for me… “The Bible is not the treasure… Jesus is the treasure… the Bible is the treasure map that leads us to the treasure.  When we start worshiping the treasure map instead of the treasure, we’re in trouble!” The problem is, some of us are worshipping the treasure map, kind of like what the pharisees had done in Jesus’ day.

Just a question, and if you all can answer this correctly the puzzle will be solved.  When God created Adam and Eve did he put them in the garden to fail?  Be careful how you answer it unlocks the pandora’s box. 
What was God’s original purpose for Adam if he didn’t sin?  Was it redemption only? Hmnnn