Book Review of The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (Part 6--or, "The Dispatches, Continued")

The emergent movement is robustly theological; the conviction that theology and practice are inextricably related, and each invariably forms the other.

There's no question that what we believe influences our behavior. And there's also no question that there's plenty of "ivory tower" mentality in our churches...we even have pithy sayings about our inward focus.

However, Tony, our behavior shouldn't be able to influence our theological beliefs. I see it as more of a one-way street.

Emergents believe that theology is local, conversational, and temporary. To be faithful to the theological giants of the past emergents endeavor to continue their theological dialogue.

I'm not so sure about this one, Tony. Theology does have one "right" answer. I see it as more objective. Now, this doesn't mean we've "nailed down" that answer once and for all, but we strive to find it. So, for example, liberation theology in South America is influenced tremendously by their situation. That may be "local," but it doesn't mean it has legitimacy. I mean, what if they discovered in Scripture that they should serve amidst their oppression? Would they willingly & joyfully do so? Theology doesn't fluctuate. It is what it is. It's our job to dive in and wrestle.

And, this continuing dialogue? That can be dicey. At some point, you have to arrive at conviction. I mean, you can't sit around and discuss points without some degree of decision. I mean, you can waggle all you want about what "living water" means, but at some point a thirsty guy isn't going to want to talk about what it means anymore. He's going to want that "living water." And the most loving thing is to give it to him. We do need to be better listeners, though.

Emergents believe that awareness of our relative position--to God, to one another, and to history--breeds biblical humility, not relativistic apathy.

Again, we do need to be humble. But, if modern science differs from my interpretation of the Bible, I'll choose God's word. If modern psychology says certain things and I believe Scripture to say another, well, I'm in with the Bible. I don't care about my relative position to the psychologist.

If the Bible is true, it's true in every arena of our lives. This doesn't mean that we can't learn from others, but people can be wrong. Scripture, not so much.

Emergents embrace the whole Bible, the glory and the pathos.

This is where, yes, Scripture has all sorts of things that make us uncomfortable...like His wrath and the other stuff we find in the Old Testament. The implication is that most churches don't do this...that they spend too much time on Jesus' love & mercy and grace and all that because they don't want to preach the other stuff because it doesn't "sell." Well, that may be true, but I don't know. What I do know is that when you have theological underpinnings that allow you to see how God acted in different dispensations it gives you plenty of confidence to embrace the whole Bible. I've never felt like any church I attended didn't do this...but then again, I've been in Bible churches an awful long time.

Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings.

Well, you're right in that it can't be definitively articulated. But it can be argumentatively articulated in order to be discussed. And again, you're going to have to develop convictions at some point.