Great insights here! I thought about being emergent once, but I had seen the video for Johnny Cash's "Hurt" one too many times so I did not meet the prerequisites. Unfortunately I had to revert back to the "ancient" ways of believing the Word of God. How I wish I would have listened to "All That You Can't Leave Behind" one less time so I could be more ambivalent on issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Alas, I will offer a lament for the fact I cannot subscribe to a cost-free salvation. How I wish I could just have conversations all day over lattes, but since I subscribe to ideas such as truth, I guess I will have to be content with the "narrow path."

I consider myself bored by clichés.

You have struck a chord that I didn't know I was playing.
"...if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty..." among others.
How about Dashboard Confessional music and old Smashing Pumpkins? Let me tell you a story...

Thank you, I'll go take the quiz and see if it helps me figure out a way to get lattes into the sanctuary.

I suspect that most emergents will find this statement problematic, but in the spirit of Christian love will refrain from being critical

How lovely...

placing "hipster"/jargon stereotypes on par with serious theological concerns.

All these guys demonstrated is that they don't understand the subject matter of their own book.

another thing...
why would you use a convoluted, dilettante description like that to set the stage for an even more dilettante, however simplistic, poll?

This description demonstrates the deep issues of class that permeate certain criticisms of the emerging conversation.

It's just so suspicious and horrible to be from a creative educated class and intentional about expressing your faith within your setting.

Methinks this has much to do with the anxieties of class perception that drive people like Mark Driscoll, Bill O'Reilly and generally everyone who thinks middleclass social respectability is the adequate content of living the Christian faith.

Another thing:

Who uses the term "emergent" to describe themselves?

As far as I know "emergent" is a relational network of people who variously describe themselves as presbyterian, baptist, etc. etc. etc.

Let us worhsip the Holy One and not a phrase, a movement, or a flag for that matter. That is where I see the emergent folks coming from: A desire to engage with God in a real, organic, messy relationship with other Christ-followers.

Heres to those of us who have drunk the heady draft of the next refomation! I wonder how many commonly viewed Luther and his contemparies? Certainly he was at least labelled with sharp little cliches from those who would 'See', 'Hear' & 'Do' no evil. So lets join this dance and engage in conversation. I think we'll be in good company!

Thanks for this excerpt. I know defining the "emerging church" is a sub-genre all its own, but this one is particularly helpful.

If it's hip to be counter-cultural, then post-emergents must be really cool! They are so counter-counter-cultural!

What I object to on both sides is this air of sullen superiority that is passed off as irony. This whole emergent thing seems to be more about demographics than anything. Most of the emergent ideas are pushed forward as 30somethings are coming into leadership and they strive to understand and reach areas of our world that have been neglected. We're so far behind the curve it's ridiculous.

If we could get past the smug us-and-them labeling, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. And as already commented, these simplistic stereotypes weaken whatever point was intended. I'm not rushing out to read any of the authors mentioned above, including the ones that are the subject of this post. And I'm certainly not taking any poll.

In the end, it's so much easier to argue theology than live out faith. Isn't it.

Oh, that is sooo 1997. hah! If you now start thinking that you are, the paddleboat already has sailed on, my friend.

*hippie voice* Git with the timez, maaaann!

I think this is funny the same way that I hope a southerner things the "you might be a redneck if..." schtick is funny.

At the very first Emergent Conference Brian McLaren warned of the temptation to feel, act or be perceived as elitist and superior that the Emergent people were going to face. Pretty prophetic, but well deserved. I personally stopped attending Emergent events because first of all, it felt too easy to fall into those traps of feeling superior and second of all because it seemed that it was difficult to get much content out of it between the Yoga, prayer labyrinth, the talk about environmentalism and all of the bashing of anything that we could label "modern".

In fact I still feel like there is so much deconstruction without any thought to the reconstruction of ideas and practices and thoughts. Almost literally the modern evangelical church and it's music and practices get portrayed as the anti-christ by a huge group of Emergents. Unfortunately, the response by the Emergent church has been so reactionary, that the above excerpt is pretty appropriate and this stereotype seems to be coming alive and gaining steam in those emergent churches in rich, white urban areas with the kids of strict evangelical parents. I went to a friend's emergent gathering, and the above stereotypes were almost comically true. You didn't fit in without horn-rimmed glasses and your mac.

The funny thing about this book and Carson's book though are that they both portray Emergents as people who would rather protest the modern movement and reject labels than do actual ministry. But these guys are devoting large parts of their lives to writing a book battling against the people that they claim are not having much of an impact and don't have much substance anyway.

Why as Christians and Pastors do we have to spend so much time worrying about what the other guy is doing? Why can't we just organize our church to love people and not apologize when our music doesn't appeal to every generation simultaneously, or our methods don't involve as many ancient practices, or why our theology may not be 100% systematic, or that we aren't supporting and involved in every environmental outreach program, or why our missionaries go to mexico but not africa, or why the senior pastor is wearing a golf shirt instead of a button up with rolled up sleeves, or why in a predominantly white suburb our congregation is predominantly white, or why our worship leader looks more like David Crosby than Bono?

I could go on, but now I feel like I am wasting my own time. Maybe I should write a book to critique the guys who are critical of the emergent church...

What if you're neither, or both?
What if you can "yes" to some items and "no" to others?
What if you would love to re-build homes in New Orleans with a John Calvin on one side and Jacobus Arminius on the other side, talking about the wonderful love of Jesus as we tore down moldy walls?

And what if the Emergent Church is nothing really more that The Jesus People Movement 2.0? As the "old" Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song proclaims,
If I had ever been here before I would probably know just what todo
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you.
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel
Like I've been here before
And you know
It makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground

Do you know?
Don't you wonder?
What's going on down under you.

We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before

I've never considered myself "emergent," although my spirituality has been "emerging" (and reemerging) fairly steadily for nigh on 35 years now.

I resonate with a lot of the items in your description, but not nearly all of them. I drink my lattes, I don't sip; I love Guiness if it's really cold and really fresh.

I hate television, for the most part, and I am tone-deaf, so I wouldn't recognize a soprano from either the boob tube or the opera.

I love the writings of N.T. Wright, Dallas Willard, Clark Pinnock, and Greg Boyd. And C. S. Lewis.

I have a "high view" of the Scriptures, but I don't consider them "inerrent."

Where does that put me on the theological map? I don't know and I don't care.

As a young adult, part of my transition into adult hood is to unearth mentor’s older than myself, ripened in knowledge and steeped in wisdom. Part of my problem is that I can’t find any sort of common ground with adults, ripened in knowledge, steeped in wisdom who find it necessary to expend time and money to publish books on what they are most certainly not. As if in the body of Christ we needed MORE reasons to divide on our particulars.

I suppose I missed the boat on this one. If you don’t think “emergents” are doing anything, amounting to much, not really affecting anyone why write a book about it? Why plant your flag in the ground and point toward your fellow brother or sister in Christ and let them know, that I am not what you are? I desire greatly to honor the men and women who have gone before me and to stand on the shoulders of men and women in the body of Christ ready to rally around a cross and a Christ and change the world. Not one’s who want to nit pick and divide. Does that make me “Emergent”? I don’t know? Most of those attributes don’t sound like terrible things. Why do we always want to conquer and divide?

As we practice our theology, write books and visit large theological gatherings the streets are bursting with those engulfed in pain in a broken world, without knowledge of a loving redemptive God. Can't that push us to come together?

But what do I know I guess, I'm still just a youngster...

If you just take yourself way too seriously...

(as evidenced by the comments so far)

You might be Emergent.

true true, Mike... why is it that G-d works in Mexico but not America? For some reason you have to get a passport first. Why do we always have to go somewhere else to experience the Great Awakening and then experience the Great Cooling when we return? Why aren't we continuing in missions daily?

Or am I suddenly 'emergent' too?

Lemme go get my playdoh. This proving, Ble, you can never be too young. Or too old.

Love it! That was funny. And that comes from someone who sympathizes with those whom the authors are trying to describe and probably pigeonhole.

Yep.
Cuz people should just be happy for the gracious mischaracterizations.

lovely.

But I get it.
There's only room in Christianity for the anti-emergent reductionism.

Thanks for proving the critique.

I wasn't but now I am and those guys should be!
I have 2 friends that have started two emerging churches in Salem Or. Jason Campbell and Dwayne Hilty. I pray for them all the time. I also pray for more churches to become emergent too. Thank you for this wonderful post and warning us about this book.

If your church has designated drivers listed in the bulletin for each service...

if you think Windows NT is a Bible translation...

If, when refering to "the text," your congregarion immediately looks at their cell phones...

If the Bible is the first place you go for answers, but not the last...

If you are absolutely certain that no one can be certain...

If you would have used a Bible verse in your sermon but none of them seemed to fit...

if you spend years making generalizations about the church in America and then whine when the church in America makes generalizations about you... you might be emergent

if you think the point of a "conversation" is to spend time arguing with other people's theology without acknowledging their responses... you might be an emergent

if you think anyone will remember something called "emergent" 10 years from now...you might be an emergent

From the Emergent Village response to critics:

Sixth, we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas.

Lovely, those unequivocal clear statements must be because they're all liars.

again...sheeesh...but go ahead and keep flogging that dead horse.

and I thought I had a chip on MY shoulder.
You win the prize, "Postemergent."

If you deny being emergent...

If, somewhere along the way, you lost your sense of humor...

If you love spending inordinate amounts of time picking apart the Body of Christ, then you might be a reformed, Calvinist fundamentalist with no time left for people in need of Christ.

The Emerging Church is nothing but a mere fad and it will not last. There IS truth! It seems to me that we need to get back to the word of the living God! If you want to see a true move of God then start praying for revival and quit trying to "fit in" to the culture. Let us be not conformed to this world! God uses man and not new methods.

What am I, then, if I'm just some of these?

Smug, self-righteousness is so very ugly.

Clearly, for the authors, there's no interest in dialog, just sloppy riffs on Jeff Foxworthy's work from the '90s. I am not emergent but there is nothing productive for God's kingdom by spending so much effort and marketing money just to mock other Christians.

It's all vanity. Hope you're proud.

Nancey Murphy, not Nancy Murphy and Walter Wink not Walter Winks.

This is a fair description of the emergent ethos, but is a slight characature.

Someone should do one that lays out all the assumptions of modernist approaches to the Christian faith and how they distort biblical truth.

Yes, I am an emergent as layed out by this description. But I prefer to be known as someone trying to take seriously what Jesus calls us to be...his followers for the salvation of the world.

It amazes me how this emergent movement has been created and has formed its own theology in a short period of time. I also wonder if there will be conflict as it progresses like most movements.

Sad to see that the sarcastic conversation is still going on debating this issue over the weekend. Sad to see that other brother and sisters in the faith find joy and amusement in theological trash talking. Out of Ur readers seem to be here more to air their "smart" remarks and quips then to learn, engage one another and above all else love one another.

Too bad....

I see a disturbing development in this thread…
The emerging church positions itself as a counter to the current conventional thinking that seems to see church as mostly a social club, and it's palpable “isn’t it great we’re all saved” air of hubris; And that perhaps, the whole churchy thing that we have currently isn’t working out to well…the Frozen Chosen, if you will…so they want to discuss it, change it if needs changing. A form of "lets see where it goes from there."
I think it bears investigating, and serious intellectual consideration.
Now, granted this “emergent church” thing could be a fad, it could be a total fallacious waste of time…OR, it could be what G-d wants to draw our attention to.
We don’t know, and like Gamaliel’s caution to the Sanhedrin, if it is not of G-d, it will die, hence fad, but if it is of G-d it will prosper…now, the question to ponder…would you position yourself against the Lord G-d himself?
Would you mock G-d’s efforts?
Some of you have certainly crossed the line between friendly rib poking humor , and vicious sarcasm laced with a thick layer of sadistic vindictiveness...oh yeah, whole other thing there.

So what do you say, lets not prove to the world it’s suspicion that we eat our own before we tear into them with our teeth…instead, why don’t we discuss the merits, if any, and the ramifications of this “emergent” thinking that some of our brothers and sisters ascribe too.

Cliches that can be gleemed from reading current magazine articles or brochures does not qualify as serious research. Sounds like the Moody Press is just out to keep their brand pumped up!

Emergent, whatever? Do we need another label really ? I dont know about all those things and whether that considers you Emergent but what I do know is, I am a Born Again, follower of Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible is the Word Of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. That the second person of the Trinity came to Earth as a Man, died for the penalty of our sin, rose again bodily 3 days later and sits at Gods right hand , standing in the gap for us with the Father , and anxiously awaiting his second coming. That we his children, when we come to him humbly and repent of our sin and acknowledge Christ as saviour, are saved by his Grace not by us or our goodness of which we have none. That we as followers are called to imitate Jesus of which we all, including me, fail miserably at frequently. I believe we are to care for creation, but not think that "WE" have the power and control to destroy or save it. Everything that happens, happens because God allows it. And when we start to think we can know the mind of God in all things, we are in grave danger. I believe in Heaven and Hell as real places and that the worst thing about Hell no matter what it is like is our Eternal separation from our Creator. And I believe he is coming back just as he said. Oh, and I believe its not about us , but all about Him!

If you think e-merging is something you do on the information superhighway...

You might be a Calvinist.

Rich,

that's great.

Just make sure you don't reveal your reading list to some folk...

You never know...they might not approve of some of the authors. Apparently certain writers have the power--just by virtue of reading them, no less!--to destroy God's ability to apply the regenerating work of the Christ to your life.

I'd say I'm about 80% or so of that list, however I don't read "John Frank," I do read "John Franke." I'm not a big Sopranos or Guinness fan.

What I find fascinating here is we have two groups who are actually trying to take the Bible seriously and trying to interpret the Bible correctly. It seems that the emerging conversation has opened up some new interpretive streams and that is where we hit some of the concerns about the emerging church. I don't agree with all of the places the emerging church takes us, but I like the way they have done two things:

1. Spurred renewed interest at digging into our Bibles and finding how they relate to our world today.
2. Created a diversity of theological views.

I don't think we have all that much to fear from the emerging church, and I'm pretty sure that even those in the emerging church who seem the furthest off track would welcome critique and discussion.

Based on the above quote I think they have a relatively accurate picture of the emerging church. Hopefully this book will be a step toward greater discussion and understanding.

I agree that this is getting a little tiring. To coin a phrase, "Can't we all just get along?" Why do we need to spend our energies proving someone right or wrong, or not as right as me, less wrong than the other guy. Why can't we we "love one another" like Christ and press forward in our own Jerusalems, Judeas and Samarias and say, "God, bless the other guy, even though I don't fully understand what he's doing."

Skeptical:
Are you refering to Richard Miller's comment in the "Theology Freaks" post where he said that if you rely on N.T. Wright, you're lost? You ripped on him really bad for that comment, but I think you're mischaracterizing what he was trying to say.
The truth is, he's right. If we rely on anyone, whether it be Mr. Wright or Wayne Grudem or whoever, other than God, we will be lost, because salvation comes not from man but from God. I enjoy reading Mr. Wright. He's got a lot of good insights. But there are some issues where, as I've studied the Bible, I've come to the conclusion that he's off. Mr. Wright himself admits that a good deal of what he teaches is probably wrong, or at least skewed. I appreciate his humility, and I think it wouldn't bad for more of us to make the same confession.
I take Richard's comment to mean that we should not allow anyone to interpret Scipture for us, but rather allow the Scripture to interpret itself. Not an easy task, for sure, but well worth the effort. I don't know Richard, but I'm quite sure he does not believe that the simple act of reading certain authors will keep God from saving you. You obviously have theological disagreements with Richard, and it is worth debating them. But I don't think that mischaracterizing comments and using cheap sarcasm does much to further God's Kingdom.

I find it fascinating that some of you cannot allow yourselves to see the humor in this. Don't you guys ever look at yourselves and laugh? I, of course, hang out with other Reformed Calvinists and we poke fun at ourselves all the time. I am reminded God has a sense of humor every time I look in the mirror. If I had no idea what Emergent is and encountered you for the first time, I would find your demeanor totally unappealing. Lighten up, guys.

The comment about Wright came after someone cited some of his work.

Nobody said or intimated they were "relying on" Wright in any way that could be taken to mean:

Wright vs. God

please.

Are you people serious?

Richard D. Miller...
As much as it may help make things emotionally and intellectually simple for you, please refrain from making this about the "demeanor of Emergent".

I'm just a bystander who has benefited from them.

This thread has nothing to do with whatever that is--and frankly, I suspect that "it" isn't a quantifiable reality anyway.

The issue is the comments here.
Nothing more.

excuse me while I bristle again.

Again, just me bristling.

"I find it fascinating that some of you cannot allow yourselves to see the humor in this. Don't you guys ever look at yourselves and laugh? I, of course, hang out with other Reformed Calvinists and we poke fun at ourselves all the time. I am reminded God has a sense of humor every time I look in the mirror. If I had no idea what Emergent is and encountered you for the first time, I would find your demeanor totally unappealing. Lighten up, guys."

Humor is about timing, and knowing how far to push the envelope to that line that shouldn't crossed.
You crossed it...well, jumped over it. What you're doing isn't funny, and I'm one of those who is still investigating whether or not the "emergents" theology has adopted/espoused heretical or apostate teachings.

Sheerakahn,

I would say that in your search you will find figures (individuals) that have stated things that could be heretical/apostate in the estimation of others.

It would be dishonest to say you won't.

But I don't know if the need by some to insist that such mistakes are somehow determinative of the everyone in the discussion is fair.

It misses the point of the emerging church and even the "emergent village" stream of things.

Emergent village is a network of relationships. It's not a denomination, it's a clearinghouse for a wide range of people who are being given the opportunity to be in "the same room" without getting ridiculous or making doctrinal criteria the litmus test for loving relationship.

The worldwide thing of "emerging", in my opinion, is not theologically revisionist so much as it is concerned with ecclesiology and missiology. And THAT is what drew me to it in the first place.

It's a shame that UrL either didn't read further or just didn't care to add the lines a little further down the page of this quote and on the following page:

"Second, though our approach is critical, don't assume we dislike all things emergent. The long sentence above describes Ted and me in some ways too.... In short, we affirm a number of the emergent diagnoses. It's their prescribed remedies that trouble us most."

Instead of giving the impression that this is another book set out to bash people who "do church" with candles or worship sitting Indian-style in a circle (which, I don't know if that book actually exists), it would be nice if this "endorsement" pointed out that DeYoung and Kluck's book is actually aimed at accomplishing what many others are attempting, and what the emergents are avoiding, that being looking critically at just what this new breed of leaders are actually teaching. That is where the trouble lies. It's one thing to create a church that goes by a different method of service, it is another thing altogether to change the gospel, which is what, in the end, a lot of these guys seem to be doing. (Write me for examples, or check out my blog please, before trying to condemn this).

Todd, there is, of course, a third option. Perhaps UrL just wanted people talking. This excerpt doesn't strike me as either an endorsement or a criticism. In fact, I suspect nearly everyone will find something on this list that resonates with them.

J. Joyce, I don't believe that this post was set out to get people talking, at least not in a good light about the book. By saying, "Now that you know the symptoms, take the quiz on the left and let me know if you consider yourself an emerging Christian" the poster is clearly implying that the authors consider emerging Christianity to be a sickness, when actually the whole book is centered around an in-depth look at the bad new theology which many emergings (or emergents) are taking on to coincide with their sometimes good new ecclesiology.

I too would consider myself "emerging", but when that label begins to encompass the wayside teachings of Bell, McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones, it is something that I want to avoid full force.

As long as Christians have a petty, judgmental, low view of one another or of fresh expressions of faith - the world will stay far at bay, and rightfully so. I'm starting to see that labels and denominations are nothing more than brands we use to conveniently stereotype ourselves and one another - or in this case attack one another. Meanwhile, while we blog deep layers of theological platitudes, emerging or otherwise, the world is passing us by at being a good Samaritan in caring for the planet,(ie garden) the poor and fatherless.

Mr. Burus,

By that logic make sure you eschew the label "christian" altogether, or "evangelical" or "reformed" or whatever sub-set label you tend to identify with.

Too bad it's impossible to not find someone with "wayside teachings" in any camp.

Once we move beyond this self-indulgent infighting across camps OR one of those camps somehow "wins" we'd still see that the label of "christian" is still yet a deep hindrance to the gospel in the larger culture.

I wonder where you will stand then?
Furthermore, I wonder what difference your stance will make?

That is the question I'm asking, skeptical. Quite honestly, a couple years ago, I was almost at the point of walking away from my faith, my struggles were that deep. I stumbled on a couple books from authors in the emergent camp, and God used them in my life to help me come back to Him. How "ironic"!

Now that I've grown up a little from that experience, I can say that I don't endorse all of what's out there--there are some teachings, held by some Emergents, that I don't believe square with the Scriptures. But I'm not willing to dismiss the entire movement as faddish or heretical--I think I'm more willing now than ever to listen to those who hold those beliefs, and attempt to find some common ground. After all, I am one of those who can say that "Emergent saved my faith".

Alison,
I think your case is a perfect example of how Christians can use the emergent stuff in an appropriate and mature way. The problem is, I feel, that a lot of people who are immature come across these books and it just feeds their immaturity. In fact, these books are truly directed at immature "believers", at ones who aren't mature enough to already see these problems in the church or the ones who are looking for someone to justify their straying from orthodoxy.

As I posted before, there are methods inside the emerging movement worth embracing, but the problem comes in when we consider doctrine. It is here that guys like Mclaren and Bell will lead many people astray with VERY unbiblical approaches (I came across another example of this is Mclaren's new book, "Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices." From the 70-or-so pages I've read already this book looks more New Age than it does Christian. Dangerous!)

I'm glad that you were able to have your faith "saved", but I am also glad that you are looking at things critically. Obviously these authors can lead us to reevaluate ourselves and how we conduct out lives, but if we just drink all of their Kool-Aid I don't believe it will lead us to a better place in the end.

I guess the most important pt. here would be not whether we are Emergent, Calvanists, Armenians, etc (for one can be these but not be Christian); but whether or not we are authentic disciples. In Jn.8:31 (ESV) Jesus... said... "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples...." The defining characteristic of a Christian is obedience.

how am I to be categorized if about 60% of that stuff is true of me, but the rest is imfatically not?

Todd--

What I'm getting at is that we need to look at EVERYthing with a spirit of discernment. You say you've only read 70 pages of McLaren's new book (good heavens, I didn't even know he'd published again). How then, can you use a spirit of discernment in order to separate truth from error on his latest work? You've only seen part of it, not the whole thing.

My suggestion (take it or leave it) is that you read the entire book, then decide. I've not always been successful with that approach in my own life, but I do know that when I am, I learn a lot about what the other person is trying to communicate, even if what they're communicating is not in line with the Scriptures.

Alison,
I have only read 70 pages of it because I just sat down with it a few days ago. Still, even in those 70 pages McLaren litered his commentary with New Age spiritual jargon and multiple passages where he places, at minimum haphazardly, Abraham, Moses, Paul and Mohammed on the same level as prophets of God. Regardless of what the rest of the book will say (and yes, to be jaded, I'm not very hopeful) I don't need to read any more to be able to know that this is an invitation to lead people astray.

That is my greatest concern through it all. I do think people need to come to a more genuine faith, but from the books I have read in full or in part already, I feel that the majority of what these authors are saying points people more to themselves (the reader) as the ultimate good and not to God.

Having seen so many fads, trends, new waves, you names its - I don't care anymore.

To me, the "emergents" are simply another group of the self righteous who spend their lives telling the rest of us where we got it all wrong.

But that's ok. In another 10 or so years, another group of the self righteous will come and tell the emergents where they got it all wrong, and how this new group are those who truly do "church".

But Jim, the issue is how many souls may be lost along the way. Sure, these cults of humanity may never gain a universal following, but if people are going to hell because of it (which, I'm not saying they are, but it is a fear) then it is something to be concerned about. Just because a movement doesn't attain the notoriety of the Reformation or Jim Jones doesn't mean that it is not important to the people who are going through it at that particular time.

Drink the Kool Aid?
Really?

Gimme a break.

"new age" approaches?

words don't belong to any one person or group. sorry.

It is amazing how much garbage comes out of the post-modern movement.

"words don't belong to any one person or group."

If one were trying to epitomize post-modernism that certainly did it because that doesn't mean anything. Certainly, as Mark Driscoll often says, the phrases "emerging" and "emergent" are more of a grab bag than an actual category, but again, another point made by the authors of this book, that is why it's important to look at the leaders who are being affiliated with that name. I don't have a problem with the "emerging church," what I do have a problem with is the purposeful deceit and unbiblical theology of guys like McLaren, Bell, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Campolo. (We can agree that the name of a person is an acceptable category for talking about them, right?)

And can we please cut all of the mumbo-jumbo post-modern crap? It is beyond annoying to claim the linguistic turn as an excuse for not having decent arguments in a debate.

Mr. Burus,

I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not talking about the so-called linguistic turn, post-modernity, etc.

My point is that just because someone from the "new age" boogeyman uses the word "holistic" and then I use the word "holistic" it doesn't mean that I am trafficking in the same categories, have the same agenda or am even remotely in the same boat.

That was my point.

Sheeesh.

Enjoy your KoolAid.

another thing,

I do think it's admirable that you distinguish between the larger reality of the "emerging" stuff and the particular leaders you take issue with.

skeptical,
I'm sorry to have incorrectly read your comments. I guess that is why my wife is on me about getting so wrapped up in these debates sometimes.

Postmodernism does make me angry and I just got too eager to take that out on you. Sorry. Have a nice day.

Todd,

I appreciate your comment.
I too apologize for "tapping" you up.

In all seriousness, I would be interested to know if "modernism" makes you angry too. Given that it's been no friend to the church either, I wonder how you would mount a critique of it as well?

Yes, I do get worked up about the effects that modernism and liberal Christianity have had on Christianity as a whole. I am currently exploring on my blog how we can reach out to traditionally Christian societies which have become lukewarm in their belief, and in doing so I am confronting a lot of the issues that have arisen as a result of modernism in the church.

However, as far as keeping the movement from becoming entrenched, I feel like my forefathers have already lost the war on modernism, whereas the conflict of post-modern Christianity is still up for grabs. And it is because of this that I get so vocal about the missteps I see in the pomo-emerging ideologies.