If we keep the politics out of the "conversation" we would be better off. During the revolutionary war loyalists and revolutionaries made up believers as was the rest of the population. However, I fear this is not the case.

I intend this as an honest question. Could someone who doesn't claim to be a Christian be a part of the "conversation"? I mean, could a Muslim or an atheist join in if they had some of the same values and concerns as others in the friendship? Or is there some minimum doctrinal requirement such as "Jesus is Lord"?

Thanks Tony, its a wonder that while you will make this post, I will guarentee that you will still be pigeon-holed by numerous amounts of people who want to put you in a catagory, or Emergent in some sort of camp or give you some sort of label to they can properly show you how you are wrong.

Thank-you though for sticking to it and constantly having patience and writing posts like this to over and over again state the point of what you are.

Great post.

Thank You Tony!

I believe that Emergent is a small snapshot of fabulous, Christ honoring, life giving conversation, based in friendship and resulting in diverse responses. In my own city, I see the type of catagory busting Kingdom activity that you describe exploding everywhere. For example, I pastor a recently planted emerging pentecostal church attached to a theologically conservative denomination. I regularly gather with a group of evangelical pastors in our city to pray for the coming of the Kingdom in our city, the fullness of Christ in his church, and the fullfillment of the great comission. Simultaneously, I serve on the board of our local clergy association which brings together people of diverse faith backgrounds in conversation around important issues in our community. I never cease to be surprised at how much I consistently learn, and how much I see of the word and works of the Lord Jesus unfolding in each of these very different contexts. I have had the priveledge of getting to know and to deeply love neo-conservatives and liberals, gays and straights, baptists and unitarians, (and quite miraculously) sometimes all in the same room at the same time. Extraordinary. I could not feel more passionatly optimistic about the beautiful moments that exist in our very near future. Through it all I believe that the Scriptures are still speaking powerfully and that God's Spirit is shaping a people who, reconciled by Christ, have surrendered to the breaking in of the reign of God. This inbreaking reign, the more I get to experience of it, seems to trump and render obselete catagorizations like liberal and conservative, presbyterian and pentecostal, democrat and republican. I am daily delightfully decentered from these catagories. We don't always agree, but by God's grace we seem to be at least more agreeable. The Kingdom of God seems to be exploding into the spaces between our preconceptions of one another and warming our hearts to discover, as friends, what it is that God has in mind.

I appreciate Tony and many of the things he has to say. He has been kind to me in the past and helped put me in contact with others who could be helpful to me. However, his claims of diversity in Emergent are overblown.

Living in Tennessee the only place I can run into Emergent Village folks is online. And I have run into many through the main website and personal blogs. The more liberal side of the 'conversation' dominates. And not only that, will hardly allow the other folks to express themselves without labeling them negatively.

So, by your own description, what Emergent is not is a bunch of Christians. The only thing that you can pinpoint on which you agree is that "something must be done about extreme poverty, especially in Africa." That is not the definition of a Believer in Christ. So this is a "community" focused on conversation but not a body of believers.

This sounds like a confirmation that the fear of associating with people unlike oneself is very great.

it just kills me that there is even the slightest hint of politics in this conversation. the one place where we should be keenly aware of rampant and appropriate relativism is the one place we miss it. let me try to state it simply:

you are only as liberal as I am conservative and vice versa. political position is totally relative.

if that is the case, then I think we need to stop using it as a litmus test for fellowship, agreement etc. also, we need to jettison the idea that someone needs to be right in order for conversation to begin. someone commented above that there isn't a clear mark that those involved in the Emergent dialogue are Christians. to be honest, I've learned more about my own personal Christian journey from those who are NOT a part of the "camp" who have pointed toward Jesus from another perspective.

besides, what if this conversation is what draws someone who does not explicitly claim Christianity to openly explore it? I think this would be more beneficial than any country-clubbing that may go on presently.

kudos to Tony and those at Emergent for being honest even though it makes them unpopular. we could all stand to do as well.

Tony,
I have been hearing about the Emergent Chruch for a few years now and most of the talk has indeed been negative. I have had to respond to these folks that I simply don't know anything about the matter. I am trying to gain some knowledge through various sites on the web. But with the charges flying back and forth and the obvious confusion that results, I think, in my simplistic way, that the matter could possibly be helped by someone from the Emergent answering a couple of important questions.

Tony, this is not an accusation, these are just two questions that I would like to have answered:

1. Is there any other way to find forgiveness for one's sins other than Jesus Christ?

2. Has Jesus Christ "come in the flesh?"

I am so afraid of offending your intelligence and your heart that I want to make it clear that I am not accusing any of your group of anything. If this is offensive then please forgive me.

Johnny T. Helms

Tony Jones doesn’t seem to be bothered by the criticisms that label the emergent village as heretical but, on the other hand, wants to dispel the notion that the emerging church is really the new home for the Christian left. He would have readers believe that the ‘emerging village’ or ‘conversation’ or ‘church’ is some new thing. Guess what? It’s not.

I have a book written in 1970 called “The Emerging Church” by Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne (Word). In this handy little guidebook, they use many of the same buzzwords, such as ‘authentic’, ‘outmoded strategies’, ‘community’ and others. Here are some quotes: “this is the day when the Church is. . . totally irrelevant, [is] rediscovering its mission, [is] as archaic as the furniture of our ecclesiastical past. . . “ (pg. 9). What do they wish to accomplish? Nothing less than a total change in man’s image of who he is. “If God loves me this much, there must be something in me that is lovable. One of the major effects of the transforming life of Jesus Christ is that He has set me free to love myself” (pg. 33). Just try to find that teaching in the Bible. They even redefined the word ‘Prophet.’ Perhaps this is why Tony Campolo now declares himself one. Consider their definition: “To be a prophet (in the Biblical sense) means that [one] discerns where society is crushing an individual or group, declares that this is displeasing to God, and acts to change oppressive laws, systems, circumstances, or conditions” (pg. 93). Is this the definition of a prophet or a political activist?

While Tony Jones suggests that there are all political and theological stripes among emergers, one will note that nearly all of those who have risen to prominence in the “conversation” tend to lean strongly to the left. There is very little scripture used in emerging thought; favoring instead the ‘telling of stories’ over exegesis. This is why the movement is ecumenical. The Bible is way too specific about sin and man’s depravity to fit this ‘generous orthodoxy.’

Tony Jones doesn’t seem to be bothered by the criticisms that label the emergent village as heretical but, on the other hand, wants to dispel the notion that the emerging church is really the new home for the Christian left. He would have readers believe that the ‘emerging village’ or ‘conversation’ or ‘church’ is some new thing. Guess what? It’s not.

I have a book written in 1970 called “The Emerging Church” by Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne (Word Books, publisher). In this handy little guidebook, they use many of the same buzzwords we hear today, such as ‘authentic’, ‘outmoded strategies’, ‘community’ and others. Considering that most of the members of the ‘emerging conversation’ weren’t even born when this book was published, I’m not certain how all of this can be new stuff for ‘postmoderns’. Here are some quotes: “. . . this is the day when the Church is. . . totally irrelevant, [is]rediscovering its mission, [is]as archaic as the furniture of our ecclesiastical past. . . “ (pg. 9). What do they wish to accomplish? Nothing less than a total change in man’s image of who he is. “If God loves me this much, there must be something in me that is lovable. One of the major effects of the transforming life of Jesus Christ is that He has set me free to love myself” (pg. 33). “One of man’s sins, even among believing Christians, is the tendency to be reactionary, glorifying the past and always looking over his shoulder” (pg.86). Just try to find that teaching in the Bible. They even redefined the word ‘Prophet.’ Perhaps this is why Tony Campolo now declares himself one. Consider their definition: “To be a prophet (in the Biblical sense) means that [one] discerns where society is crushing an individual or group, declares that this is displeasing to God, and acts to change oppressive laws, systems, circumstances, or conditions” (pg. 93). Is this the definition of a prophet or a political activist?

While Tony Jones suggests that there are all political and theological stripes among emergers one will note that nearly all of those who have risen to prominence in the “conversation” tend to lean strongly to the left. There is very little scripture used in emerging thought; favoring instead the ‘telling of stories’ over exegesis. This is why the movement is ecumenical. The Bible is way too specific about sin and man’s depravity to fit this ‘generous orthodoxy.’

The conversation here is enhanced by so many voices of God's beloved community. I second Tony's characterization of the motley crew that finds resonace under the Emergent make-shift tent. That tent is a quilt, with patches from traditions and camps that are seldom seen together, let alone stitched side-by-side with the transforming power that is Jesus.

It is fascinating to me that faith, power and politics conjures up so energy. "Politics" is derived from the Greek word for city-state, "Polis". Corporate, religious, academic and every other polity, especially those constrained by limited resources, contain dominance hierarchy and therefore politics. We can no more "keep politics" out of our practice of faith that we could keep batting orders out of a softball game or lard out of making tortillas.

As much as I am passionate about Presidents and parties, what unites me with my conversative and communists siblings is that we all yearn for that City of God, that reign of King who transcended death and brings new life.

One postscript: it is interesting to me that working with Wallis or mainlines captures so much controversy, but calling out our dependence on a commodified and domesticated Jesus gets lost. Long past the time that we will remember Mr. Reed's or Mr. Wallis pityhy slogans, we'll be struggling with what our projection of consumption and instant gratification onto the Incarnate one has done to our collecetive soul.

Tony,
The people of the world gather together to form all sorts of unions. Some are for familial establishment, some are for common defense, and some are for social activities.
People gather together all the time, and what distinguishes one from the other? Well, often they seek a gimmick.
Like the Red Hat society.
Very nice group of women who have a great and wonderous time. They are a beautiful mix of young and old, rich and poor, tall and short, slim and plump, and as many political affiliations as there are political parties. And they all get together to have "conversations."
Now, on the other hand, there are the Shriners, nice group of people, a branch of the Masonic lodge who donate millions upon millions of dollars to childrens hospitals all over the country. Yep, a fun loving bunch of people from one of end of the continent to the other, always emerging out of the wood work to do the good that others tend to shy away from. And guess what, they have the same mix of people you do.

Now, no one in their right mind would call the Shriners a "church" nor would they call the Red Hat society a "church" either, but yet what you described about your "church" is no different than the aforementioned two groups.
What makes a church a church is the focus of that group which is the making of "disciples" for Jesus, and "obeying" his commandments. You're defense raises in me far more questions than it puts to rest my many concerns.

i'm loving these last couple of responses. articulated and thought out very well.

especially the shriner connection.

BRIAN MCLAREN GOT ARRESTED!!

oh yeah - and what was the article about?

and so goes the conversation for the haters...

sheerahkahn,

is your point that we need to wear funny hats?

I like Chris' comment up near the top (it's the second one).

He asks 'Could someone who doesn't claim to be a Christian be a part of the "conversation"?'

I really like this question. Can they be a part of the conversation? I say absolutly yes! What kind of conversation is it if the only people I talk to are people who look and think exactly like me?! It's a good way to feel self validated, but not a whole lot more.

If we really believe the God of Israel is the true God of all creation and that Jesus is the true Messiah, bringing redemption and recreation to everything and everyone, what harm is it to talk with people who might not agree with all of that (aka, the Jesus is Lord bit)?!

Besides, since when has anyone's "conversion" been simply one experience. I was saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved. May this conversation simply add to our and their ongoing conversion!

I mean, on other notes, I could go so far as to ask questions like; if I, an American and "christian" by nationality can be a follower of Jesus and part of God's dream/kingdom/new humanity, what's to stop someone from another country and "religion" from doing the same, all the while remaining within that cultural context? (We have messianic Jews, and, I would go so far to say, messianic Christians, so could we have messianic Muslims? messianic Buddhists?)

Now I understand that that last bit might be a strecth, but is the conversation really that bad of a thing to have? Let's journey a life of what-ifs and continually rethink the way we think, do, and be.

It seems to me that Tony is answering a specific criticsm of Emergent as the new Christian Left, not offering a once-for-all definition of the emerging church or the Emergent Village. It seems rather petty to slam Tony for not explaning the theology, Christology, orthodoxy, etc. of those involved in the conversation when he was asked to address a very particular question. If Leadership Journal asks him to write about what makes the Emergent friendship Christian, I'm certian he'd be more than happy to answer that question as well.

Some responses...
Johnny T. Helms, from my experience I would say the answer to your questions are no and yes. Jesus definitely came in the flesh and from my experience everyone I know would argue that Jesus is the only way our sins are forgiven. However, there might be more flexibility in ultimate judgment among some of those in the Emerging Church, with the sentiment being "Jesus is the way to salvation, but he'll save who he'll save." Emerging folks are much more interested in telling the story than in writing the ending, which is why some of the negative stuff comes up. If you want to know more about actual practices and beliefs I heartily recommend the book Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger. It's descriptive not interpretive.

Melody, it would surprise me if this wasn't the case. Indeed in my opinion, and the opinion of others, the Emerging movement has a great deal in common with George Fox and the Quakers. Indeed, going back farther Tertullian has a description of his church which sounds a lot like an Emerging gathering. With this is the sentiment that Emerging folks are not starting something brand new but reminding people of what has been true all along.

But like with any "new" movement there are people involved because of a real passion for its heart, and people who are involved because it is new and provides buzz words for their own pet causes. j

My experience has been most folks in Emerging Churches could be considered more "left" politically, with a lot of this coming not from social liberalism but attention to non-violence, social activism, and such causes often considered Left. Such things are really at the heart of what Christianity has always believed in, so contemporary politics can't really label such people all that well.

Anything is up for discussion. But some things are simply non-negotiable. So there is no middle ground on the lostness of mankind, the divinity of Christ, His substitionary death, His resurrection, or the divine inspiriation of scripture.

I have no problem with discussing things and agreeing to disagree. In fact, I enjoy the back and forth. But if you can't answer those most basic questions Biblically, then you may call yourselves a church but you're not part of the Church.

Ideas that matter?

Okay what about ordaining homosexuals as pastors? That would be an idea that matters to me, yet you seem to be passing it off as some sort of minor differentiation. For example I don't see the difference between Baptists and Methodists as being quite as extreme as the difference between say mainline evangelicals and lesbian preists. In fact in many cases they have wholly different views of who Christ is and what the Gospel means.

To put it another way is anybody ever wrong at the Emergent friendship table? Or is this just a big group therapy, i'm-okay-you're-okay session?

Thank you, Carla. I bought two books today, "The Secret Message of Jesus," McClaren, and "Blue Like Jazz," Miller. I hope these will also help clarify a few things. But I would still like an answer from Tony. Maybe I'll find it in one of these books.

The question concerning Jesus coming in the flesh, of course, involves more that just believing that there was a human being named Jesus. I am not implying anything about your comment, Carla, or what you believe or don't believe because I simply don't know. I just believe some kind of authoritative answer would answer many people's questions. At the same time, I realize that the Emerging church movement is quite diverse.

I am concerned about the question of morality posed by one commentator. The Bible is pretty clear when it says "the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.6:9-10; Gal.5:19-21). The nature of man without Christ is "unrighteous" and we are "by nature children of wrath" (Eph.2:1-3). Each passage I have cited is followed by good news ("And such were some of you, but..." "But God, who is rich in mercy," "But the fruit of the Spirit is...")but each also plainly teaches a new creation brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit. Someone said, "God may love us as we are, but He loves us too much to leave us as we are."

I just realized something as I was writing this; the Emergent or Emerging Church is made up of folks just like in every other church or denomination. Some of us don't want to face that, but its true. If your theology is screwed up, the theology of the average pew sitter is no different. The average Southern Baptist congregation is made up of people just like the emergent church; I have pastored two of them. I have witnessed first hand as many others have also, the hypocrisy and lying and covering up and adultery and other forms of sexual immorality that we allow to pass for whatever reason.

The only hope there is for any of us is the grace of God granted to sinners in Jesus Christ. The one consistent in all of this is the truth of the Word of God. That is our measuring rod, not our society or our culture or my opinion or your opinion or anything else. "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

I hope all Christians enjoy "telling the story" and the "end" has already been written.

Please don't tell anyone in the emerging church, but I am not a Democrat. The last time I was involved in a protest was in the 60s when I was a college student, I am not likely to engage in protest today. I am however, likely to vote from time to time. I confess this because I don't think it matters what my politics are, or for that matter what Tony and Brian's politics are. They are Americans and are therefore entitled to exercise their political will as they see fit.

All this labeling smacks of judgment. Is it? In our human effort to categorize and pigeonhole one another are we leaving aside the clear command that we love one another and the implied imperative that we honor one another. Here's another observation: Let those of us who are totally pure theologically and spiritually feel free to cast the first aspersion at those who are leading the "emergent" conversation.

Blessings...

I've noticed that some of the comments are blurring the Emergent Village with the overall emerging church. As Stetzer and Driscoll have shown, there are elements of more traditional orthodoxy in the emerging church.
Tony Jones appears to be complaining that the Emergent Village (one segment within the emerging church conversation) is being unfairly categorized. I don't think he is specifically is saying that Stetzer or Driscoll (who is somewhat emerging himself) are wrong in their categories of the overall emerging church.
However, Tony does seem to want to have it both ways regarding criticism: don't lump the movement into one category, and also don't try to describe/label specific elements within the movement.

I suppose this comes as a confession of sorts. For the past couple of years I have been following the emerging church conversation. Through the various web sites and web logs. I have found the discussion fascinating.

Last week I read an interesting exchange which was posted on the Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank under the heading of, Emergent Reflection Post-Divergent. Here James K. A. Smith makes few observations on the recent Divergent conference. He concludes by asking if "emergent can be catholic," if so, "then it needs to jettison its still-modern liberalism, skepticism, and anti-intellectualism." Naturally, this statement opened the door to a good round of responses.

But the part I liked best is about half way into the comments Smith says that while his "post might sound largely critical, in fact it comes from a pretty deep sympathy with what the 'emergent' folks are about-". I felt like that pretty well summarized my position as well.

So that's my confession. I'm an emergie sympathizer.

emergie sympathizer!? sounds like an instrument playing 80's rock. I think Van Halen used one recording "Jump!"

Too many Western "citizens" worship a bobble-headed domesticated bubble-wrapped partially edible godish goolish bland thingy.

What I really want to know is if there's going to be a "chapel" in the new mega-embassy billion-dollar theme-park being built by the U.S. in downtown Baghdad?

Daniel was a righteous man who survived five kings of different empires and he still repented for the sins of HIS own people.

It's so much safer to fire arrows at one another while the walls are still up. What are we going to expend our energies on when the walls come down?

The myriad of questions and comments thus far raised only illustrate the diversity of ideas and positions on both sides of this discussion. Clearly this “conversation” is doing one good thing--getting people talking! In a fractured world this has to be good. I particularly liked the question Chris posed about a “minimal doctrinal requirement” for membership in the Emergent circle. Do you have to be a professing Christian or can you be an atheist or Muslim, etc.? Well, if Emergent was only about people professing a doctrinal statement and being “saved” then I guess the answer would be no. However, I get the impression that Emergent or Practicing or Intentional congregations are about something far bigger than this rather recent interpretation of Christian scripture. These self-labeled groups use the term “Kingdom of God” pretty regularly. While we could certainly get into a lengthy discussion about the definition of that phrase, I have to say I fall on the emergent side, with a strong thanks to Brian McLaren writings. This “Kingdom of God” is described as a place of peace, justice, freedom from fear of oppression, freedom from fear of poverty, and most of all, love for all. The “Kingdom of God’ is a future reality, a reality that exists today, and a reality that will only come about when we first see it around us and its future possibility. Fundamentalist in all religions aside, these seem to be pretty universal ideas. Could I work with a Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist in bringing about the Kingdom of God? In a second. And probably with more results than along side “Christians” who believe they have the only answer to God.

Take a look at one church's very visible stand for this idea. St. Andrews Presbyterian in Austin, TX is receiving plenty of criticism for admitting an atheist as a member. Whether we like it or not, peace, justice, oppression, and poverty ARE political issues in todays world.

I would add that Emergent, as a whole, is not just a US conversation, it is global. As much as it isn't republican or democrat, it also isn't American, Latin American, European, Australian, Asian, Canadian (as I am), etc.

Tony,
A couple of points:
1. You say about your critics: "Honestly, I care little about these critiques. They come from those who either have no idea what Emergent is all about and/or could not possibly be persuaded from their position anyway." That does not sound like one who is willing to be a conversationalist with other ideas.

2. In response to paragraph #7 where you list those who are part of your group, I wonder if you believe in truth that has been clearly revealed from one Sovereign God. Do you? If so, then who is He and what has He revealed to us -- about lesbianism, for instance?

3. I have a question about your understanding of the emergent church with: "It seems to me that the two most important commitments that we in Emergent share are (1) we are ultimately hopeful about God's future, and (2) we are committed to moving forward together, as friends."

What do you mean by God's future? Who is the 'we' referred to in #2: we as in my conversant friends and I, or as in God and me? What are you hopeful for?

Would it be helpful if we developed some kind of business card for "orthodox christians" to carry. We could give them to our good congregation members. That way, when they are at a soccer game, visiting a neighbor, having coffee with a pastor or person of a different background, gender, orientation, or politik each person could hand a card to them. Showing them the card with our "minimum doctrinal position" on it. then they could read the card(and maybe sign the bottom) so we could know if it was ok to have a conversation with them. We would make sure this was done in triplicate for "accountability". We don't want any conversations or worse yet friendships with people who can't at least agree with the basics. We have nothing to learn from them.

Let me know if this is acceptable to everyone here in the comment section.

I suppose we should also list hard and fast requirements for what we expect for people to be officially considered by God to be "the church" As many lines as we can draw, the better. Clarity and certainty are the key.

This will solve this Emergent Village problem.

Sign the card or we won't talk to you.
Meet our requirements or you aren't included in the church.

Then we well all be free. and can "evangelize" the world.

or I could be wrong...

Hi Johnny,

I'm not Tony but I'd like to respond to your two questions--good questions, by the way, and I love your open-hearted tone.

As someone indwelt by Jesus Christ and involved in the emerging church conversation, I can vigorously affirm that I believe both that Jesus Christ is the sole forgiver of humanity's sins, and that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Virtually everyone I know who is an "emerging" sort of saint readily affirms these realities. In fact, there's a guy many of us read who has written extensively about the latter and we love to discuss and quote him--I'm referring to NT Wright.

Now, you will hear impassioned conversation among us about the scope of Jesus' love and reconciliation of humanity, and over the meaning of Jesus' life, message, death, resurrection and atonement--but we receive the Incarnation and God's gratuitous favor toward us in His Son as blessed "givens."

If you'd like to explore more actual emerging churches, intentional communities and bloggers from around the world, I'd encourage you check out my website, zoecarnate.com, regarded as the most exhaustive emerging church links directory. And please don't hesitate to email me personally.

Just a quick point to make regarding some of the questions being posed about Emergent's stance on "what God has clearly revealed in Scripture":

One of the stances that Emergent has taken on is one of open-ended dialogue. Remember, this is not a denomination or even a para-church organization- it is an open-ended conversation. It is a movement (though loosely formed) based around dialogue.

So, that being the case, those invited to participate in the conversation do not have to subscribe to any form of "minimal doctrinal statement".

This however, does not mean that all involved in the conversation can wholeheartedly subscribe to the "okayness" or the orthodoxy of all participants' beliefs.

That is an important distinction to make when considering the purpose behind Emergent.

If there is one thing I hear people like Brian McLaren often clarifying - it is that Emergent, and the Emerging Church movement in general, is not nearly as focused and "institutionalized" as people seem to think.

after spending time at ecclesia in houston, i can tell you, there is not a moment when God is not truly honored in that place. i don't think you can make a judgement call on anything until you have spent time with people, and walked in their shoes, and even then...
as far as some of the people invited to the "coversation" remember this, unless they converse, they will not have an opportunity to find Christ.
Jesus says "he who is without sin cast the first stone...has no one condemned you, then neither do I (here's where it gets tricky) now go and sin no more"
we all sin, but God doesn't want us to practice it so we get really good at it.
you should definitely check out chris seay. he is awesome.
oh, and gordon conwell, the most 5 pointiest seminary in the nation sponsored the emergent podcast, so there must be something going on that is doctrinally sound.
blessings to you
i really liked the comment about the baptist church that had people in it who were also sinners saved by grace. we tend to forget that as people in the bible belt

As someone who has been around the Emergent conversation for some time, has had the privalege to meet some of the key people (who I think just want to love God more and serve people meaningfully)and gone to a few Emergent events I do believe there are problems. The problem exists is a problem American Protestantism is often ignorant of that the East is more keenly aware of. It is "oeconomia". It can refer to the necessary elements (praxis/doctrine) and the subsequent "mind" that are necessaary for salvation. By entertaining such a broad and inclusive approach Emergent is fostering an economy (which may include culture) that may be antagonistic to historic christianity. Probably not immediately, but after a while. The posture of Emergent appears to be on a trajectory that may draw it further from "that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all".

There are things we need to listen to, and there are points of the faith that need to be defended from a feminizing of the gospel. A little leaven leavens the whole dough.

I've been looking at these posts for awhile, but I guess the current article has finally helped me move beyond fence-sitting. I've always viewed the whole Emergent thing as an effort of believers to admit that the whole "Church" phenomenon of the past 1,600 or so years has picked up too much baggage to be relevant and to ask, "How do we relate to God in this age?" Most of the good stuff seems to take us back to the first time the Church emerged and try to freshly look at faith the way the early Followers of the Way did. This is good to a point, but we are not living in their context, nor do we have access to all the writings and people who were making the rounds back then.

Where am I going with this? I think that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are outdated and inappropriate labels for this kind of discourse. Political affiliations are superfluous when we're talking about what Jesus would REALLY want us to do. They are pre-packaged sets of human dogma that are manipulated by individuals in the name of power. The real tension is between progressives, who like to use lots of commas in their faith statements, and fundamentalists, who use lots of periods.

At the end of the day, though, the idea of the whole "Emergent" thing seems to be talking openly about everything without pointing fingers at people who disagree. In that light, a statement like "Honestly, I care little about their critiques...." seems pretty appropriate. If you don't like it, I'm truly sorry. But I'm more sorry that you make the assumption that you have to like things in order for them to be valid than I am that you are offended.

"Emergent" ideas, like a lot of postmodern things, tend to resist hard and fast definitions. It's not all that comfortable a place to be at times, but we're all going to have to get used to it.

Tony,

Your "article" is terrific. "Conversation" is such a good word...such a good end or goal. "Friendship" is such a good word...such a good end or goal. I heard Dana Gioia say recently (in sum) what we really need are open ended conversations with uncertain outcomes about meaningful things.

I haven't heard or experienced many things that have ticked me off in and around this "Emergent Village", but hope I do sometime. I hope you and others on more of the front lines feel the freedom to be really wrong about something without concern of losing friends.

Keep going. Go go go.

A friend,
Sean

One of the most important comments here - implicit and explicit - is that "conservative" and "liberal" labels reflect an outmoded Christian worldview that unfortunately will persist for some time to come unless we keep fighting for a fuller vision of God's reign in Christ. Thank God the Emergent Village is a place for conversation that can challenge harmful dichotomous ways of thinking which divide people and their thinking into the "con" and "lib" camps. The Gospel will never be truly honored or proclaimed powerfully until we break out of the worldview constraints the Church and our theological efforts have allowed to dominate. As an educator at a Christian university who deals with the preparation of future elementary, middle school and high school teachers, I continually challenge my students to forge adequate worldviews which will equip them to carry their Christian commitment into a world which needs to hear the story of Jesus told powerfully - most of the time without "words". The Emergent conversation is helping me to do that. I have to agree with Tony Jones; much of the commentary critical of the Emergent Conversation fails to grasp both the meaning and significance of that conversation. There's the tragedy.

it is really, really important for the emergent conversation to get past US-centric political discriptions, debates and recriminations. there's a whole world out there people!

Tony:
thanks so much for your post. As a veteran Baptist Pastor in Canada, Emergent helped to save my ministry when I knew that the shrink-wrapped religion approach to Chnristianity wasn't working. Keep standing up for the truth.

Rick

The “emerging conversation” on postmodern faith is happening FAR beyond the confines of Tony’s organization called “Emergent.” While Emergent provides a formal ecumenical structure for those who desire such formality, emerging faith ideas are taking a life of their own and spreading like wildfire, generally via the Internet.

See Mike Morrell’s earlier post from Zoecarnate.com – his website now lists over 4,500 Internet sites active in the postmodern faith conversation. I suspect very few of these 4,500+ individuals and organizations confess a formal allegiance with Tony’s “Emergent” organization. Conversely, I would also suspect that the majority of these 4,500 sites would consider Emergent a friend and resource in the broader conversation.

What’s frustrating to many observers of emergence is its fluidity. Traditional apologetic models demand rigid doctrinal positions, while emerging apologetics are developing largely in opposition to such inflexible polarization. With 15 major families of belief and over 1,500 distinct faith-groups in North America alone, perhaps it’s time to relax just a bit and consider what other Christ-followers are saying.

Since Tony’s post was addressing politics and faith, I’m going to side with those who find scant mandate for politicizing Jesus. “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Our politicizing of Jesus has deeply polarized the N. American church. Christians must find their unity in Christ, not political opinions.

Emergent is full of many types.
Those that write the most / are most public, are those whose inclings are more liberal.

By not calling ourselves (yes, I participate in Emergent albiet as a more conservative) liberal-prone, we are lying. Is Jim Wallis fully and only left? Of course not. Is that how one characterizes his bent, duh.

Emergent is hurting itself/ourself by not allow the obvious to be stated. YES IT'S NOT THE POINT - but it's reality.

My two cents,
David Malouf
Phoenix, Arizona

Speaking from an Australian perspective, I find it stunning that hostile opposition to a seemingly leftist view of Christianity is even plausible. Those on the religous right have no objection at all to wearing that label, and in this country at least, are accepted as being in the centre of God's will. The only opposition in Australia to those who take the moral high ground and openly push for right wing ideals in the political arena comes from openly leftist organizations, of which I am a part. The majority of the church here remains chillingly silent on social issues, and is completely removed from the fight for justice in all levels of society. Apart from prayers and band aid solutions that involve evangelism more than compassion, the poor in my country are totally ignored by the church, and no one is willing to stand up for the rights of the oppressed. If Emergent churches, which I must admit are not a major movement in Australia, are willing, and have the courage to do what the church should have been doing for the last twenty or thirty years, it is my prayer, leftist or not, that they will grow larger in size and popularity than the present shallow, materialistic and self centred religion that is currently in vogue,and has captured the hearts and minds of most Christians in Australia.

I am not convinced that it requires an organization, such as Emergent, to have a "conversation".

When one organizes - it seems to me - that the underlying motive is to gain power - organized power to accomplish something.

Diversity of thought is truly a beautiful idea, but diversity of thought cannot be the sole purpose of an organization. Even our own bodies, diverse as our parts are, have a purpose. We marshall our diverse parts to bring them to bear on some single purpose.

What is that purpose for Emergent?

If the purpose is to simply love and serve Jesus and follow his commands, Jesus himself has already recommended an organization for that purpose.

The fact that Emergent has organized implies some specific purpose - some purpose that is outside that of the existing Church. Otherwise Emergent would be subject to the Church and its purpose.

After reading Tony's article and the comments posted to this point, I think I am more encouraged and inspired than anything. Not to presume too much, but it seems many others commenting so far are convinced that Christ seemed to embody a social ethic of sorts and summons humanity to be and live (or die) as Christ. This is encouraging and refreshing to me mainly because far too many of the Christians I know and love hold strong political, ethical views, at least secretly. However, those strong views seemed to be shaped by their nation’s democracy as though it was just as influential as the Church or Christ. The time reading the article and posts was well worth it…it seems there are those who are open to the possibility that following Christ means discovering and imitating the social ethic embodied by Jesus.

If God is enabling me to move toward at least one new insight by participating in this “Emergent” conversation on a more general level, it may be that being a Christian often implicates me to walk on slightly unfamiliar paths. Lately, I think swinging between conservative-liberal, left-right modifiers within Christianity do little or nothing to capture what it means to be an active part of the new reality (the Kingdom) initiated by Christ. What’s great is that my experience as a part of this Kingdom has included the collision of all things spiritual, political, etc., which once safely existed as compartmentalized aspects of life. What a journey it is?

This is a most fascinating conversation. As a true seeker, wannabe believer, I was wondering if there was any room for Catholics in this discussion. While they (we?) are liberal in their outreach, they are conservative in their teaching (abortion, same sex marriage, etc.) And yet the emergent church can't seem to get a vocabularly of their own using centuries old Catholic terminology to describe "new" ideas. Words like missional, evangelization, apostolic are not post-modern notions -- they are the foundation of two thousand years of Christianity. What has scared me more than anything is the "New Apostolic Reformation" -- "laying the new foundation for the church on new apostles." That's dangerous stuff -- regardless of political persuasion -- the church has ONE foundation. Centuries of protestant reformation and we are now appointing new and better bishops, apostles and popes. It just seems like all roads do lead to Rome in this emergent conversation. Then why re-invent the wheel? It seems to me this purpose driven church has lost its purpose in the confusion of so many voices in the conversation. Yes, lets let everyone talk... let's let everyone come to the table... but at some point there has got to be some consensus on what is of God... and what is not. For what fellowship has light with darkness?

That charge you have levelled against Emergent, that 'they have some purpose outside the existing church' was the same charge levelled against Martin Luther. I have to ask the question, what exactly is the purpose of the 'existing church' is it evangelizing,?healing,?speaking in tongues,?waiting for the rapture,?making worship more contemporary.? Because in my twenty years as a Christian all these purposes have come and gone, and the church has accomplished very little in terms of impacting the world with the mercy of Christ, which surely is the purpose of the gospel. Maybe it's time another purpose was put before the existing church, a purpose that takes them beyond the four walls they inhabit every Sunday.

Cowpoke,

You write, "If the purpose is to simply love and serve Jesus and follow his commands, Jesus himself has already recommended an organization for that purpose."

I teach at a Christian college, and most of my students would resonate with the "purpose," but find the "organization" woefully out of touch. Step one to stopping conversation about this is to believe that our church is precisely the organization Jesus had in mind.

Emergent doesn't want to be the "organization." It wants the church to do a better job of "loving and serving Jesus."

The very basis of the question makes no sense.

-FTM (a Conservative Republican left-of-center Christian)

To Rick above who wrote: "I was wondering if there was any room for Catholics in this discussion..."
From what I can tell, you can be anything you want, believe anything you want and practice anything you want as long as you don't judge and enjoy the conversation.
Honestly - I so want to see this thing bring the kind of reformation the church needs but the wheels are going to fall off. Do we need to bring people together to find common ground from which we can speak to issues of justice, helping the poor, freeing the oppressed, etc..? Yes! But if there are no boundaries then whether we like it or not the wheels are going to come off. Tony you can't say "we have a lesbian Episcopal priest in the discussion" the way you do without broadcasting a position. Can we have a pedophile pastor as part of it? How about a porn producer who claims faith? How about an Aryan Nation guy who wants to talk? I know that the above sounds a bit inflammatory but here's the problem: fuzzy lines always get moved... the edge of the envelope always gets pushed - and here's what happens, as the edge looks weirder, the stuff that seems wrong now doesn't seem so bad. If you want to be a conversation among friends then fine. I'm happy to be apart and I'd welcome anyone to join in. You have the word church to closely connected to the word emergent. That keeps the discussion from being fruitful and open. I know you use the term "emergent community" but it's too late. The wheels are already wobbling.

Thanks to Tony for the thoughtful post.
A few random thoughts:
~ Most everyone is allowed into the conversation. We like people; I believe Jesus did as well.
~ We love Jesus. We believe he was and is the Son of God.
~ Why are people so scared of liberals?
~ Why are Christians so scared of people who are not?
~ Why does emergent bring so much fear to so many people?
~ Why do so many people fear thoughtful Christians? (This is the most thoughful group of passionate Jesus people who I have encountered in my brief 40 years of life.)
~ THANKS to those of you in this conversation. I consider you my dear friends regardless if we have met.

Shalom,
Randy Buist

Hey guys! I just heard of Brian McLaren last year. Saw his book in the library, liked the title, skimmed it, took it home for a read...and I liked the eclectic way he saw himself. It struck a chord - I had felt that way for years. So I have been keeping up with the web site, etc.

And I must say that at times the web site has made me wonder how welcome someone like me really is. I had an unpleasant experience with a denomination years ago that made a lot of noise about being inclusive, and they were, in theory. In fact they showed me the door for being too conservative. Not the reason they gave, but the reason they gave was a provable lie.

There have been numerous occasions when reading various posts when I have been made uncomfortable by comments made about conservative churches/values. True, many are stodgy, set in their ways, preaach to and minister to themselves, don't care about the poor and needy, whose global vision extends to their front door, etc. Yet there are many who understand the need to truly and faithfully reach out, and can and do do so while being very conservative theologically. Perhaps we should learn that there are differences in conservative churches beyond that to which one has been exposed. And we should be careful that the comments we make do not in any way seem to draw an 'us vs them' line in the sand. Those of us who are very conservative are used to being treated poorly by the academic system, we are used to taking junk off the tv and movie producers, so it really gets on our nerves and raises our hackles when those who are of a more liberal bent who talk about inclusiveness and acceptingness start taking pot shots at us too. I admit again there are those who deserve it, but you aren't going to change anyone or make friends with them by painting them into a corner, you do it by opening your arms and asking them to join you on a few trips and missions (of any kind) and expanding their horizons.

What am I going to do about the world? I'm going to Mongolia to teach English in the university, make friends, and show the love of Jesus to everyone I meet. When asked, I'll do Bible studies, and maybe even look one day at planting a church. And do my darndest to do something to help the sewer kids over there. So speak kindly, if you will, of those extra-conservative types. Some of us have just as big a heart for Jesus as you...

I know little of the Emergent movement. Based on Brian's article, I sense that Emergents are concerned with political answers to social issues. Now, since Jesus totally failed at addressing the injustices visited upon Jews and the world by the Roman Empire, where would he fit into the discussions?

Jeff, firstly let me say this, gays and lesbians face the same rubbish you posted every day from church people. Comparing the gay or lesbian to a peadophile, a nazi or a pornographer is a hideous comment, and one I hope the Episcopal priest doesn't read. We , myself included, are so quick to label, judge, discriminate against, or just plain hate our fellow human beings without the slightest thought of the damage we do to them. Gays and lesbians are human beings Rick, this may surprise you, but let me assure you they are, and unlike the other categories of people you so ignorantly compared them to, they are consenting adults who for the most part just want to live their lives without hurting others. I have to assume that you consider gays and lesbians the objects of God's scorn who face eternal punishment. If that is your view, the attitude you portray in your post is the very attitude that has pushed the gay community to the fringes of society and incited hatred against the church on their part, and may I say with good cause. Christianity has developed a fatal illness over the centuries, bigotry against anyone who we believe doesn't fit the criteria for our little church clubs, the fact is, no matter how holy we believe we may be, none of us qualifies, not even you Jeff. If there are 'wobbly wheels' anywhere I would have to say they are connected to your compassion.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on a weekend class two years ago taught by Tony Jones at North Park University entitled, Postmodern Youth Ministry. This weekend opened my eyes to a new way of thinking about and discussing theology; it helped me put my faith into words. However, I am not totally on board as of yet! I think this article is great in the way it emphasizes the importance of dialogue and ecumenism, but I wonder what you will take a stand on? I belong to a denomination without a formal doctrinal statement, so I appreciate Emergent's reliance on Scripture and creeds as its source of doctrine, but I still have doubts. In the end, isn't Emergent just another new denomination? Another new group trying to make sure we all get along? It's seems as though this discussion Emergent claims to have started has been going on for centuries, so what's new about Emergent's dialogue? How can Emergent have Baptists who don't allow women to preach if it truly believes in a fight against injustice?
That's a lot of questions and negativity to say, "thank you for at least CONTINUING the conversation!"

Tony, I think your post is accurately stated and a much needed read. Unfortunately, those who most need to read "Out of Ur" will probally never get to read it.

Your blogsite has been added as a link on my blogsite.Blessings to you and your readers. -Tom+

Just an observation:
Much of the social-work emphasis I hear coming out of emergent sounds like Kuyper and the Dutch-Reformed tradition with all the conservatism (which, by the way, is not merely a political word) sucked out. I'm thinking postmillenialism without the Calvinistic flavor.
That's why it bugs me so much. Whether they want to admit it or not, those who are more 'conservative' yet emerging don't want much to do with the likes of Jones/McClaren/Pagit/etc. Look, I'm no Driscoll apologist and I hated Ed Stetzer's book on planting churches, but those guys are able to be concerned about all the social stuff and not end up out in left field. Do me a favor: everyone go read some Abraham Kuyper and/or listen to the Stone lectures, and then go read about John Newton, William Carey, and William Wilberforce. Be like them- not Harry Emerson Fosdick. History matters and teaches us a lot- let's use it to our advantage.

To Colin from Jeff

Well Colin, I know that this is not the primary focus of the thread but I do need to respond. Some reflections:

1) You know nothing about my compassion or the ways that I express that. You would be surprized if you did.

2) I do believe that to practice homosexuality is a sin. I don't mean to say that the orientation itself is a sin. I know that people struggle with this and I'm far from ready to say that it's simply a choice everyone makes. I know good people who have chosen to be celibate as homosexuals and I honor their commitment. So, to clarify - just as sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful so is homosexual activity. Unless you're going to change the definition of marrriage then homosexual behavior will always remain sinful and celibacy is the only choice.

3) I understand the comments seemed inflamatory. I said so in the post. But you simply prove my point. It's more easy to criticise me for having a serious concern about the moving of the lines than talk about the line itself. Here's a simple question Colin. Do you believe that homosexual sex is not permitted by scripture? If no, then I understand more clearly what your position is. If yes, then let me ask how you have a conversation about the lines? What's the right way to ask the question. Let's change it to the question of faith orientation... What if Tony says, there is a buddhist who is part of the conversation? Okay, great! No problem... if it's not the emerging church we're talking about. If it is... then my question about the lines. What next? A Muslim? A Zoroastrian? A Wiccan? etc... Apples to apples you know? When talking about sexuality how do you compare apples to apples? My mistake was adding the racist to the group.

4) To any who were offended, including Colin, my apologies. Not my intent. I just don't know how to ask about the moving of the lines without asking what the next line would be to fall. I am NOT (sigh) equating a homosexual with a pedophile. I am asking about the lines of what is appropiate.

5) This is a rabbit trail from the conversation. If anyone else wants to take me to the woodshed just do it directly via my blog.

I find this confusing...as it quotes Mark Driscoll and goes on to talk aobut Politics...Driscoll's comment as well as Setzer's for that matter had nothing to do with politics, to bring politic into the conversation is completely beside the point that both Ed and Mark were making. T. Jones is correct that he would be placed in the latter group by both Ed and Mark but not for his politics for his theology. I for one despise the association of Christianity with any political party and I think Jim Wallace is very cool, however these are opinions informed by my "conservitive" theology. Jones article is a bait and switch argument, he is defending himself from charges not made to distract from actual concerns.

Tony wrote:

"I suppose it's easy for those who stand outside of Emergent Village looking in to credit the politics or theology of a few to the whole group, but that's inaccurate. "

I am proud to attend an Emerging church in NC and Mr. Jones definitely does NOT speak for me. Our congregation is proud to have several moderate realists on the staff, who ascribe to the correspondence theory of truth. It's a shame that Jones, McLaren, Grenz, and a few other far-out-in-left-field voices get all the attention for the Emerging church.

A key thrust of emergent church missiology is that it preaches `inclusion’ of the poor. “Incarnational” mission, especially with the poor is also a highly important focus, as is suggested frequently by key emergent church writers such as Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis.

However, I have been studying numerous emergent styled websites over the past year and found very few which seem to record messages from the poor. Is that all about them not being able to afford computers or is it about something else more to do about such websites not actively practising “inclusion” of the poor through encouraging them to engage in the so called “conversation”?

Mostly it appears to me that only the theologically educated and those with the gift of `contemporary Christian missions-speak’ need apply for their messages to be recorded on emergent websites.

The emergent church movement seems to naturally appeal to the well-educated, radically minded and `trendy’ youthful-minded Christian type of person.

You have had a recent article posted on your site complaining about the fact that this movement is far too patriarchal in its approach toward inclusion of women, especially in terms of leadership roles.

My complaint is about the fact that although Emergent Church advocates often preach very strongly about inclusion of the poor (eg. Jim Wallis’s Micah Vision; Brian McLaren’s books), it seems usually only the `gentry’ of `contemporary’ Christianity – the theologically trained and missiologically “articulate” at university level who speak the right religious-cultural `missions-speak’ need apply for their articles to be posted. Most likely, if you are poor you won’t be heard or posted because you are not up-to-date with the language and will be discriminated against because you aren’t regarded as intelligent or astute enough to be included in this highly exclusive “inclusive conversation”.

Apparently there is a high degree of `selectivity' about who is allowed to enter the "conversation."

Instead of setting yourselves up as the aristocracy of modern Christian thought, how about taking a humbler approach. If your movement is genuine about working with the poor and marginalised, then you need to encourage the poor and marginalised in person to participate and become engaged in this “conversation.” Then maybe they will let you enter into theirs - for most whom I know (ie through working for years with the homeless) are already more openly, honestly and freely “conversational” with God who comforts and empowers them as they journey through life’s struggles on a day-to-day basis.

Tony,

It seems the most overlooked aspect of the emergent Church is the idea of 'agenda harmony'

There is such power in agreement; shared values and vision, etc. In the name of 'conversation' the emergent Church culture will lose the most precious asset the Church has: its unity.

I personally don't find a whole lot of satisfaction in rubbing shoulders with lesbians and others that are so bent on their own way, they refused to change. Yeah the conversation can be O.K. but in the end change doesn't typically happen. Oftentimes change isn't an option for them, for the simple reason: religious people don't change much! They get set in their ways and that's it. Our time is better spent amoung the lost & broken. So much more can be accomplished there.

Tony; your article is refreshing. I've been in the "main" line church my whole life (57) and I'm frustrated with how "the" church "our" church is so bigoted, paranoid, sexist you name it, all in the name of "JESUS"??? I'm ready to dialogue and enter into a refreshing conversation with folks of all faiths, beliefs, core values and ideas. I welcome the breath of honest fresh air, keep it coming.

Why are conservative Christians afraid of liberals?

Let me give you an example. I live in New Zealand. For the past several years we have had a left wing-liberal government, a virulently anti-Christian one at that. One of the members of that government sponsored a bill legalising prostitution. The mainline liberal Christian churches praised this as forward thinking and a blow for justice. The bill was passed into law.

The result?

We now have a growing problem of underage girls, some as young as 10 selling themselves to men on the streets and in brothels. And, because the bill allowed new brothels to be set up in people's homes in suburban family neighbourhoods and next to schools, we also now have a growing problem of crimes, such as human trafficking, asian girls being held as sex slaves, and drug sellers in suburbia, where such crimes were rare to non-existent.

And all this was done in the name of social justice.

That's why I fear, not liberals themselves, but the policies they advocate. This particular policy has not helped the poor and oppressed, it has helped to oppress the poor, the weak and the powerless and spread crime to formaly safe family areas.

The response of the liberal churches who preen themselves on their advocacy of social justice?

Silence.

And all in the name of liberal-left social justice.

So I think there is valid reason to be concerned about those in Emergent pushing the church to adopt uncritically the ideology of the liberal left.

On the point that Tony was making I am not convinced. There may well be Bush loving neocons in Emergent but I have never met one nor heard one speak and their are none who are the spokespeople for Emergent in any way. I challenge anyone here to go to an emergent or emerging web forum and advocate less government, less tax, a moral social order and Just War principles and see how far you get without being called hateful names and attacked. Emergent tilts WAY to the hardcore Left and so do most of those writing books advocating this "conversation" and that is something to be concerned about.

I spent many years in a mainline liberal church that advocated the "social gospel" and seen firsthand what it does to the real Gospel. It destroys it and replaces it was a rigid and legalistic political correctness. I left the church the day the minister gave a sermon calling the the destruction of the family in favour of unlimited sexual freedom.

Should we be concerned with poverty? Absolutely. Should we condemn the prosperity gospel? Absolutely. Should we be concerned with justice? Absolutely. Should we try to think beyond left and right to find new answers to problems and jutice issues? Absolutely.

But I see no evidence that Emergent is doing anything more than uncritically buying into the agenda of the liberal-left. And Mclaren is perfectly happy to condemn in the most hateful and bigoted language anyone who does not.