I agree with your points, but need some clarification on the following...
"We want the church to reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence. "

I don't see the church as necessary or even desirous of authoritative in culture. I see it reclaiming its place as a 'counter-cultural' subversive movement like the early church. Thoughts?

My favorite part of Colson's article is that Jim seems to come over to the good side by the end of the article. "...he came to see" that "truth is truth." Whew. I was worried about Jim there for a second. I'll still be praying for him though.

Nice article Tony - very well stated.

"We want the church to reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence. "

If, according to your reasoning, no one can objectively know the truth, what gives the church any authority at all to interpret anything?

Yeah Tony, I was wondering the exact same thing as Carl. To me, "Reclaim its place as the authoritative community" smacks of being a Constantinian wet dream, not the sort of thing I would expect you to endorse...even if your former church was called Colonial Hills. : ) I don't think you mean this quite as-is...care to clarify?

As to the rest, a hearty amen! Even God is not objective, as God has chosen to be involved in the cosmos as the All in all. God's experience of us is as subjective as it is right and true.

Tony--Nice work. Well, maybe I should say, 'nice is nice' and 'work is work' in order to stay objective. Ah, I'm too tired, so I'm going to bed. Sleep is sleep after all. But first, I think you bring up numerous essential points: 1. pigeonholing emergents into one person's book or view of truth doesn't make sense, 2. using the methods of evaluating a denomination don't apply to the emerging church, 3. I wonder if Colson's interpretation of truth would've made much sense in the 1st century...or 5th century...or 15th century. Theology doesn't happen in a vacuum. Truth and culture intersect...like it or not...er...not is not.

How do we get the point across that absolute truth and cultural impact, relevance, and transalation are not oil and water?

When people quit trying to view or interpret all things emergent through a denominational lens as if it were a new denomination, there would be a lot more understanding. It is not a denomination; it is a conversation with lots of opinions. No one speaks for emergent, not even Tony Jones. He just has a corner on the Tony Jones portion of the conversation. I have a corner on the Fajita portion of the conversaiton. Sometimes Tony influences me and sometimes I think he's way off the mark. But the conversation goes on.

If people would listen to what is being said, not merely trying to find ways to crush it, then perhaps a deeper commuion of the "saints" could be grasped. What if we are all actually on the same team? What if humanity is all on the same team?

Something good is happening in the story/kingdom/conversation/family/friendship network etc of God. Certainly critics are welcome, but to let fear keep Christianity wed to philosophical positions that not only don't work with culture anymore, but were not even Godly in the first place is as great or even greater a risk than to explore new ways of thinking about God, doing Christianity, and loving the world.

If the emergnet church is of the Devil, if it's evil, vile and ill, then it is going to fail and fail badly. It will be shown for the ruse that it is. But suppose it is of God. Suppose it is something of the Spirit. Who wants to stands up against it then? If emergent is wrong, then God can defend the plotline of His story. But what if it is good?

There is a baby in this bath water - and the water itself isn't really all that dirty.

I'm still a little confused.

If Emergent is a extremely diverse community defined by language (subjective to each individual, smaller community), then how does a community so large interpret a single Bible without contradiction?

Deconstructionism?

If God is truth, and he is, then can he only be represented as objective truth? If the answer is yes, then Emergent must have a hard time "conversing" interpretation productively.

Tony, Tony! I love you man! Wow, you explicated so much in a short space. I sense a bit of Nancey Murphy's class seeping in???

What would Colson say about how African's experience the "truth truth."? Does'nt the Scriptures narrate the dynamic community relationship of Israel and the early church with the God who gave them their story?

With all do respect Mr. Colson (and Mark Driscoll his mini-me), the Scriptures are not a toaster manual invented in 1944. In fact, contrary to popular belief, Zondervan did not publish the first Bible! Should not the Church of Christ pursue the "old, old story" and thus attempt to live it out as the people of God?

Seems to me a lot of our churches are entrenched in a culture war because they think they are competing with the culture. Seems to me Jesus was testifying that the Kingdom has come and is coming...not too concerned with competing for Hellenistic worldview.

Thanks for your hard work, care, love and genuine faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Tony. You inspire me and challenge me and hopefully us.

"If people would listen to what is being said, not merely trying to find ways to crush it, then perhaps a deeper commuion of the "saints" could be grasped. What if we are all actually on the same team? What if humanity is all on the same team?"

Maybe Chuck Colson is on the same team? Maybe he's not saying these things because he wants to crush all things emergent. Maybe he's just part of the conversation and he happens to disagree with you?

It's just a thought.

I'm trying to understand what this compelling vision may be (the bit that goes "We want the church to reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence").

How can that happen when there is a refusal to make any doctrinal affirmations? What lost place is this seeking to return to?

Refusing to comment on the atonement, homosexuality etc. whilst saying that your trying to reclaim the church as an authoritative community is a bit like speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Tony, it sounds like you're saying, "if there is absolute truth, it can't be known."

Carl, Mike,

I agree that the church should be counter-cultural and subversive. In doing so, however, the we implicitly claim authority. Whenever anyone says, "Live like this, not like that," then they claim authority. Jesus is an authority (the authority?), even when he is saying "Turn the other cheek," "Give up your cloak," "Visit the prisoners," etc. The question becomes, "What kind of authority?" Will we lord over others like the Gentiles? Or will whoever wants to become great become a servant?

We have to be extremely careful, considering Fajita's comments above. Yes, "conversation" is a very useful metaphor for the communion of saints. However, "conversation," in and of itself, doesn't always lead to love, justice, mercy, grace, or to God, for that matter. Francis Schaeffer, in one of his books, described a married couple who talked nonstop, but never said anything of worth. They conversed, but never communed. The communion of the saints, as Biblically understood, is also communion with God. Is all humanity on the same team? Maybe, though I doubt it. A much better question is, "Are we on God's team?"

Being a college chaplain, I don't necessarily feel qualified to be a part of Emergent since the concern is for the Church, but I do enjoy eavesdropping on the conversation, especially since I'm in conversation with faculty and students in who live within the post-modern context. Here is my post nonetheless.

First, I appreciate the Emergent community. What you do and what you represent is the importance of CONVERSATION. All theology is converstaional and no one tradition or person really has the last word. In fact, if theology is done according to the way it is done in the biblical tradition, it will always be conversational. Our Jewish brothers and sisters recognize this perhaps better than we do and the dynamic of converstation is always on-going. Judaism has survived and thrived as a vital witness to G-d because it moves in conversation and adapts, changes and adopts all along the way. G-d is the plot and G-d is always on the move.

Colson's criticisms are really unfair. I read the article in Christianity Today yesterday and felt totally embarrassed by his barrage. He buys into a set of propositions that are permanent and set in stone, so to speak. All this is unfortunate because it tries to nail G-d down. G-d delimited is God reduced and once that is done you have made for yourself a golden calf. If the Resurrection is any indication of the revelation of the nature of G-d, the true truth is that G-d can't be nailed down or boxed in.

Keep going on the conversation! Keep speaking to the cultures. Keep talking. As long as you do, you live not from some dead word, but from the living Word. You do theology in the biblical tradition and, dare I say it, style.

One other thought: Colson discounts experience in favor of objective truth. If so, where does prayer come into his scheme of belief? The church has had a maxim that proves true in every encounter I have as a chaplain, lex orandi lex credendi, the law of prayer precedes the law of belief. Maybe this is why the Orthodox (Eastern) tradition is growing among the younger generation.

Wow! It feels like the 'emergent' folks and Colson have stopped listening to each other. It is sad as I don't think Colson is totally against everything emergent. I think he offers a nice critique to those that want to veer off into the post-modern malaise as described by Schaeffer... e.g. "... man has firmly planted himself in mid-air".

It seems to me that someone who is getting fed up with the 'feel-good lite' spirituality of the age would find a friend in the emergent conversation. Colson is no lock-step right winger as he has been very critical of the current Administration's handling of Iraq and he is truly a voice of social justice when ministering to prisoners.

I find most Christian radio to be utterly reprehensible and fundamentally insulting, but Colson is a nice, hard-hitting guy that tells it like it is. It is a breath of fresh air and relief from the numbness of current evangelical Christianity. The fact that radio shows are dropping him tells me he is probably onto something. He is not willing to compromise to keep us His exposure.

My personal view is that I don't know that McLaren and folks have come out and agreed with Stanley Fish wholeheartedly. I believe that the 'emergent' critique and gift to the church is that there a lot more unknowns in life than what the current conservative church is telling us. AND there are some fundamental assumptions about life that evangelicals hold that are more driven by 'bad free-market philosophy' than Scripture. If this so-called movement does not claim to engage the conversation based in Scripture and the Christian tradition, then it does not hold any credibility. The movement will ultimately fail as the Spirit and the Word work together to accomplish God's purposes (e.g. 'true' truth changes lives and transforms people to be Christlike... it is not merely philosophical change but a holistic life change).

"A tree is known by its fruit". If this is borne of the Holy Spirit, than we shall see the fruit AND it shall line up with the Word of God.

Tony, I love it.

It reminds me of a logical argument that puzzled my wife and I over dinner one night. It goes like this:

Some people assume human language is unreliable. because we miscommunicate so often.

That means the Bible itself must have been written using unreliable language. This unreliability of language leads to the need for interpretation. Interpretation opens the possibility of differing interpretations. Differing interpretations of a text that claims truth lead to differing visions of the truth itself. The existence of so many different interpretations of truth lead some to reject the concept of an absolute truth altogether.

Truth may be relative to human experience. That's what I hear some people suggesting in this thread.

Whatever it is, truth isn't simply truth.

Pilate is hardly one of my heroes, but my heart goes out to him when he asks Jesus, "What is truth?"

Colson's statements about truth remind me of people who talk about just getting back to preaching the Bible. What they mean is that they want to be in a church that interpret's the Bible the way they do. Of course their understanding of scripture is the right way, the obvious way. The truth of our faith is always rooted in both a community who interprets and lives out the faith and the reality of God's work throughout history and that community. Chuck acts as if truth is necessarily self evident and all we need to do is return to the truth. I am thankful for the Emergent conversation and hope that the God works throughout to help those who actually do write doctrine statements and exist inside of denominational lines.

The subtitle of Colson's column is "Jesus is the truth whether we experience him or not." I agree with that statement, and I suspect many in the Emergent conversation would.

But reading the article makes me suspect that he really means "Certain doctrines about Jesus are the truth . . ." This would fit better into his closing statement about ". . . making a solid apologetic defense of the knowability of truth." When he writes about "the very foundation of our faith" it sounds like he's talking about a theological notion not really Jesus Christ.

However the column didn't seem to me to be at all a fullscale blast at the emerging church. He states, "I now have increasing sympathy for what emerging leaders are trying to accomplish." And also, "The emerging church can offer a healthy corrective . . ." The column is couched as a caution not an attack.

But there is a curious aura of innuendo in the column. His paragraph about his associate's visit to an emerging church (unnamed, but I wonder if it was my church) has a somewhat negative tone, but he never actually says there is anything wrong with what she found at the church. But you get the impression Colson isn't too happy with what she found. What seems particularly strange for an evangelical is how negative the wording sounds about giving a personal testimony of Christ!

Tony,

Excellent post. (BTW, I think that amanuensis only has one "e").

Now, to answer your rhetorical question: "isn't this just what Colson did when he converted to Christianity in prison many years ago: placed himself under the authority of the church of Jesus Christ?" The answer to that question could, in fact, be no. It is just as likely that Colson perceives himself to have acceded to a truth claim. He then sees the Church as the enforcer of that truth. So, rather than asking how he stands in relationship to the Church, he will ask how the Church stands in relation to "truth." Perverse as this might seem, I think this is just as likely a scenario.

I would like everyone in the Emergent Conversation to ask yourselves when was the last time you shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with someone in your sphere of influence. Or have you ever or is this something you do?

I have shared Christ several times recently, not because I am holier than you or more righteous or because I am conservative but because I am not holy or righteous or worthy of God's grace at all. God has made me acutely aware of my hopelessness and helplessness but more than that. Having saved me, He has given me a desperate awareness and compassion for the eternal destiny of people who are lost. I seek no glory here. Let only God be glorified.

Your conversation is like two people standing on the shore talking about the best way to save the guy drowning in the river. You can't even decide if the guy is really drowning.

I'm diving in.

All the theological differences aside, it seems to me (and I am guilty of this) that being part of the conversation involves taking cheap shots at the other side. It should be obvious that Colson is greatly influenced by Francis Schaeffer. We would do well to remember the philosophical and intellectual climate in which many of Colson and Schaeffer's core views were formed, much as they would do well to extend the same grace to us younger folks.

On the interpretative side, I'm tired of hearing this argument that basically says "We can't really know anything for sure." It is taking a real flaw (the fact that no person is 100% objective) and magnifying it to a ridiculous degree. It is like saying that a car is undriveable because the rear window is busted out and all the hubcaps are missing. That's a bummer, but there is still a lot that is working properly. But too often we like to sit around and speculate about what the car would be like if it was in perfect working condition instead of taking what we've got out on the road.

Tony,
I do not believe that a lesbian priest is right in the eyes of God. I can’t help but think I would not be welcome in your Village holding this belief. You say that if I want a definitive position on Homosexuality then this village is not for me. Why? Doesn’t an Episcopal lesbian priest have a definitive position? Isn’t being pro-homosexual a position she lives out and proclaims daily because her lifestyle is a declaration of her position?

Why would wanting to hear your doctrinal position on penal substitution be a dividing line in this Village? If I am a part of this village is there anything that I am allowed to believe absolutely? What values am I allowed to hold firmly and still find my welcome in this village?

To hear people in the village speak, there is not really much good happening outside the village, just a bunch of mega churches stuck in their modern ways, caring only about numbers and success while missing the point of Jesus words. I think the way you said it was “Emergent is a loose collection of folks who feel that true, robust conversation about issues that matter has been chilled out of modern Christian institutions (seminaries, mega-churches, denominations, and para-church groups, to name a few).”

Outside the village the true and robust conversations are chilled? How did you know this? Were you a part of this small family of churches that banded together to send $150,000 to Africa to assist with aids? How about the $70,000 we sent to India for the mobile medical clinic to give relief to Earthquake victims in Pakistan and Kashmir? Or what about the $80,000 we sent to rebuild the playgrounds of inner city schools? Or the $120,000 to help with Tsunami relief last year? What about the hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers who feed the poor, help build homes and orphanages in Mexico and other countries of the world? Or how about the 9,000,000 pledged to fight aids, build clinics in third world countries, educate kids…the list goes on, locally and globally.

I know that you want robust, respectful dialog around issues that matter, but it seems you have a narrow range of issues that matter. Basically the village is not for people who think differently than you about what issues really matter. If I think homosexuality is an issue that matters, I'm told to stay out. If I think the atonement is an issue that really matters, stay out.

What makes some issues more important to Emergent than other issues? What criteria did you use to discern the important from the less important issues? Can these questions be a part of the conversation?

I don't think anyone in the emergent friendship would suggest that those issues don't matter, but rather that a conversation about those issues requires an openness to hearing what others might have to say. For many of us, real dialog, real involvement, real change is only possible when there is no set line in the sand, no definative position on issues like homosexuality or penal substitution. To state a position once and for all is to exclude those who might have something else to add to the conversation. So you would be more than welcome to come to the table with your beliefs about the lesbian priest as long as you are willing to listen and be in fellowship with those who disagree--and they with you. The core belief is that we can't live kingdom lives alone, that life with God is far too important and complex for us to figure out by ourselves. We need one another--the community of believers--to hold each other up, to encourage each other, to spur each other on to life in the way of Christ. Every voice is needed.

Richard: Apparently you're taking a little time before diving in to take some potshots at the guys on the bank. I know some emergent men and women who are making enormous strides in evangelism and reaching hundreds and thousands. it may be worthwhile to look at some fruit before we cast our stones.

leoskeo: I think those kind of things are welcomed in discussion at emergent. Look at Brian McLaren's posts a few weeks (months?) ago regarding homosexuality, and the resultant furor. Brian's discussing it openly with others. A willingness to listen to other points of view is not the same as aquiescence (sp?). Robust conversation requires that opinions be heard, not that they be believed. What i think tony's saying, and i'm willing to be wrong, is that emergent is not the place to go if you're looking for dogmatic pronouncements, but is a place to go if you want to be challenged about your dogma. You can certainly believe homosexuality is wrong, but listen to those who do not, and at least understand them. I don't think emergent is asking for homogeneous belief, but instead for beliefs to meet in an environment that fosters communication about the beliefs.

For the record, while i enjoy these conversations, i'm not sure i would directly call myself "emergent."

I agree with Tim that we need to be careful not to take potshots at each other.

Although Colson's article makes me sad, his life and his work overall continue to be an encouragement to me.

Although I disagree with many ideas in the emergent community, I am also encouraged overall by their work.

We are all the body of Christ. Each part needs the other. Colson needs the challenges of the emergent community. The emergent community needs Colson's reminder that there is an absolute truth. I need all of these voices and comments. Overall, they are an encouragement to me.

Scot McKnight recently argued (in an excellent analysis of the emerging church that ran in The Covenant Companion) that the emerging church is concerned more about ecclesiology--how we do church--than it is about epistomology--how we know truth. That's where Colson's analysis (and Carson's ) may be off track.

Tim,

I don't think Tony meant the issues you referred to are unimportant. If you are referring to the last paragraph of his post which included, "...If, however, you'd like to first see our doctrinal statement on penal substitution or read a position paper on homosexuality...", please notice the word "first". The way I understand this is that what Tony is concerned about is a person's attitude toward being a part of a conversation that will include any issue and any person, including a lesbian priest. Can we listen to each other?

What great value we place in our own intellect! Humans have tried to self-interpret God's Word---as far back as Adam and Eve. Their intepretation "seemed good" but it didn't change the facts.

Fajita writes that we shouldn't "let fear keep Christianity wed to philosophical positions that not only don't work with culture anymore, but were not even Godly in the first place". He wasn't clear what he meant about that, but this is a very dangerous position from which to start.

Instead, we should start from the statement that the Bible is true and sufficient for truth. There is plenty in Scripture that is crystal clear--and should lead us to repentance (a currently much neglected subject). What benefit is to be gained from trying to make less clear areas contradict clear commands?

On the other hand, if we are willing to assume truth and sufficiency of Scripture, then we can assume that the unclear areas support--not contradict--those that are clear. And then get down to the business of transforming lives instead of trying to transform God's Word.

For example:
The Bible says that homosexuality and adultery are sins. Both can't help themselves. Both say that it is just what they are, even when they try not to be, they can't help it---a feeling which may in fact be the most reliable clue to help each of us identify what our areas of sin are.

The homosexual is not a worse sinner than a gossip. Neither is a murderer a worse sinner than a liar. They would all go to hell without Jesus. And if a gossip who is saved can get to heaven, then so can a homosexual who is saved.

HOWEVER, we should EXPECT to see the Holy Spirit transform lives. When we stop short at the fact that we can't help ourselves, we move towards changing God's commands instead of changing our hearts.

The result is that we minimize the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit, and emphasize the glory of man, which turns Christianity into a mamby pamby feel-good 'religion' that says I'm already good.

What a tragedy it would be to never know the light because we had justified the darkness in the name of love.

"I would like everyone in the Emergent Conversation to ask yourselves when was the last time you shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with someone in your sphere of influence. Or have you ever or is this something you do?"

How is it that those who resonate with the emerging mindset have been tagged as not taking evangelism seriously?

I know for myself, a conservative in an even more conservative church who has found fellows in the emergent circle, I now take evangelism more seriously for having been involved in the conversation.

Granted, the focus of evangelism has changed for me. The focus was once on "life after death". Now, I focus on life, all of it - the fullness of it, as Jesus put it. I used to teach people how to get into heaven. Now, I invite them to follow Jesus. I used to share the gospel of five steps (four laws, etc...). Now, I share the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (which is actually how Jesus defines gospel).

Have I shared the gospel with anyone? As often as I can; teaching as full of a gospel as I know there to be. And I think I can speak for most who are a part of the conversation by saying that the lives of all people (those following and those not yet following Jesus) and the gospel of Jesus are among the things we take most seriously.

Mike,

With all due respect, in reading about Emergent and reading things written by emergent leaders, I have not come across any description of evangelistic efforts. Help me out.

Tony,

I have a question, and it is in no way loaded. What do you make of Vanhoozer's conception of speech-act theory and the biblical text? (or Wolterstorff for that matter)

I ask b/c I haven't found - this means it might be out there and I just don't know it - anyone in the emergent conversation who has dealt with Vanhoozer specifically or speech-act theory generally.

Thanks.

if the EV doesn't issue position papers how does it help the church regain her "reclaim its place as the authoritative community of interpretation of scripture, culture, and human existence?" when will it begin to authoritatively interpret scripture? when will the modeling of that commence?
God is good
jpu

I hope that Colson and the 'emergent' folks keep talking as it is the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish.

I like the critique that Tony gives in the sense that it calls into question the standard right-wing dogma that has dominated evangelical Christianity the past 20 years.

The 'Achillees Heel' of the emergent movement is twofold:

--> It is very much borne out of a social milieu of the educated American white upper-middle class. They can talk all they want about a diverse set of experiences, but as I look at McLaren's and others experiences they are about as diverse as eating at the Outback Steakhouse vs. Carrabas (they are different in the cosmetic sense, but the chain's are still owned by the same people).

The positive part of this is that (since I work in a Fortune 50 company)... the emergent movement speaks to the disaffected left-leaning, intelligent creative person (and yes, believe it or not, Fortune 100 corporate America is littered with more lefties than righties). As such, it provides me great perspective as to what these people are thinking.

--> Given the limited, affluent background... the movement and people do not have any credibility when they talk about the poor and disaffected (just as the current liberal social justice policies really no longer speak to the truly disenfranchised). I have come from a very poor background and I have climbed classes. The homosexual or lesbian priest as discrimination victim carries about as much credibility to me as John Kerry had claiming he was pro-military. Most African-Americans see that whole picture for what it is.. very wealthy mostly white folk who have completely swallowed radical individualism and think that they can rewrite the rules of culture around their lifestyles.

As stated before, to remain true to Christ, the emergent movement must gain inspiration from Scripture and the great Christian tradition (which I believe is remarkably consistent). It must avoid swallowing the lies of the left just as much as it claims not to believe the right.

My frustration with emergent continues to be very simple. I still have no idea what anybody in the movement really believes. The article states, "What Colson's writing has in fact betrayed over the last couple of years is that he knows very little about the emerging church."

Of course! Emergent folks never say anything definitive, so how can anyone know anything about the emerging church? It is one big nebulous cloud of "conversation" using words that are so subject to interpretation that they really mean very little, but sound very enlightened.

I think that to say that one wants the church to be the "authoritative community of interpretation" and on the other to be unwilling to make any clear statement about critical issues of the day is rather foolish.

But when Colson, Schaeffer and others talk about "true truth", they do not mean "their onw interpretation". They simply mean that "If Christ be not raised, we are to be the most pitied". They mean that "we believe in One God" means "We believe in One God". They simply mean that biblical condemnations of murder, theft, adultery, homosexuality, which have been authoritatively interpreted by the church for twenty centuries as meaning pretty much what the words say, need not "discussed" or "deconstructed" according to a set of philosophical assumptions that have only recently gained ground.

All this condemnation of the gnat modernist influence while swallowing the camel postmodern skepticism about language seems to me to be a case of the blind leading the blind. I'm with Colson.

Tony and Chuck have the same Bible and the emerging community and traditional evangelicalism have the same Bible. It seems to me that the emerging folks are willing to confess that their interpretations and views and opinions and doctrinal understandings are not equal to the authority of the Bible itself. Evangelicals (the elite) write as if in defending their doctrinal understandings and expressions they are actually defending the Bible itself. Isn't there a problem with identifying our truly human and therefore finite codifications of the Bible's teachings with the Bible itself? Some of the elite Reformers died believing the world was flat. Is that part of the Reformation faith? Why is that not defended as well as the penal substitutionary atonement theory?

I understand and am sypathetic to the idea that a claim such as "no truth is objectively knowable" seems overblown and postmodernly absurd. And I certainly agree that we have to be careful not to make our arguments, nor (horror of horrors!) live our lives, in a vacuum.

However, on the flip side is the concern that we pass off our particular perspective on the gospel imperitives as "the truth".

The truth is real. The truth is objective. The truth is a person. The truth is three people. The truth is in tension.

All of these statements are true. But they are all referentially true. They are not TRUTH itself.

I'm not Emergent, but I'm also not always on the same page as Colson. I appreciate some of your clarifications as I am someone who is trying to understand the Emergent movement in a fair and balanced way. While I do not think "having a doctrinal statement on penal substititution" is a requirement, what one believes about what Jesus did on the cross, objectively, is very important. You may not have a statement, but could you help me out by explaining what Jesus Christ did accomplish on the cross? Thanks.

Richard,

Check out McLaren's book, More Ready Than You Realize. Also, while I am not sure he would say he was emergent, Ken Henderson's work at off-the-map.org speaks to the issue in a way that a lot of emergent folks dig.

In response to the later posts here:

I am a huge proponent of dialog, but is a group that talks about how to best do church (ecclesiology) really effective if they have NO common theological foundation? Everybody's in?

You see, for some folks, inclusion of lesbian priests is not much different than inclusion of budhists, animists, or atheists. I say this not to be cruel, but to make clear that some folks think that a practicing homosexual can't be "reading the same Bible" as they are. In other words, for those folks, none the aforementioned people have any business reforming the church.

Moreover, inclusion of any member--be it a lesbian priest or a conservative fundamentalist--is inherently a theological statement. The members of a group form its identity--and isn't this exactly what Emergents argue about communities in the first place?

I applaud Tony, Brian McLaren and others for holding the door open to discussion when so many are trying to blow it shut--but if "dialog" is really the core tenet of the Emergent Village, then everyone's a part of the Village, regardless of their theology, or lack thereof. While it's a great model for reaching the lost--some guy named Jesus welcomed sinners, or so I hear--it undermines the Emergent Village's credibility as a Spirit-led voice for renewal.

Will the Emergent movement ever come to a point where it will definitively address important social issues such as homosexuality? Tony Jones wants "to provoke robust and respectful dialogue around issues that matter." Surely, Scripture speaks to issues and clearly defines many social concerns modern Americans face. Why, then, must we dialogue about them?

As a member of the Bahai Faith I like to frequent a certain emerging church in Grandville MI. I appreciate how they teach a "first century Jesus" and not the one invented by Constantine (then followed up by the likes of Augustine, Luther, etc).
(please forgive me if this sounds prideful)..It seems that traditional Christians are finally discovering what we followers of Baha'u'llah have been taught for centuries. What the great teacher Jesus had to say was firstly for his generation, however some of what he taught is still applicable for us today. He was a great man. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

"Some of the elite Reformers died believing the world was flat. Is that part of the Reformation faith?"
-John Frye-

Actually, that is a popular myth.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia...

"Jeffrey Russell, a professor of history at Santa Barbara who has written widely on medieval religion, heresy and witchcraft, explored the issue in Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Russell claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilisation, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Today essentially all professional mediaevalists agree with Russell that the "mediaeval flat Earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat earthers" were the exception."

why is it that so many are looking for definitive answers from emergent? if you don't like emergent, there are thousands of groups willing to give you those definitive answers, definitively! Emergent, i believe, recognizes that truth exists (if i'm wrong..well...so be it) but i have yet to read some nihilistic epistemological statement like "we can never know truth" from emergent leaders (again, so be it). That we encounter the truth in the person of Christ and in the Trinity is a great thing. The emergent folk are trying to figure out in conversation how that truth should be applied, what it looks like, etc.

Why, and i ask this honestly, without provocation, must we cling to the vestiges of modernity in order to aprehend truth? why is it that only those enlightenment thinkers are able to understand truth, and a conversation about the nature of truth and how it may be aprehended is viewed with scorn and derision? postmodernity is a reality. It is not Christian. Modernity is a reality. It is not Christian. What the two are, imo, are vehicles by which we may discover, aprehend, and in turn use to propagate the truth of God in Christ, reconciling the world to Godself.

Disagree? that's ok. because we're having a conversation.

Maybe it's just me but it seems a lot of people are missing something.

The necessity of the Holy Spirit.

1) Yes, truth is truth, like Colson said. Regardless of who believes it. God is real. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

2) Yes, truth is relational, and subjective IN A SENSE. The only way to experience it is to have it in you. It is NOT about community interpretation.

Communication from person to person is only a gateway to one opening up to God and the human conscience (that God created). THAT is what resolves this matter. I wouldn't call truth relational. That is just the conduit. Truth (GOD) comes through relationship into the human heart....and provides to us DIRECT CONTACT with the only objective source of all truth and knowledge.

How else is one to know that one is correct? Because "the majority agrees with him"? Sorry. Doesn't cut it.

I think Mike provides a valuable point... in opposition to the emergent movement. If all we're doing as Christians is dialoging with others but really only reaffirming what non-Christians already believe, then really what is it really all about?

Jesus wasn't only a great man. He was God incarnate... come to earth. This isn't a construct of the Constantanian church.

Emergent folks who do not have a solid ground in basic Christian theology risk selling out the faith that has stood 2000 years to the individualistic, true is only what matters to me folks.

I think one of the things that more conservative Christians (like myself) find frustrating about the Emergent Church is that we want to engage them in conversation, but feel like the conversation always leads in circles.

The values of the Emergent Church, as I understand them, place the focus on conversation not as the means to an end, but as an end in itself. The idea is that conversation is not just for discovering truth, but for connecting with people in a meaningful way, regardless of whether their ideas are similar or different.

There is obviously value in this way of thinking and some intellectual-type evangelicals would do well to learn from the Emergent Church in this. However, there comes a point in the relationship, after connection has been made and relationship has been built, when I want to know what you really think about things. But it is at that point that the Emergent Church seems to say "Let's just continue our conversation without needing to put our ideas into boxes". It's not because I disagree with members of the Emergent Church that I find them frustrating; it's that I want to be able to agree with them as much as possible, but can't seem to get a clear answer about what they think.

Mike,

Some of what Jesus taught is still applicable for us today? How about ALL that Jesus taught is applicable to us today.

We talk about not having a theological statement or a specific creed. Creeds divide us, and that is not what an emergent wants. We want to have active conversation with the homosexual, the budhist, the hindu. We must be able to speak to them in love, not in condemnation. This is why I am an emergent.

Someone above said earlier, "To state a position once and for all is to exclude those who might have something else to add to the conversation." Is this statement consistent with the philosophy of the EV? Does the conversation matter more than truth does? Why does my absolute belief exclude somebody else from this conversation? Is there nothing that we can say is absolutely true? How much of what I believe do I have to leave open for debate before I quit feeling looked down on by the EV because of my quaint, narrow-minded philosophy?

Tim - there's a difference between asking what I think on a particular subject, and asking what "emergents" think on a given subject. I'm happy to share my perspectives all day long. But I'm not going to pretend I have the authority to speak for thousands of folks and identify what they also believe on those things. Here's where folks are talking past each other. Those of us who are engaged in this conversation believe things, and believe them quite passionately (in most cases). So ask what I think, or what Tony thinks, or what Mike thinks, or whoever, and we'll no doubt tell you straight up. But don't ask me what "emergents" think. That's like asking what Americans think about an issue. It's too broad a category. You'll find some things on which we're primarily in agreement. I've never heard anyone deny the deity of Christ, the physical resurrection, atonement for sins - basically, the historical creedal affirmations. You'll get virtually unanimous agreement on those kinds of questions. But there are a lot of other things on which I'm not going to presume to speak for others, and I'm not sure why that can't be respected.

I don't consider myself emergent, but I do find myself jibing with a lot of what McLaren, et.al., have had to say about learning to listen to each other's points of view in honest conversation. I've found my own faith journey strengthened by that kind of learning and listening; I've learned to depend on God's Spirit to help me more closely discern truth from error.
That is the key thing in life with God: listening to what He might be saying, even if you disagree with the person He might be saying it through. This means setting aside personal opinion, and growing in knowledge of His Word and character. As I do, I become more able to find what He's really saying, and respond to it, and less to whatever opinions are being presented. This isn't easy, granted, but it's oh-so-worth-it.

1) Tony Jones may be making a number of simple philosophical mistakes. While it is difficult to discern what his view actually is, he seems to be confusing the nature of truth with how humans discover and communicate truth. Of course humans can only dicover or talk about truth in human ways - but that claim is quite trivial.

2)Perhaps Colson's position can be stated with more clarity and rigour. Truth "happens" when our beliefs match up in the right way with reality. That's a rough and ready defintion, but the key point seems to be that truth is a relationship between propositions and mental states, and the world. Outside the avant garde, and cross culturally, this is what most people mean by truth.

3) We know what it is like to find out that we have a true belief, but that does not mean we have experienced truth. Truth is merely a value that attaches to certain propositions or mental states.

4) Truth attaches to more than propositions - propositions are limited by human language. I cannot even describe the smell of coffee in a propostion. I do have a clear ideas that cannot be clearly expressed in propositions that are either true or false. Either I have experienced God's grace or I haven't. Either I have interpreted my experience correctly, or I have not.

5) We clearly have uninterpreted beliefs and experiences- I am experiencing all kinds of qualities right now that I'm not interpreting. I cannot even DESCRIBE the smell of my caramel latte, never mind interpret it. I still know what the experience is like, even if I can't capture it in a proposition.

6) Furthermore babies, chickens and dogs all seem to have true beliefs - what community or process of interpretation makes them true?

7) There are many true propositions about the world and it's past that have yet to be discovered. What makes them true?

8) Be careful not to mistake "I am the Truth" or "What is truth?" as positions in a 20th century philosophical debate within analytical philosophy.

I’ve tried several times to get this message through – I’ll give it one more go.

1) Tony Jones may be making a number of simple philosophical mistakes. While it is difficult to discern what his view actually is, he seems to be confusing the nature of truth with how humans discover and communicate truth. Of course humans can only discover or talk about truth in human ways - but that claim is quite trivial.

2) Perhaps Colson's position can be stated with more clarity and rigour. Truth "happens" when our beliefs match up in the right way with reality. That's a rough and ready definition, but the key point seems to be that truth is a relationship between propositions and mental states, and the world. Outside the avant garde, and cross culturally, this is what most people mean by truth.

3) We know what it is like to find out that we have a true belief, but that does not mean we have experienced truth. Truth is merely a value that attaches to certain propositions or mental states.

4) Truth attaches to more than propositions - propositions are limited by human language. I cannot even describe the smell of coffee in a proposition. I do have clear ideas that cannot be clearly expressed in propositions that are either true or false. Either I have experienced God's grace or I haven't. Either I have interpreted my experience correctly, or I have not.

5) We clearly have un-interpreted beliefs and experiences- I am experiencing all kinds of qualities right now that I'm not interpreting. I cannot even DESCRIBE the smell of my caramel latte, never mind interpret it. I still know what the experience is like, even if I can't capture it in a proposition.

6) Furthermore babies, chickens and dogs all seem to have true beliefs - what community or process of interpretation makes them true?

7) There are many true propositions about the world and it's past that have yet to be discovered. What makes them true?

8) Be careful not to mistake "I am the Truth" or "What is truth?" as positions in a 20th century philosophical debate within analytical philosophy.

Nate, Dan and Nathan Woodward seem to have summed up the difficulties with Tony Jones' species of Emergentism. To summarise:
1) It seems to be an upper middle class movement- you need to have enough education and leisure time to read Stanley Fish and NT Wright. By it's very nature, the postmodern Emergent Church attracts a rather refined clientele.
(2) Conversation, in this Emergent community, becomes a means of inclusiveness, not a means to reach truth. The conversation by definition can go nowhere - it becomes an end in itself.
3) However, to have conversation, certain rules must first be fixed - civilty, understanding, patience. So Emergents find themselves in a rather embarrassing situation. They can reach definitive conclusions about what is permitted in an inclusive conversation. However they cannot reach definitive conclusions about the doctrine of Hell, or the permissability of homosexuality. This seems inconsistent.
4) The philosophy they are supporting is past it's sell-by date in the academy. Jacques Derrida's obituaries made that very clear. I pointed out a few of the many, many philosophical diffculties with Tony's position earlier. His thinking on truth is a mess, to be quite frank.

These are all subtle, but substantive points. Nate, Dan, Nathan Woodward and I have taken some time to spell them out. My bet is that we will be ignored, insulted or, at best, misrepresented. I don't believe Emergents like Brian or Tony have answers to these objections.

Wow. It is really amazing how much time can get wasted picking at one another's words, and trying to prove that "my outlook" is the right one. We should be loving God, and loving our neighbor. I just hope we aren't wasting too much time by reading too many blogs, and aren't out in the world being ambassadors for Christ.

While truth is within the possession of the authority of the interpretive community that interpretive community must be consistent with what has "always, everywhere and at all times been believed." And while St Vincent of Lerins (from whom the quote comes) suggested that there is room for progress in revelation it can only proceed according to its kind. One of the thinks to keep in mind is that we participate in the universal church to the degree that we participate in the mind of the Holy Spirit as it has been revealed across the particularites of time, culture, community and power structures. Where there is a common mind in spite of these we are in accord with the whole and participate in the divine economy of God, where we diverge from this participation we are suspect at best and heretical at worst. The concern over Emergent is that it is suspect at best as it evidences more in common with the present age and perhaps seems less concerned with participation in the universal church throughout the ages.

Tony's entire critique of Colson is absurd. If he denies the reality of objective truth, then he has lost his ability to use words and language to critique Colson. In other words, Tony uses objective truth to contend that truth is a subject communal experience. He violates his own philosophy in order to maintain it. We call this absurd.

Furthermore, the church is not the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Only the Holy Spirit speaking through the objective words of the Bible can bind a man’s conscience. And because man is made in God’s image, we have the ability to know truth. This has been the classic Christian position on epistemology, and yes, St. Augustine taught that.

It seems to me that when Colson says “Truth is truth,” he means the same thing as when God said to Moses: “I AM.” That is: reality is out there, and it is one way. Graham Veale is dead on about truth being a property of propositions; I would add, not of experiences or relationships. Experiences themselves cannot be true or false—only propositions describing those experiences can be true or false.

If we say we have a relationship with truth, I think what we mean is that we have a relationship with Reality—God. “Truth” is just a moniker for the correct relationship between propositions and reality.

When Jesus says “I am the truth,” I hear him saying “I am the correct representation of reality”—that is, God. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus—the person, who is himself the correct representation of God.

All this to say that if our use of language were clearer, more careful and more uniform, I think we would avoid much of our misunderstanding of one another. “Truth” can be a foggy notion if we’re not clear exactly how we mean to use it.

"It seems to be an upper middle class movement- you need to have enough education and leisure time to read Stanley Fish and NT Wright. By it's very nature, the postmodern Emergent Church attracts a rather refined clientele."

Well, I'm definately not upper middle class and I have not read Fish nor Wright, although I have read some McLaren. I'm not a theologian; I'm not a pastor/clergy; I don't even work in a church.

I'm an at-home mom trying to reach out to other parents and kids in the neighbourhood. I find the "emerging" conversation very helpful in understanding the postmodern generation.

Just some of my thoughts.

Richard Dennis Miller,
Having wiped the egg off my face about the "flat earth" comment, I, in my haste, gave the wrong information. The Reformers were adamantly against the concept that the sun was the center of our solar system, and not the earth. Is THAT part of the Reformation faith we need to defend?
Both Luther and Calvin argued from Scripture (*sola scriptura*) to defend the faith about the issue.

It seems to me that part of the discussion here is how we perceive truth. Moderns, in general, perceive truth as a set of facts based on empirical evidence. Post-moderns, in general, perceive truth on a relational, experiential basis. However, our perception of truth as Christians begins with the foundation, not of scientific fact, or in our own experience, but in the revelelation of the personhood of God/Jesus as truth incarnate.
What I hear from the emergent church that I appreciate is this element of living out incarnational truth & the presence of Jesus within the midst of the world in which we live, rather than creating our own subculture of church, and then trying to get people to join by persuading them of the facts.
The former approach does not do away with evangelism - it literally takes the presence of Jesus into the midst of the community activities, events, etc and demonstrates it in tangible actions--thus initiating a "crisis of belief" and a point of interaction for those in the larger community. It chooses to live in the tension of not answering all the lifestyle do's & don'ts while demonstrating a life that is profoundly changed. And there is ample evidence in the gospels that Jesus chose to heal & minister without needing to verbablly challenge everyone's lifestyle. His actions spoke far more volumes. Indeed his verbal challenges were directed far more so at the religious (who had seemingly the right lifestyles) than at those who didn't.

I find in the Bible that Paul concluded that even natural revelation was enough to show humanity the true character of God: "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made" (Rom. 1:20). I find Paul saying that the real problem isn't that we can't know but that we do not wish to know God. I worry about a picture of a God Who simply can't make Himself understood; and in the end, much of our "What is truth?" talk seems to be simply saying that very thing. If God can present truth and if the Bible is His truth, then the question is answered. The question remains open only if either God cannot present truth or if the Bible isn't really His truth.

I am an older conservative Christian, I read a lot of Christian material, but am not really into intellectual pursuit. I believe the Bible is the word of God & am happy to talk to anybody about the truth it presents. Even happy to talk to people of other faiths without condemning them...but never to leave them with the impression that we are all on the same track!

I find myself bemused by a movement that is so slippery that you can never quite get hold of what it is saying...much conversation...many liberal or mystical bed fellows...no certainty.
Is there any consensus on the place of scripture? What is the objective of this movement / process?

Does it have any bottom line believe...is it saying we have core doctrine wrong. What message can we offer the world with certainty today...for it is surely the day of salvation!

McDLT -

Obviously, you do have reading time, and time to write a blog - and there's nothing wrong with this. But you are the sort of person who typically gets attracted to Emergentism.
I teach Religious Education at a High School, in Armagh, Ireland. I find that students from every social income, and at every level of Academic ability, find Postmodern descriptions of truth odd.
When I deal with university students the picture changes - a little. Art and English students are more open to strange defintions of Truth. This is why I find philosophical versions of Emergentism unhelpful.

Grant Galpin - our perception of truth is irrelevant. Our perception needs to be critqued and then corrected - that's what philosophy is for. To say that God's revelation is true because it is Truth is a circular defintion. It doesn't really tell us anything of value, other than we really, really believe it, and really, really think that it's important.

What troubles me about the emergent church is its seeming pride and conviction about having no convictions.......? After reading some of Mclaren's books and attending a conference he led explaining emergent, I wondered what his point was, except to do all you can to not have one. Truth is not some elusive, philosophical abstract we are to fear or somehow avoid at all cost. Truth is Jesus. You want to find truth - study the life of Jesus. He said so in John 14 -I myself am the way, the truth, and the life versus a way, a truth, and a life. But apparently to make such a dogmatic statement is offensive, inappropriate, and "old fashioned." When I first heard about the emergent church, I was excited to learn about a new approach to use in encouraging a certain segment of my church connect with its peers. But instead I found a rudderless, passive aggressive community that seemingly goes out of its way to say nothing of substance. I found it very frustrating. I am going to continue to investigate the perspective of the emergent church. While I appreciate the cultural awareness in the group and the emphasis on relationships, I will proceed with caution and suggest others do the same.

Tony says; “And isn't this what the church is, or at least should be: an authoritative community of interpretation?” Who says this is what the church should be and where has the community being the “Interpretive Authority” actually been a good thing in history?

For example, I spent 11 years as missionary and many of those years were spent working with White Power Skinheads. Most of these young people caught in this community used their community to interpret truth (from the bible) and to justify their hatred of non-white races. Every interpretive community needs a standard that is objective or we create backdoor relativism. History is filled with abuse when the “community” is the interpretive authority. Without objective truth it really becomes might makes right, see the history of Islam, the Crusades, the Inquisition and several dozen other communal abuses of truth.

Where does the EV community get is authority to interpret? Without an objective truth what keeps the community from abusing power or just plain getting it wrong? Jesus did not tell us that objective truth was not knowable, but that it would never pass away. He did not affirm His first century communities’ ability to interpret truth but challenged it, from the scriptures.

Having just read Colson's article, I really don't see much tension here. Compared to his original missive to McLaren, it's almost as though Chuck has conceded a number of points, while remaining solid on positions that seem “generally accepted” by all,

e.g. “…I recognize that the emerging church is trying to engage the Postmodern mindset as Paul did at Mars Hill.”

In his 2003 CT column, Chuck all but denied Postmodernism as a valid cultural phenomenon (“…the culture has figured out that [postmodernism] is a dead end.”) Now, he not only recognizes its validity, but compares Paul’s Mars Hill engagement to today’s emerging conversations. Wow.

Chuck rightly points out that Paul didn’t lambaste the cultures gathered on Mars Hill, but simply and compassionately presented Jesus as truth – in dialogue that was culturally relevant. Isn't that what we ALL long for?

“The god who made the world and everything in it…is not served by human hands. The divine being is [not] an image made by man’s design and skill.” (Paul on Mars Hill, NIV)

I'm by no means an expert, but what I was taught in seminary is that exegesis and interpretation are two separate tasks. Exegesis is essentially determining what the truth is that the Bible is telling us and interpretation is the way that truth applies to the lives (shaped by culture) of the reader/listener. Although we are imperfect people, we should all strive to discover the actual truth of the Bible through exegesis, then we figure out how it applies to our lives. It seems to me that the emergent church movement has a tendency to skip the exegesis and go straight to interpretation - trying to figure out what the Bible has to say for them, without struggling to figure out what the truth is that then needs to be applied to their lives. Although we have imperfect understandings of God, He is still only one God and He is who He is. God either thinks that same-sex romantic relationships are less than ideal or He doesn't care if we enter into heterosexual or homosexual romances. He cannot hold both positions. Beyond our attempts at exegesis and interpretation, God is an actual person with strong opinions about a lot of issues that concern us. Although at times, it may be difficult to figure out what those opinions are, it is still important, if we are attempting to draw into deeper relationships with Him, that we try to know Him and know what He thinks about things. It just seems oxymoronic to me to focus on a relationship with God and not be passionately interested in what He thinks about things.

I have appreciated learning from the emergent church community through discussions, conferences, and blogs. It is interesting to see Tony Jones so strongly emphasize the "conversation" aspect of the EC ... an aspect that is not at the forefront of others' minds, in my experience. It seems to confirm that the EC is too broad to be defined narrowly, whether as denomination, conversation, movement, etc.

But there is a concern about limiting the EC - or any other "movement", for that matter - to mere conversation. At some point, that conversation needs to spark action; after all, without action, there is no movement! For action to happen, there must be at least some agreement on what that action ought to be, what direction it ought to take. A co-worker put an Irish saying on her desk this week that perhaps Tony ought to consider: "You'll never plough a field by turning it over in your mind." Many churches that would be considered part of the EC community are moving forward, and for that I thank God.

...if our use of language were clearer, more careful and more uniform, I think we would avoid much of our misunderstanding of one another. “Truth” can be a foggy notion if we’re not clear exactly how we mean to use it.

I agree with Mark that we need clearer language. We can thank the parents of emergent for loss of word meaning. Evangelical had a considerably different meaning 30-60 years ago than it does today. Christian has always been confusing because it just means you believe in Christ. So does the devil. Other words have changed over the years; gay, suck, bad, etc. My students as young as 4th grade know double entendre. Karl Marx suggests gradually changing the meaning of words in a language in order to change the way people think. Just a funny, in agriculture, we put pre-emergent on the ground to keep weeds from popping up.

"Is it true because, as Karl Barth might say, God's revelatory action that breaks into our space-time continuum?"
At least get the syntax correct before wading in to a discussion of "Truth". I hear more than a little of Pilate's response to Jesus regarding what the truth miht be considered to be.

i wonder - if we were discussing whether God is "real" rather than whether God is "true" . . . then we might not be tying ourselves in knots trying to explain it to each other.

I've gained a lot from reading those who've responded to this blog. Thanks for taking the time to write down your thoughts, folks. I hope I've made a useful contribution myself.
1) Leoskeo's thoughts are always helpful. I think his latest post makes an excellent observation - that Tony's brand of Emergent philosophy may actually hinder our ability to communicate with large sections of society. This would be my experience as a High School teacher - and remember, I have the advantage of being able to examine my audience, so I can study their thinking in some depth; and my students have to study the nature of truth as part of their GCSE Religious Education syllabus.
2) Fr. Matt Mirabile also makes an excellent point when he says that Emergents, as Tony describes them, may separate our thinking from that of the universal church throughout the age.
3) I would add their penchant for replacing prooftexting for exegesis would shame many fundamentalists.
4) It's difficult to escape the conclusion that Emergentism as a PHILOSOPHY is neither theoretically illuminating, nor practically useful. I think emergent Church PRACTICES need to be examined one at a time, but probably will
New Testament teaching more accurately than many evangelicals suspect.

Seeking the truth is just giving everyone the "Grace to Grow" as we are all emerging from the church culture of our past, the world culture of our present, or a combination of both.

I am new to this conversation and only read Brian's Book "A generous Orthodoxy" a few months ago. However, I am mystified after reading these posts, with such informed and erudite contributions, by how few references there are to the Catholic Church as an interpretive community. From what I have read in the Catechism, enyciclicals from the last 40 years, and other writings going back centuries, this conversation is not new to the Church. As believers in "the way" we have had and will have a challenge to both understand and communicate the love of God to a lost world. Many, many good points have been made, and this thinking and discussing is important to the Church, but at some point it is simply intellectual tail-chasing. The great mystery is, somehow, I believe Christ desired that we be unified, so we can ACT with love and compassion in a world that so desperately needs love, not Truth. Our love and actions must be based on Truth, I understand, or we risk following our own vanity. We can find this truth on our own, or in a community. Which community we pick (or picks us) becomes a very important "decision."

The radical individualism espoused by almost all americans today, Christian and otherwise, is the real enemy of loving, Christian action. We seek our own truth and give our allegiance very reluctantly to any institution. An understandably prudent position, but one which will always divide and weaken our witness to the world.

How can we know if our interpretation of Scripture is Spirit-inspired unless we test them in the community of faith? This is how the NT canon--and how the historic creeds--came to be. How else do we critique and correct interpretations like those of Bahai-member Mike? How else can we test our own interpretations?

This discussion has made it clearer than ever to me that "Emergent" is at least as vague a term as "Evangelical," if not more so. Carl says he is an emergent because "Creeds divide people," though I know many who consider themselves part of the emergent conversation find real value and deep meaning in the creeds.

ML wrote, "It seems to me that the emergent church movement has a tendency to skip the exegesis and go straight to interpretation . . ." I think it's more like there's a tendency to integrate the exegesis and the interpretation, rather than to divide them neatly. This comes out of a more dynamic view than held by many others of scripture and our relationship to it. In my own church (Cedar Ridge Community Church, one of the better known churches often considered part of the EC movement), I don't see the exegesis being skipped.

I think that Tony deserves thanks for speaking with candour and intergrity, and for taking the time to articulate his position in writing. I would be very surprised if Carson and Colson were offended. If he read my comments, I hope I have not offended him. I think courtesy demands that a rigorous reply is given to those sating controversial positions.

On the point of those who want Jesus over doctrine, remember, people have espoused lots of versions of Jesus over the centuries, and thus your Christology (doctrinal reflections) will come up whether you like it or not.

Is the Jesus to whom you relate:

the Nicene/Chalcedonian Jesus?
the Arian Jesus?
the Nestorian Jesus? (see "Last Temptation of Christ" for a vivid depiction of this one)
the Docetic Jesus?
the Dan Brown Jesus? (just a man, till that pesky Constantine came along)

And so forth. So, doctrinal formulations, whether we like them or not, get pressed upon us when we start to consider which Jesus is worth relating to.

Bob Smietana's comment on 5/26 is wrong. Ecclesiology is not about "how we do church" but how we define what it is/is not. The "emergent church" is indeed rather interested in this subject, though apparently without a lot of well-grounded study or insight. Ecclesiology is a big problem generally speaking for Evangelicals and most Protestants. Noll, Neuhaus, and others have been noticing this and seeing it as an emerging crisis point. That is all very true. The EC (and anyone else) can easily perceive that the conservative protestant and evangelical world is on extremely rickety ecclesiological foundations. The EC response however seems to embrace ricketyness in a crypto-universalistic notion of the church. (Ecclesiology and soteriology being closely related.)

If the Truth of Jesus is found at the end of an earthly funnel, why does anyone really care about how one finds oneself in the funnel? Would Jesus really care?

All I see Tony and the rest of the emergent folks doing is attempt to stand on shifting sand while saying "what sand?" Tony, you contradict yourself.

You condemn Colson for his stance on truth and "interpretation." yet you are so absolute on your view of truth. You are dead certain that truth is relative and is related to a person's worldview, making you an absolutist, even more than a modernist (which by the way is something that true Christians stand against, I for one am not a modernist).

How come Colson can't have a view, but you guys can?

The emergent folks are not having a conversation. They are slinging mud at the church and yet cry foul when someone throws back a criticism. Tell us where you stand and stop being the Jello on the wall. Participate in the conversation like grown-ups.

Some of postmodernity's more perceptive critics point out that it is nothing more than modernism on steroids; "hyper-modernity" some have called it.

I can't help but feel that if much of evangelicalism has been the packaging of orthodox Protestant theology and Augustinian spirituality in a modern consumer-friendly form then "emergent" Christianity is simply the further commodification of the gospel for the consumption of individuals.

This is evident to me in two aspects of the movement. First in its attempt to have community without an established authority -- either in the form of high view of Scripture or acknowledged ecclesiastical authority or both. This is more than a rank misreading of human nature (which it is). The emergents do indeed see what the previous generation of evangelicals failed to see: that spirituality and community go together. But by trying to create communities without any doctrinal standards (not ones with any real teeth anyway) and a relunctance to enforce ethical ones (homosexuality) they've made community into yet another commodity that churches provide on condition of the individual's comfort and preference. This is literally more of the same.

The second area is in emergent's use of the flotsam and jetsam of Christian tradition: using incense, practices like Lectio Divina etc. A lot of stuff is held up for use and emulation from before the Reformation or before the 1054 split. As far as that goes, it's fine, but what emergents blithely ignore is that those practices developed in a church ecology where true doctrine mattered and church authority meant something (not always for the good either). This is the commodification of tradition itself (similar to the false authenticity people feel listening to the "O Brother Where Art Thou" soundtrack utterly disconnected from the actual cultures that produced the music). And don't get me started on McLaren and Walker Percy. Percy was an eccentric though devoted Roman Catholic who has a quote somewhere from the 70s or 80s that he could not understand why so many of his fellow papists were abandoning mother church and her rich heritage of Tradition and Liturgy for the Barnum and Bailey tent of evangelicalism. I suspect he'd have even less time for the emergent church.

The emergent folks do understand their generation (or at least the middle class and up white version of it) better than Colson & co. But the more and more I read of and about it, the more I'm convinced the movement is in many ways the metastasis of the tissues in evangelicalism already gone bad. The cure is not more of the disease, and a pastoral sensitivity to postmodern people married to a strong confessionalism has hardly yet been tried. But it ought to be.