It's fair to say that we learned something about Evangelicals from the Manhattan Declaration, but we learned as much from its fallout. Likewise we learned something from the recent flurry of indignation from "emergents" following Andrew Jones's farewell. What began as a conversation and an ethos is now being defended as though it were a movement. Very few have been creative, radical, controversial, imaginative or progressive enough to engage in authentic conversation. Emergents are as open to dialogue as J. Frank Norris was with the Pope. It's all very amusing.

Everything must change...but only to a point, for Pete's sake! All points of view are valid except those that challenge our particular dualisms.

Of what I've read so far, many are nervously blogging and twittering their loyalties, but I've yet to read anyone prepared to discuss A. Jones's essential critique. Has the movement become sectarian or has it not? Has it taken on theological emphases inconsistent with its early claims or has it not? I see no intelligent discussion of these points. Just like everywhere else in the known world, they line up to deny or confirm and then to manage the impact of conspicuous defections.

Tony Jones is a modernist in postmodernist's clothing!

Get a rope.

And once again we are forced to consider the fragility of reform. It is sexy to have a revolution, everybody wants to throw Frisbees in the park, and the best lawns are littered with half-wit theologians. It will be useful to watch how this "conversation" weathers self-criticism.

Jonathan Stegall wants to continue to "flow within multiple streams" and he would prefer for us to blame the "heresy-hunters", but this sort of bafflegab isn't going to survive the criticisms Andrew Jones has made.

You might want to take notes.