Emerging Church Threat to the Gospel

When are Southern Baptist leaders going to do more than shout from afar at those involved in the emerging church conversation? 

Baptist Press has once again added to the misinformation on the emerging church in a March 23rd article by David Roach: "Leaders Call 'Emerging Church Movement' a Threat to Gospel."  The article includes quotes from Don Carson, a series of quotes from Al Mohler's critique of Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, and quotes from Brian McLaren. 

Some of us are trying to enhance the conversation about the emerging church "movement" with thoughtfulness.  But BP (to this point) and other thinkers are trying to fill the SBC with anti-emerging noise and knee-jerk reactions as quickly as they can.  It feels like propaganda.  With every article like this published for the masses, the hope for fruitful dialogue fades.  Misinformation will need to be fixed, stereotypes will have to be dropped, and straw men will need to be put back in the corn field where they belong.

For the record, I have emailed an SBC pastor (a regular contributor to BP) about one of his articles that is heavy on judgment and without grace to some in our culture (which emerging folks are fed up with).  No response.  I have emailed and informed Russ Moore of my response to his article on the emerging church and Brian McLaren.  I know he received it, but no response. 

I'm doing all I know to do to encourage emerging SBC leaders like me to work patiently in the convention to see biblical change.  But SBC leaders are (unintentionally?) working hard to push away many in emerging generations rather than talk about the truth together. 

Listen, I don't agree with everything in the emergent conversation, or by McLaren.  But much of the emergent critique of the evangelical church is showing brilliance every time an article like this one from BP is published. 

This is a public call to Baptist Press and Southern Baptists, coming from a young Southern Baptist pastor, to talk about the emerging church with some young SBC leaders.  We certainly need to hear you, but you also need to hear us.  I think a little dialogue will show that it's actually possible to engage in the emerging church conversation and be a committed Southern Baptist at the same time.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Good words man. I have more questions than opinions on the SBC's treatment of both young emerging leaders and (not necessarily connected) the emerging church. I get the feeling the SBC is like a dysfunctional family (welcome to America) with parents who do not know their kids and don't want to know their kid's friends. They just want them to go to church, remain virgins until they marry and vote Republican. In other words, they don't listen very well. Not to us (inside) or others (outside).

I am frustrated at the lack of interest to actually dialogue with "outsiders" and engage their own young, emerging leadership. They wonder why so many are bailing out?

[Wes]

Steve...thank you...standing with you and for you...Wes

[Mike]

Well said, Steve.
Peace.

[John]

Steve... I don't think it's necessarily the SBC that is against the "emergent movement", although they might be. David Roach is a reporter for Southern. He writes in "towers". His reporting will never be critical of anything Mohler or Moore say.

[Joe Thorn]

I hope some guys like Stetzer can appreciate the ec where it's good. But all of the commentary I have read from SBC leadership is negative toward it.

[Steve McCoy]

Yeah John, I'm sure some are open. But in leadership, those with "SBC voices" are not speaking for it by any means. Thanks for the info on Roach. I didn't know he was at Southern. I remember when Russ Moore used to write for BP as a Southernite. :) Ah the good ol' days.

I think Joe's right on Stetzer. I believe he would be sympathetic. I emailed him about the discussion of his article on the emerging sbc leaders site. Haven't heard back.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes and Mike, thanks for the encouragement.

[tim etherington]

I remember Carson making a snide remark about EC in class last term. Didn't fill it out or explain, just said something about movements like these dying out quickly.

I have concerns about the EC. I am worried about what might be left behind in all that "post" language that is being use. I am a bit leery of some of the stuff that is being brought in. But I am trying to understand it before I critique it. I have a lot of sympathy for what the EC (seems to me) to stand for. I think evangelicalism has bought capitalism, Republicanism, and the American Way hook, line, and sinker and we don't even know it. We're not sojourners in a foreign land looking for a city who's builder is God. We seem in many way to have traded tent pegs for brick and mortar.

For me the jury is still out on the EC. I'm willing to give it a chance to develop for a while. I'm glad there are thoughtful pastors like you who are trying to make sense of it all. Hang on to what is good. Don't let the EC embrace everything so that nothing makes sense. Be very weary of the status quo culturally but don't budge on the essential doctrines. Fight the good fight and don't let anyone look down on you because of your (or EC's) age. Keep pluggin' brother.

[DAO]

sweet site, posts and conversation,
may we beware of spending our efforts on things God will tend to...Jesus Christ loves us and gave Himself for us! so, savor time with Christ...as pastors feed our sheep the (whole)word of God...love them...seek God's face to bring this Jesus (holistically) to others...to anyone. this isn't rocket science. isn't this in the Bible?
may God give us His wisdom not to be sidetracked.

the reason I say this is because i have spent so much time recently digging into this issue, trying to understand, analyize and set it straight. and I ought. please pray for me I would not get consumed with the latter while neglecting the former. its a real temptation for me, my brothers...

our God is worthy!
Danny

[Gerry]

Wow. I am somewhat hamstrung by this article. I have read some of McClaren's work and I agree with some and disagree with others. I tend to lean more a agreement with guys like McManus who seem to take a high view of scripture. But one thing McClaren is right about is the way we treat each other in Christendom. This article comes off as any of us who are searching through this conversation are just heretics by almost claiming us all as McClaren disiples. I am not a McClaren disciple...I am a talmidim(hebrew for disciple) of my savior Jesus Christ. I get so frustrated at these widespread accusations heaped on all of us looking to follow what God wants for His church. I sometimes think SBC leaders are so scared Billy Bob in rural USA is going to all of sudden think that Jesus isn't the only way and start praying 5 times a day to Mecca. Oh, well enough rant. BTW no matter wha, I am glad that in the last few years I have come to a place that I can really love those I disagree with.

[Steve McCoy]

Make sure you head over to the emerging SBC leaders blog for more good thoughts on this article.

[iMonk]

1) McLaren is not much of a scholar. I consider him a creation of the publishing industry, and it is a mistake to put him up against a guy like Carson. Out of his league.

2) The SBC will label anything a threat to the Gospel that isn't sbc fundamentalism. I am a threat to the Gospel. So is beer. The Yankees....well...maybe the Yankees are a threat to the Gospel, but you get my point.

3) BP is an embarassment to journalism. I am no great friend of the liberals in the SBC, but reading Baptist Press makes me long for the old days. BP hawks books, creates enemies, launders rumors and shills for the GOP (and I am a Republican.) Don't waste your email.

4) DRISCOLL should be out there speaking for emergents. But you knew that.

[Steve McCoy]

Sweet iMonk. I agree with each take. The problem is too many emergents think Driscoll is a closet (or maybe out of the closet!) fundamentalist with candles and a foul mouth. But, no doubt, I too wish he would take a more public role.

Good to have you around.

[Todd]

iMonk, what do you know of McLaren? Not much of a scholar? One thing i find is a genuine interest in continuing to learn. He taught on the University level, finds scholars who are much smarter than he to learn from, and is gentle enough to put up with the condescening crap the likes of BP puts out. so he is a publishing phenom? ever sit and listen to him in a small conference describe with some precision the sociological influencers on particular periods of religious/Christian history? what about considering a grasp for the whole fear of "emerging church" being a movement? i offered a post some time back which pointed out the lack of conversation between guys like Carson and Grenz (too late now - we will let BP produce a crass eulogy by Dockery). however, i have been in earshot of a phone call between Carson and another allegeed heretic in which Carson was dismissive of any potential conversation and the alleged heretic handled it with grace and respect. give me a small scholar with grace and you can have the arrogant scholar with derision.

[Steve McCoy]

Todd, maybe I have it wrong. But I assumed iMonk meant these are two guys coming from very different places. One the seminary writer-scholar, the other a pastor with a pastor's heart. They don't talk at the same level (not meaning higher is better and lower is worse).

That was my understanding, and I agree with that.

[Todd]

Could be I took it wrong. However, here is the quote,

1) McLaren is not much of a scholar. I consider him a creation of the publishing industry, and it is a mistake to put him up against a guy like Carson. Out of his league.

If you have heard Carson's Staley Lectures that serve as foundational to his book coming out this summer, you will find summary dismissals of a number of people with whom there has been no dialogue. We may owe some debt to Carson and even Mohler. But, it is disengenuous to be dismissive. In "Reclaiming the Center" somewhat of a straw man is mangled and all think victory has been won. What has been lost is dialoguee - just what you have created for us and we are grateful.

By the way, iMonk - I like Driscoll too. Just not sure his is the only voice needing to be heard.

[iMonk]

Todd-

Uh.......have a Coke on me. Relax.

Different academic disciplines. Different levels of academic competence. Mclaren is a really humble guy. He also makes a lot of theological/Biblical/Historical errors in his work. He has an M.A. in English. He's not the man to take on Carson, and frankly, Carson shouldn't be aiming much at him on the academic side.

Believe it or not, I wasn't promoting arrogance.

I am on my second McLaren book. IMO, he is not a first class writer. He speaks what this slice of evangelicalism wants to hear, and speaks it well. But he is no better at prose and argumentation than thousands of bloggers and pastors. Sorry I am not as big a fan as you. I am NOT questioning his character. I am just saying this isn't really the guy to lead the charge. And maybe his point is there shouldn't be a charge, and that makes him perfect for the emergent side.

Just my opinion. Please forgive me if I am offending you.

[Todd]

iMonk,

dialogue is good. i just checked my blood pressure and the coke seems to have done the trick, or was it something else ... anyway ...

i am a fan of McLaren and Willard, Calvin, Breuggemann, Luther, Newbigin, Van Til, Bosch, Edwards, Erickson ... surely you get the idea.

"the charge", as you put it is really being led by Olsen, Grenz, Franke, Breuggeman, Newbigin, Bosch and others who have influenced a pastor who is a writer. whether or not one likes his writing style is moot. try getting the average person to read some of the above. the fiction/non-fiction McLaren has used in NKOC, TSWFOI and the soon to be released final in this "trilogy" takes a conversational approach to consider ways to introduce people to think differently about life and faith. i agree it is not the stuff Carson would write but as you well point out, these two come at the subjects from divergent positions and locations. Carson coming from the acadame does not make his arguments superior nor well spoken.

my apparent defense of McLaren comes as it would for anyone who gets labeled so they are easier to dismiss. sure glad we can overcome beer-drinking, expletive using young pastors. however, when it comes to someone who calls into question the trends among evangelicals, the machine kicks into high, we find an appropriate label and thereby categorically ignore the voices calling for some kind of reformation - which originallyl was intended to be ongoing rather than monolithic.

it is interesting to me that McLaren's theology, historiography, and grasp of the biblical come under scrutiny when we can only surmise his understanding from his more popular works. on the other hand, if you have been led in worship, had discussions about these issues, sat in on conferences where he talks about the different turnings in history as they relate to life and faith - something we covered in Western Civ in college, then some of his suggestions are not as far removed good historiography. they simply come from a perspective outside the SBC seminary I graduated from twice.

now we get to, "who is the authority?", which I think is really the question. an academe (Carson)should know to do better research about a subject before dismissing it or presenting a caricature (admittedly, many in the emergent conversations have done the same and for that they too should be held accountable.

my contention in a post on my blog, is that we, those of us interested enough in the Kingdom and where God is moving [not s backhanded swipe rather a statement that there are some i have encouantered who are more interested in being right about something], would benefit from good healthy dialogue between those who are throwing the stones and those who are dodging. in the end there may be a bit of misunderstanding in both corners and our hearing/having access to these conversations would help uss in our own journey (IMO)

by the way no offense taken - sure is hard to type those sentiments in a comment ...

[andrew jones]

hi - great post

teh SBC did bring some key emerging church leaders together in 1997 to discuss these things at the NAMB HQ in Atlanta- i was there, as was chris seay, ben young, mike little. At the end, Ben and I both summarized our findings.

everyone thought it was WONDERFUL. but now our name has changed to emering church and all of a sudden we are heretics.

[andrew jones]

. . . .. ahhh . . that ended suddenly, didnt it?

but yes, 1997 was a long time ago and maybe its time again to bring in the next group.

[Steve McCoy]

Andrew, any advice on an approact to being interested in the emerging church and trying to stay in the SBC? I would appreciate any thought on this.

Great to have you on the blog.

[Kyle]

What's happenin' Big Daddy?

An unnamed mutual friend of ours was part of a meeting of SBC "under muck-mucks". These guys are not the big dogs, but they are the right hand men for the big dogs. Also in the meeting were two-well known SBC mega-church pastors. In the course of this meeting, our mystery friend was asked to summarize the EC movement. After doing so, one of the "unders" replied, "Sounds like a lot of young guys want power before its' their turn." Yup. Stunning analysis of the ongoing conversation.

More telling, was the conversation between one of the mega pastors and our friend. After describing "evangelism as a lifestyle, not a 5 min. sales pitch at the end of the sermon; size not being proof of God's presence; regaining a sense of awe, mystery and transcendence in corporate worship, etc" the mega pastor replied honestly: "We pride ourselves on being a part of the next big thing. There is no way we could do this - it goes against everything we've been telling our people for the last 20 years."

And the leadership wonders why young guys are attracted to the EC conversation as opposed to the SBC?

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the info Kyle. I'm gonna email you about some other info.

[Timothy Wright]

What really gets me about the emergent folks is that they say they are having a dialogue, when Mohler asked McLaren about his position on Homosexuality, he says it's too political. Great dialogue. He should have the balls to say what he believes and not try to cover his butt.

Tim

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, let me say a couple of things and get your response.

1. McLaren is not all of emergent, he's one guy, and everyone is shooting at right now. He is seeing a lot of people who don't really desire to dialogue with him just hoping for a position statement on an issue so they can rip him apart there too. I think I know why he's afraid to say something on a very hot issue.

2. I've seen several places where emergents have talked about homosexuality. One of them is here.

3. If you think McLaren isn't answering because he doesn't have balls, you not only miss the point, but it sounds like you're the bully looking to get McLaren outside for a fight. I wonder why he doesn't say?

4. If you think McLaren is covering his butt by not saying anything, then you don't get out much. McLaren feels anything right now but covered and protected. Notice how you have come here looking for a fight too.

5. If you think the emergent conversation is about everyone getting their "modern" position papers out and sharing them, then you REALLY don't get emergent. If emergent is monolithic anywhere it's in their frustrations with doctrinal/ethical statement Christianity that never goes beyond the statement.

6. I think the more we say "homosexuality is wrong", the harder it is to minister and love and serve and proclaim the Kingdom to homosexuals. Not because it's better to tell them they aren't sinful, but because the issue is so "political" that they will think you hate them if you separate the sin from the sinner. I think homosexuals see their "sin" as their identity.

McLaren, I believe, would much rather have guys like you angry about him for not talking than have homosexuals angry about him for saying something that doesn't show the compassion of Christ. Jesus didn't give position statements, but to sinners he loved and served and showed their sin in a thoughtful way.

Honestly Tim, I didn't try to write the above points in a stigmatizing way. I did try to say them clearly, however, just as your comment was clear. Feel free to respond.

[Timothy Wright]

On Point one. Point taken. But he in an incredibly articulate person who should be able to say what he thinks about any issue and cover all the bases.

On point threee: I am not a bully, I just want direct talk. Thats how I am. If you believe it, say. If you make a mistake, say your sorry and try again.

On point 4: You have a gift of discernment. Where I live, there is not an emergent church for 90 miles. I live in Carlisle, England. I am desperate to talk and listen to what emergent people. think, feel and what are their experience. I work with college students and listen to what they are thinking and processing. I do need to travel and meet some people. I have not come here looking for a fight, just to provoke a response and try to figure out what emergent is.

I am coming to see that Emergent, means lots and lots of stuff, maybe I am trying to figure it out.

On point 5: I REALLY don't get emergent. You are correct. Everyone is living propositionally whether they believe it or not.

You, me, every one have a position on almost everything , whether it is clearly articulated and received by those around us is another thing.

On point 6: My best friend was gay in oreintation most of his entire life. I love people, I love and totally forgive the guy who molested me. I do believe that homosexual practices are wrong but we must be committed to loving anyone with the love of Christ. I believe that Brian McLaren is articulate enough to clearly express his position on a host of things and allow others to say what they think of what he thinks.

Your right, that I was wrong to say McLaren not having the balls to say what he thinks. I have no idea why. But he is a controversial enough person to be used to it. His new book that is coming out should give him more experience in this area.

I believe that Jesus did give us position statements. Lots of them> Love your neighbor, bless those who hate you, esteem others as more important than yourself.

I really appreciate your straight way of communicating to me. Great website. I am still very confused about emergent despite reading almost every book that is out there. .

Thanks again.

Tim

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, very thoughtful response. Let me try to point out some things without making these comments longer than most of my posts.

"But he in an incredibly articulate person who should be able to say what he thinks about any issue and cover all the bases."

Hehe. I don't know how to respond. That is such a modern statement, to "cover his bases." It's not that McLaren couldn't do this, but that he won't. I think very intentionally. It's wise for the reasons I gave in my previous comment.

"I am not a bully, I just want direct talk. Thats how I am. If you believe it, say. If you make a mistake, say your sorry and try again."

Bullies rarely realize they are bullies. ;^) But I'll take your word for it.

"I have not come here looking for a fight, just to provoke a response and try to figure out what emergent is."

All you had to do was ask. No provokation needed.

"Everyone is living propositionally whether they believe it or not."

You are going to be a lot of fun to talk to, I can see that. In a sense you are right, but the issue that emergent gets very right is that we should be so much more than propositionally focused, so much so that our propositions should be under the table and our lives should be in the open. Something like that.

"You, me, every one have a position on almost everything , whether it is clearly articulated and received by those around us is another thing."

Again, having a position and feeling like it's best to articulate your position to those who are looking to judge it are two different things.

Side note: Thank you for your candor about your own issues and willingness to see when you didn't word things in the most helpful way.

"I believe that Jesus did give us position statements. Lots of them> Love your neighbor, bless those who hate you, esteem others as more important than yourself."

I don't think those are position statements. He usually shows his positions by how he lives. Actually, Jesus confounded those wanting straight answers, and at times didn't even answer his critics.

Tim, I encourage more conversation, so stick around. Good to have you here.

[Todd]

Tim, could you post the link where Mohler asks McLaren about homosexuality. I have yet to hear of this kind of dialogue. In a recent Baptist Press article they take McLaren's response to Larry King's question about homosexuality on Larry King Live and use it as a jumping off (or on) point.

[Timothy Wright]

Here is the URL.

http://www.bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=20420

[Timothy Wright]

Maybe I am a bully, but a cowardly apologetic bully who is quick to repent.

"Hehe. I don't know how to respond. That is such a modern statement, to "cover his bases." It's not that McLaren couldn't do this, but that he won't. I think very intentionally. It's wise for the reasons I gave in my previous comment."

&

"Again, having a position and feeling like it's best to articulate your position to those who are looking to judge it are two different things."

So much for dialogue. People are going to judge us no matter what we say. I would rather be judged for what I think than for people to have to guess. What gives with anyone telling us what he thinks, Do I have to know him personally before he tells me what he believes? How would that ever happen, I am in England?

What ever people say about me, or my family, Bless them anyway. I love them.

I am not talking about just homosexuality, but anything. Does dialogue have a point, or is it just emotional hugging. I could talk for hours and say nothing. I,m Irish.

Your right again, I did not need to prvoke, immature approach from my end.

As for being modern, I guess so. Whatever that means.

Tim

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, this is almost as fun as I anticipated. Thanks for your concern and thoughtfulness.

"Maybe I am a bully, but a cowardly apologetic bully who is quick to repent."

Haha. :)

"So much for dialogue. People are going to judge us no matter what we say. I would rather be judged for what I think than for people to have to guess. What gives with anyone telling us what he thinks, Do I have to know him personally before he tells me what he believes? How would that ever happen, I am in England?"

Again, I think his point is that to get on TV and start spouting propositional ethical positions like, "Homosexuality is a sin" may not be the best way to approach the issue. I think that's his point. If you want to discourage people from reading McLaren, go ahead. No one is stopping you. I do encourage you to read him if you are concerned about what he says or doesn't say so that you aren't speaking without first understanding.

I think you assume (tell me if I'm wrong) that he answers or doesn't answer based on what's best for him. I think he would say it's because his answers might end up isolating homosexuals even more than they already feel isolated.

"I am not talking about just homosexuality, but anything. Does dialogue have a point, or is it just emotional hugging. I could talk for hours and say nothing. I'm Irish."

Are you trying to pin down the essense of the conversation without actually reading some of it? Be careful not to do that. That's pretty common among critics right now.

Good thoughts.

[Timothy Wright]

Hi,

I would never discorage any one reading anything except pornography. I own 4 of his books and I have encourage people to buy his books and read anything you can of his, to understand him. I know Dave Fleming personally and have had a few good chats with him.

McLaren would make an excellent Anglican, they can talk for hours and never say anything. Ambiguity seems to be a value more important than certitude and clarity in the Emergent Community. Whatever that community is? I know that it is very hard to pin people down on things, but if I were to tell you that I am an anabaptist, except that I am a charismatic, except I am for the death penalty, and the war with Iraq, and capitalism, besides that I am 100% anabaptist.

How would you understand that within the context of what an anabaptist is?

This is fun?

Tim

[Steve McCoy]

"Ambiguity seems to be a value more important than certitude and clarity in the Emergent Community."

What have you read that shows this? Or do you get this impression from critics alone? I'm seriously interested to know.

Also, is it ambiguity that you are concerned with, or silence?

[Timothy Wright]

Most of the CD's that I heard from Emergent 2003 recorded in the UK with Steve Chalke, Brian McLaren and some other speakers were very open to everything, being inclusive was a word spoken by almost all the speakers.

Please respond to my anabaptist comment.

I know that it is very hard to pin people down on things, but if I were to tell you that I am an anabaptist, except that I am a charismatic, except I am for the death penalty, and the war with Iraq, and capitalism, besides that I am 100% anabaptist.

How would you understand that within the context of what an anabaptist is?

I enjoy silenece when I am with Jesus and friends, not when I ask a question from someone. I wondering, why doesn't he answer my question?

Tim

[Timothy Wright]

Do you want me to send you the CD's from Emergent UK 2004? Send me your address via my email and I will get them in the post next week?

Tim

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, I'm afraid that though I've tried to be helpful you still think I reside inside Brian McLaren's head and can speak for him. ;^) I really can't respond for him any more than I've done, and wish with you he would be a little more public with his positions. That's all I can say.

I don't know how to respond to your anabaptist comment. I guess I would say you are anabaptist in some areas of conviction, but stray on some issues.

[Timothy Wright]

Go to this site:

http://www.emergentvillage.com/Site/Resource/Downloads/index.htm

Download

Monday Panel Discussion, Part 2 (mp3)

Listen to it an around the 20 minute point this guy hits the nail on the head where I think Emergent is?

Tim

[Timothy Wright]

Its not about Brian its about emergent? Any way bless you. I stray because you have an idea what anabaptist say they are or think they are, but thats what I think some people say about emergent beacuse people think that they stry from what they think being a Christian is.

Do i think emergent people are straying from the gospel, maybe I don't know. I gan't get anyone to give me a straight answer. And thats my problem, I know.

Cheers

The CD offer is still open

Tim

[Roger N Overton]

Steve, this conversation is an example of what I talked about on my blog. Whether Tim is a bully or not had nothing to do with the content of his question, rather, accusing him of being a bully is a personal attack (whether true or not). Regardless of the truth of the accusation, I think it will be more fruitful for us to deal with the content of statements, questions, and arguments rather than the character of people giving them. Even if Tim is a bully I think he raised a fair question.

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, let me end on this note. Thanks for the discussion.

Everyone keeps throwing their hands in the air over emergent because we evangelicals are taught to look at something, shrink it down to it's essence, find the glaring problems, and then speak out against the problems. Emergent is a conversation that hasn't gelled yet, so it's near impossible to shrink it down, put it under the microscope, and write a paper criticizing it. It includes Catholics, universalists, Calvinists, and all sorts.

It's so hard for people to see that it doesn't have to be something concrete yet, and that's okay for now.

My take (I could be wrong): it will gel at some point and become a movement. Then it will splinter into different pieces according to more traditional divisions. But the changes it will bring to traditional structures will be crucial, which is why I think the conversation is so important now.

Why not let it be diverse for now and when the rubber hits the road let us go the ways we feel are most consistent with God's revelation?

I'll email you about the CD's. Thanks for the offer. Most generous.

[Steve McCoy]

Roger,

I said, "...it sounds like you're the bully looking to get McLaren outside for a fight."

I didn't say he was a bully, but that he SOUNDS like one. That gave him the opportunity to respond to this without it becoming personal. It wasn't personal, but about problems in the evangelical-emergent discussion: that evangelicals often try to pick a fight instead of dialogue. And guess what, Tim was very mature about the discussion. I have the utmost respect for how he discussed with me. We ended up discussing the issues without either of us taking anything personally. Read the whole thread and you will see generosity from both sides. Tim even ended by offering to send me CD's across the ocean on his nickel.

He even eventually responded and said he shouldn't have tried to provoke the conversation, but could have just asked. That's the opposite of what your comment just did.

Thanks for your attempt to do something you felt would be helpful, but we have done just fine on our own.

[Timothy Wright]

I am changing more in my life the past few years in a positive way, Brian McLaren has helped me see things so differently, I emotionally need to have things clearly defined. Not so much to attack but for me to process. My concepts of salvation have be greatly enhanced by reading Colossians Remixed and listening to Walter Bruggerman, and so may new authors. I really appreciate the conversation that I am having with you folks. I work 24/7 with English college students who are part of the emergent culture. I am trying to find my bearings with these folks in their culture.

The CD option is open to anyone who wants to hear them? send me an email with an address>

Bless you guys

Tim

"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils." -- Hector Berlioz

[Steve McCoy]

Tim, thanks again for the offer. See you around.

[Todd]

Tim,

I had read the article you referenced. Mohler and McLaren have talked only via an intermediary (someone who knows things Mohler has said about Emergent and who knows Mclaren or of McLaren and have read what McLaren has said).So, Mohler derives his infomration from either reading McLaren or someone who read Mclaren and reporteed it to him. My point is, Mohler has not had a conversation with McLaren (anywhere I can find including the BP article referenced). Consequently McLaren has not had direct questions from Mohler to answer and be "pinned down." My contention again is that what goes on in the debate over Emergent is a far cry from conversation. Carson was invited to dialogue with someone he mentions in his Staley lecutres (and am sure he will include in his upcoming book) and suggested that dialogue would not happen. Until there are willing participants, the conversation is largely one sided and contained only in books. What would evangelicals lose by engaging a conversation? Power. They control the dialogue by choosing which arenas to engage. Far better to "attack" from the distance of paper rather than exercise the interpersonal skills required to listen with an open ear. For an illustration of how closed ears respond, read David Dockerys' excuse for a eulogy in rememberance of Stanley Grenz. Dockery made a polemic out of Grenz's death by titling his piece, "When Piety is Not Enough." The irony is the implication would be that since Grenz died we might reconsider Grenz's call for a return to convertive piety because it falls way short of what it takes to get in (you pick what that means). Now, Dockery contends he did not intend to be that disengenuous, my response is then why release such a piece for publication two days after Grenz's death.