DashHouse.com

there is so much but so little to interact with in here. as much as these fellas continue to state that the emergent church (whatever that is) is involved in sweeping generalizations of the rest of christendom, these 2 guys are engaged in exactly the same judgemental conversation (to employ a term that they don't hesitate to mock). These books are so unnecessary and miss-pointed. As far as I could tell in this interview, instead of being a book about Brian McLaren, this was a book about Rob Bell. And I don't really have a problem with that. I think it would be much more honest to create a book that pointedly dialogs with individuals rather than 'movements' that exist in and out and around all of our churches. I am "emering" but am still within my evangelical church family and have no immediate desire to disengage from this loving God-centered community. They are not wrong, I just have questions. That is a story so large and diverse that nobody will dare write a book about it.

Stating that the changes other people have made aren't necessary is fine as far as they may go. But why can't we all be humble enough to simply say that we don't see the need and won't implement them, without casting judgement on those see the changes and questions as elemental for their faith and community?

Thanks for opening up this conversation, Darryl.

Hi David,

I keep thinking about what Tim Keller said last year:

"We can't avoid drawing boundaries. Everyone does it, and if they say you're not doing it, then you're drawing a boundary by saying you're not doing it. But what matters is how we treat the people on the other side of the boundary."

I like these guys. They're obviously on the other side of the boundary from the emerging church, but I like their attitudes. I don't know if it came through in the interview, but they're winsome and they really like the people they're talking about.

I think the book advances the conversation actually, because it's the first one that seems to open up dialog. But I could also be hopelessly naive. Time will tell.

Thanks for the comment, David.

hey Darryl - thanks for doing this. I'm not sure how far they go in this book, but I am getting so tired of the labels...
I agree, David - talking about the emerging church as a movement just labels those of us who are explorers. Someone wanted to meet with me the other day, but wanted to keep it quiet in case his superiors thought he was "going emergent" (whatever that means- apparently I have a reputation - must be the Mac and the soulpatch).

Admitting that the continuum upon which we can find ourselves in this "emerging thing" is extremely broad and complex will help us, I think...

Anyways - keep talking.

"Admitting that the continuum upon which we can find ourselves in this 'emerging thing' is extremely broad and complex will help us, I think..."

Well said, Tim.

Miss hanging out with you by the way, and looking for chocolate bars for our wives.

I had a lot more hope for this book after your review. And maybe I don't understand things quite, but referring to all these people, ideas, and discussions as a collective "it" is really missing things and, as tim said above, it limits how folks are able to interact with portions of these movements.

I really do not wish to have to divorce myself from my own honest investigations in order to be able to interact with the Christian community (or any community). But if resources like this have their way more lines will be drawn between folks like me and those who may otherwise be interested in working together.

Does that make sense? There is a lot of clumping going on that really limits discussion for the greater community rather than allowing folks to enter discussion. I've been guilty of it myself.

I will avoid boundaries my entire life if I have to.

by the way, i watched a video on their website describing their purposes and it didn't in any way change the image that i was given in the podcast. just more us and them and veiled(and not so veiled) mocking.

I agree and disagree with David... of course, considering that I've never had the exact same perspective as someone in my entire life ;)

I also felt like the authors were making as many generalisations as the emergent church (wait what is the "emergent church" again?). I identify with a lot of things that Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell have to say. I also identify with mainline pastor, Frederick Buechner, "emerging" pastors like Mark Driscoll, and with plan-ol'evangelicals like my pastor.

I think the problem is people continously think of the emergent church as a group of people with the same beliefs, when it is actually a group of people with similar methodology.

I had no problem with what the authors were saying about the movement... If someone is generalising that the entire evangelical church is completely uninterested in serving the poor then that should be addressed. If someone's uncertainty is a product of disbelief and a lack of faith (and is the "basis" of their religion) then yes, that is a point to address. I love the methodology of the emergent thinkers, and I love that they are willing to accept the fact that we have to be aware of our inability to be certain (in a completely materialist, rational sense, not in a faith/belief sense... there is a difference).

I would also argue with the point one of them made that the emergent church is unaware of their own culture/music/etc. The awareness of it is exactly why I think I have limitations and I think it is why emergent people don't want to be thrown out of the realm of the evangelical/conservative tradition into a mainline liberal one. My thinking comes out of that tradition and I would never want to be viewed as opposed to it. I need other people and other people's ideas precisely because of the limitations of my culture.

In the end, I think it is kind of ironic that the authors' claim they aren't emergent... If they are entering into the dialogue then they are engaging in emergent conversation, and I don't personally seem them as a "them," but as another voice discussing who God is, the Church, and what it means to believe in and follow Christ. After reading their book, I'm sure I'll both agree and disagree at times, and maybe even change my mind about some things.

-Sarah Lynne

Hey David:

Haven't watched that video yet. I'll try to over the next couple of days.

The authors talked about the difficulty of defining or categorizing the emerging thing in their book. I don't really mind people talking about it collectively as long as they're able to tell the difference between, say, Don Miller and Doug Pagitt.

It hit me the other week how generally we think modernism was too individualistic, yet we still struggle with being defined collectively. Not sure I've unpacked that yet. Labels always fall apart but they are useful when handled carefully.

I appreciate your comments though. I'm sure their book will get lots of reaction. I still think it's a huge improvement over what's out there, and I think the mutual critique can be a good thing.