And the Ecumenical Movement is different from this how?  Before one breaks his arm patting himself on the back as if he has found the “new way” it would be good to read up on “church” history.  I believe if they did they would find the “emergent” church has been done many times before with little to no long term success.  But hey what do I know, I am probably just one of the small minded fundamentalist who is too tied to the past– and I am not even Baptist!!!

I believe that the emergent movement is very much defined and clarified as a movement that cannot or should not define and clarify itself.  In my journey thus far, I have found that scripture is not the central source in the emergent methodology.  As emergent continues to “emerge”, I think we’ll see the impression of scripture fall farther and farther along the wayside.  Human philosophy will eventually become the cornerstone.  And with that, it is certain that definition and clarity will always be a designed “moving target”. 

This movement is already beginning to loose steam in my demographic.  Human beings, even though they are attracted to mystery, always come back full-circle in search of truth.  With truth being somewhat alien to the emergent methodology, many people are returning to the Word for the Way and the Truth, and realizing that the commentaries written by the leaders of this movement are no more than words that “tickle the ears of men”.  The emergent methodology, I believe, is becoming like a fashion fad that will “emerge” and then “hide” over and over again.  But when it comes down to the Truth that is in Christ, the armor of God is clear(the Word), and if you will forgive me on the fashion comment, part of that armor is good old Levi’s.

You can’t make a generalization about Emergent Village or the emerging church (because they are different, by the way) without being held accountable to make an equal generalization about all other churches.  For instance, to claim that every “contemporary church” or “seeker sensitive church” is just like Willow Creek Community Church is to deny the fact that all churches have a personality and philosophy that pushes it in various place of the spectrum.

Nonetheless, we seem to like labels, don’t we?  They allow us the ability to keep a hoop around ourselves and not let people who aren’t like us in.  Perhaps that’s why our churches have either grown or declined numerically because we’ve either failed or succeeded in attracting people who sign on the dotted line with everything we believe.

Sorry - that was a minor rant.

But…

what would it look like for us to stay anchored in scripture and then drift out a bit (still staying anchored, mind you) in order to ask questions about uncharted territory?  And what if on occasion we were even willing to be sure our anchor was actually in scripture and not just in our opinion of scripture?  Would that not require us to sit across the table from people who draw different theological conclusions about the same Bible we read?

Emergents do not deny that truth exists.  (Please read that last sentence again). I have yet to meet one who does and I am somewhat on the hub of the main conversation happening. 

On the other hand, postmoderns in a secular sense (a.k.a. “non-Christians,” “pre-Christians,” or whatever marketed label suits your fancy) might, but that is (in my opinion) more of a Modern era issue.  I see less atheists these days than I did in the Josh McDowell era and lots of people who truly want to believe in something real but just don’t know if they can trust anything anymore.  Perhaps they’ve seen the hypocrisy of those who claimed to have the corner market on truth… and they wondered if it even existed to begin with.

Haven’t we all had that question from time to time?

If you have to label the Emerging Village in order to understand it, then do it.  But only if you use that as a launch pad in order to know it beyond your label.  Otherwise all you’re doing is forming an opinion and looking for reasons to prove yourself right instead of listen.

Who am I talking to?

Oh yeah… the mirror.

You said “Daniel,” but I assume you mean me.

In any event, you’re right - generalizations about generalizatons are generalized.  Which is why we can’t make them about one group of people without making them of ourselves.

That was my tongue-in-cheek point.

Perhaps the question that should be asked is if there is an “Emergent Village” and an “emerging church” then what actions (and by whom) caused it to form in the first place?

And… what role have we each played in that, good or bad?

Honestly, that’s the question we all need to ask - regardless of what side of the line we stand on.

Daniel writes

“But I can’t seem to put my finger on why people find them controversial. “

That’s an easy one! First, they don’t use the same vocabulary (I mean actual words here) as the people who have dominated contemporary western Christianity for the past few decades. They avoid terms like “personal relationship with Jesus”.

Second, and this one is my opinion, several of the “emergent” authors and speakers I’ve encountered step back so far from the (ridiculous in some cases) conclusions that have been made about Christianity, culture, and the Bible over the past 50 years that they appear to many of us (myself included from time to time) to be intentionally ambiguous… or worse… certainly sometimes impossible to “pin down.”

I’m sure there are plenty of people who STILL can’t figure out if Brian McL actually believes in hell or universalism. He has been, in many forums including at least two or three of his own books, very vague on an issue that has perhaps taken on an inordinate amount of importance. This is not unlike the inerrancy discussion that took place in another section of MMI last week. Many do not allow that someone who believes the Bible is inspired but not inerrant can be anything other than a heretic. (Let’s not go there, people, it’s just an example.) Are some narrow-minded? or are some too “open-minded”? Is it a little bit of both?

As a post-script. I love these authors and read them, even when I get mad at their books. I scoop up everything Brian writes. I just bought another N.T. Wright book. Scot McKnight is another example… although I have NOTHING but good things to say about his commentaries I’ve gotten and his “Jesus Creed”. I don’t call myself post-modern or emergent yet. Perhaps I’m pre-post-modern or pre-emergent.

Jack, if your criticism of the ‘just get them to make a profession’ mindset is directed at the emerging church, I fear it’s an unwarranted one--since they make the same criticism.  From my experience, ‘emergent’ is all about REPENTANCE (vs. saying the ‘sinner’s prayer’).  That is to say, turning one’s life around to follow Jesus and live in his way.  Hence the word ‘missional’ we see everywhere in the emerging literature.
Randy, if “Jesus was never ambiguous in what he said”, how’s come people misunderstood him all the time?  You could perhaps argue that they were all dimwitted… but then wouldn’t Jesus be smart enough to make himself clear enough?  I think Jesus was ambiguous.  That’s why he had to explain the parables to his disciples.  If they weren’t ambiguous, they wouldn’t have needed explaning… Just a thought.
Additionally, I’m afraid people don’t get the ‘answers’ they want from the emerging conversation because it is a phenomenon as wide and diverse as evangelicalism.  Do evangelicals allow women in ministry?  Do evangelicals support pro-life causes?  Are evangelicals more on the Calvinist side, or more on the Arminian side?  Why can’t I get a straight answer to these questions?!!  ... quite simply because not everyone in the movement agrees.
My thoughts.  For what they’re worth.
-Daniel-

Emergent church has allowed a dailogue that has included thoughts from many different areas of theology to come together and I am sure some would see ecumenical theology. And in some cases you will be true. However the “deconstructing” of the emergent movement has added to vital elements to our theology that can help us.
First is the power of question. The rabbi - disciple relationship was hinged on this process of question asking. For a while we have certainty of biblical concepts that were not very certain in the first place. These ideas are now being collected and categorized by pastors and laity. Emergence has reignited the question making process which I find to be of great value. I am often told to stop asking so many questions. Jesus usually received questions as a step to our growing maturity.

Second is the issue of reordering theology. Much of what we deem as conviction issues are really only cultural ones. Clearly Christology is a conviction issue.  But the styles of worship, church polity, and others have been so strongly adapted from culture to question it in many churchs would be cliamed heritical.
Too often we place some generalizations that may either be ill intended or well intended but reflect poorly as a description of the “emergent” mindset. I find of the greatest value my dialogue with the emergent helps me learn how to share my “testimony” in a new and fresh manner to people that I meet.

I enjoy a good porch. Now don’t go getting me wrong here.

But fellas? Listening on this porch is like watching a tennis match.

BTW: Now up to serve is either Kent, Peter, Al and/or Jack.

And the last time I looked, it was Friday. Just tryin’ to inject a little humor.

Tony A -

I also believe Jesus’ words are quite clear… and yet… we have so many denominations that have their own version of what “quite clear” means.

If the disciples couldn’t get it clear and if we can’t just yet, then maybe things aren’t quite so clear in the lens that is currently a bit dark and dim due to the broken world we still live in.

Perhaps “Evangelicals” have been rubbing one part of the same lens that the “Emergents” are rubbing in a different corner.

The more I listen (including to this conversation) the more I get the sense that’s what’s going on.

John 3:36 writes “and even McLaren who, if he had his way, would like to rewrite or redefine it with no idea where it would end up”

With all due respect, I don’t get that from McLaren at all. I have not read all his books I admit, only about a half-dozen or so, and I’ve read numerous articles by him. I think you could easily say that he has an obvious high regard for scripture… a high enough regard not to place scripture on equal footing with modern or even post-modern interpretations of it, which is unfortunately what I’ve seen a lot of folks who follow Jesus do.

I love that the emergent conversation has put the mystery back into scripture for me (not confusion… there’s a difference). There’s stuff I don’t understand in there… and that is okay! What you call fostering more confusion, I think might be more aptly described as putting back the mystery…

As far as the disciples not getting it clear… I am preaching on Peter this weekend (in about an hour again as a matter of fact) and as I studied his life again, it occurred to me that he is the POSTER child for not getting stuff right for a very long time. He’s well into his ministry (this is long after he’s received the Holy Spirit) when he needs to be publicly corrected by Paul on his mistaken legalistic issues of eating with Gentiles.

Peter seems to have learned from that, and not held a grudge (at least not forever) against Paul, since he is the first in Christian history to claim that Paul’s letters are real scripture. Sounds like a story of learning, changing, growing, emerging… I wonder how many other things Peter took a long time to get clear on. I’m glad that when he was corrected, he said to himself, about his own beliefs “Did God really say that?” (Just because one might ask that question of their interpretation of scripture does not make one equal to the first in the Bible who used that particular sentence...)

Have a nice Sunday everybody!

John 3:36,

I don’t want to continue this debate too much, but I do want to comment on a few things. First, I think it’s a good idea to be careful with “near direct quotes” as you call them. And the quotes from reviewers who disagree with McLaren’s writings don’t necessarily prove a point. I still maintain that McLaren’s works read in context with each other and with themselves, do not say the things that you and others have said.

I believe the kingdom of Heaven, the kingdom of God, is indeed “radically scandalously inclusive.” I believe that anybody, no matter how evil or sinful, can repent and turn to Jesus and He will make His home in them. My experience is that Brian McL believes this too.

I’ve studied McLaren’s works pretty closely, and my eyes and ears are pretty clear. Do I agree with every one of his words? No, I’m on record as having concerns. But I stop short of the “condemnation” that you seem to be implying.

Bless you,
Peter

Peter -
I finished up the Secret Message of Jesus (John, the title is not the Secret Teachings of Jesus - we need to get the title right before we critique what’s between the cover)
Just wanted to make one quick point regarding Mr. McLaren’s words “radically scandalously inclusive”.  It is so true (Thank you God, for your Son!) that anybody, no matter how evil or sinful, can repent and turn to Jesus (salvation from death).  However, this does not fit into the definitions for “radically” or “scandalously” - on the contrary, this is the essence of scripture and the perfect reflection of God’s grace and judgement.  I am afraid that this is a subtle hint at a more universalist stance (yes, I know… he says he’s not in that camp - you have to really try hard to ignore the universalist rhythm in his books, and even more so in his interviews). 

The Secret Message of Jesus will be the last McLaren read for me.  I closed the book and found myself praying that new Christians would not go to this book for “milk or meat”, and instead go to scripture.  I was truly “bumbed out” after this one. Mr. McLaren, though he would never agree, is irresponsible.  It’s OK to be controversial, but he wields his words around like a harmless play toy.  To me, the message of Jesus is a matter of life and death.  McLaren’s writings are all about life, and little to do about death.  Interesting that Jesus warns us more about death (hell) in scripture than he teaches about salvation.  But I expect today people don’t want to hear about death, so we best stifle that conversation completely.  So, what if God is radically and scanalously exclusive?  After all, scripture does teach us that correct path is narrow, and few find it.  We also learn that God has appointed those who the truth will be revealed.  There is an awful lot of scripture that points toward exclusivity - maybe that’s why Mr. McLaren believes the secret message will be revealed between the lines.  I’m sorry guys, but this stuff is over the top.  I know you probably don’t agree, but if there’s an ounce of hog-wash in this book, then why are we forming small group book studies around his?  Why is McLaren recommended reading from our pulpits and recommended to new members classes?  I’m going err on the side of truth and stick to the scriptures, asking the Holy Spirit to guide me through the confusing books and verses.  I have hope and humility in the Spirit.