Tale of Two Emergents

The Emergent Church is no monolith, true enough. My concern has always and only been with those on the vanguard that I fear are being seduced by a culture that God intended them to transform by infiltrating and infecting it with Lewis's "good infection."

For me, four concerns form the watershed:

* The truth/knowledge equation (Does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we know it?), * The question of biblical authority (In what sense is the Bible God's communication to us?) * The cross (Did Jesus actually pay for anything or purchase anything?) * The Great Commission (Is Jesus a singular Savior, or just a first among equals?).

At the end of the day, the views of the Emergents that give me pause seem to be indistinguishable, in the main, from theological liberalism. Granted, they do differ in intellectual motivation. Liberals are driven by a modernist animus, while these Emergents by postmodern sentiments, but ideologically they both seem to end up in the same bed.

Scott Pruett's recent comment buried in a string on this blog captured perfectly the emerging tale of two "Emergent" churches.

"It seems to me that the Emergent movement is poised to split into at least two directions. One headed toward an amalgamation of theological liberalism and postmodernism. The other being a more raw, unpretentious, and informal expression of orthodox Christianity. Of course, the later is to be preferred, and so long as it is not condescending toward those who continue to appreciate (though not elevate) their liturgies and traditions, it may ultimately be a fresh wind in the body of Christ. In any case, we could certainly use less churchianity and clichéd Christianity, but for now I remain cautious of anything that self-consciously positions itself under the broad umbrella of the 'Emergent' church."