A Collective Response to Critics

A number of us have been working for a few months on a collective response to criticisms that have been made about us and Emergent.
We decided to put a document together, not for the purpose of settling all matters, but to try and put words around our hopes, and to give those who have to respond on our behalf some indication of what we are thinking on these matters.

I imagine that others would like to "sign on" to this response, if not in words then in spirit. Those listed are among the people who have been "called out" either for what they have written or said, but mostly what has been written.

Comments

[John Sloas]

A great responce. Thanks.

[DH]

One thing I forgot to mention is our focus should be on Jesus not academia. We must seperate the "wheat from the tares" when it comes to academia. I'm a big fan of the Bereans in Acts. Some (not all) of academia has done much to discredit Christ and the Gospel. I guess my observation of academia has been secular, anti-supernatual, and relativistic. (this was said not inrelation to Emergent as a whole).

[Jimmy]

This is crap. Ok, kidding. #5 is confusing. You want scholars to be in dialogue with EACH OTHER about Emergent, but not in dialogue WITH YOU about Emergent because they are not pastors? But you also hope to generate conversations with them? My question is, what is really behind this #5? What's going on or not going on between Emergent and the 'academy'?

My experience of the "academy" seems different. Before Emergent ever existed, the 'academy' was (and is) producing a great deal of teaching that in my mind clearly supports postmodern thinking. In my mind, the academy made emergent possible. Emergent is the practical outworking of past and ongoing academy work. cf. Tony J as a product of the academy. So back to my question, is there some issue with emergent leaders and the 'academy'?

[andrew]

hi doug

just checking in to see if any nasty comments had appeared on your post - i dont see any - good!! may i commend you on the bespoke taste of your discerning readers?

glad you are on the Emergent team. You are a TREE. A trunk of a tree and you give strength and support to the emerging body of Christ. (if i was charasmatic, that would be a prophetic word, but as an evangelical, consider it a 'God-invoked warm fuzzy')

[Sivin]

good stuff ... Amen too!

[lillylewin]

thanks doug! for all you do for emergent! have a great weekend, and please send belated birthday greetings to the amazing shelley! blessings! lil

[dh]

We need no overgeneralizations by all sides. Both sides are guilty of this.

[dh]

Very well done except for the parenthetical comment. I feel that there must not be overgeneralizations of those who are critiquing Emergent as well. Calling people "single-issue when they are not, etc. does not promote dialogue. However, I understand that there are extremes in all groups and those must be addressed. The previous paragraphs stated this very well. I just would have removed the parenthtical statement altogether.

[Brian Baute]

Where can we sign on in support of this document? I've seen a lot of comments and posts all over the place today in support of this, but a centralized place would be great as well.

[carla]

where are you sending/posting this?

[Bob Brown]

This is great. One thing - there are some font issues on page 1, going into page 2 - and also in the footnote/link. How's that for honest and constructive criticism?

[Pat Loughery]

I love the content of this response. Extremely well done, and may God bless the readers of the paper with grace and peace.

[Andrew Seely]

amen