Robert Hartman: My $0.02… A large part of any discussion about the emergent church is just what is meant by “emergent”. Near as I can tell, it was intended to mean that the form of the church “emerges” from a dialog between the church and the world-as-it-is. As practiced, it sometimes seems to amount to postmodern deconstructionism, and I don’t believe the church can or should be subjected to that.

Why? Because the church is the living, breathing Body of Christ. It incarnates him in the present world. When Jesus asked “who do men say that I am” it wasn’t so that he could discover what they wanted and become that, it was in the context of clarifying who he actually was and declaring that truth to the confused world. As Christians we should do the same. If the church is to be emergent, let it be because it emerges into the world for what it IS.

P.S. I suspect an unconscious motive of the emergents is to participate in the give-and take of Jesus’ interaction with the world, but that’s another post…

My response:

Alden Swan: I think you are correct, the emergers were originally focused on form and mission, which then turned into open-source theology. However, I don’t know that even form and mission should result from such a dialog. Everything- form, theology and mission, flows from Christ. It’s like much of the emerging movement has no “back-flow valve,” so that as they reach out to the world, the world is reaching back to their theology.

Horse manure.

Bull pucky.

Hogwash.

I’ll take one Nicene Creed over a thousand emergents.