Some people are now wondering if the emergent church is dead. I'm prepared to go only so far as to say it is brain dead; I'm keeping the toe tag in my pocket for now.

If I were an emergent, I'd certainly resent the sorry leadership we witnessed, but the rabble that didn't get a book deal doesn't know how to fix anything: they speak of their efforts as iterations because they don't want to call them failed attempts or gimmicks soon abandoned. Certain people used EV as a step-ladder to celebrity and have left everyone else listening to The Crickets' Abendlied.

Sad for them; possible career advancement for the crickets.

But we cannot forget that bad ideas tend to linger. Recall the early, hopeful days of Modernism? I don't, but my grandfather did, and I've read about them. If Modernist leaders had had any intellectual integrity, they would have called Modernism an iteration and they would have abandoned it after November 18, 1916. They didn't; they actually defended it!

Lined up here—like in a museum display case—are 17 flaky fossils telling a camera what is wrong with "Progressive Theology". I think you will enjoy watching this. If you know anything about the history of the Western Church, I know you will. I'm going to watch it again with a big bowl of popcorn.

Donna Bowman thinks the problem is a surfeit of knowledge. Gary Dorrien thinks progressive theology lacks spiritual conviction and is full of "innocuous church talk". John Thatamanil thinks their theologians "confused ethics and politics with the sum and substance of Christian life".

I wonder what Emergents will make of that observation.

Ignacio Castuera admits they don't have final answers and invites us to write our own creed. Dawn DeVries supposes that the message of progressive theology "doesn't point to anything important". (Now there is one sharp theologienne!)

But I won't ruin it for you.

And as you watch it, reflect on how different things would be if there had been a church that for the last century had not tinkered and diddled and doodled with the old kind of Christianity. And wonder about what sort of faith will be left after this wave of innovators gets tenure.

It is a common—but perhaps understandable—misconception that Emergents desire that everything should change.

God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are] who go on too long and not make good points.

Hanna: I wanted to tell you how impressed I was with the way you handled the man, [Joe], at our [event] who stood up and talked about how we need to put your ideas into action. I felt uncomfortable as he was speaking, like he was going on too long and not making good points. He even told you that we all knew what you were saying already. You were totally unthreatened by him and you actually had all of us applaud when he was finished. I was so surprised by that response from you. You didn't shut him down or belittle him in any way. In fact you did the opposite. You thanked him for his comments and even went back to them later when you were answering another question. I loved all your stories and listened intently to what you said in your lectures, and the way you handled [Joe]'s comments was the thing that really stuck with me.

I realize that all of this is probably about me and my own issues and where I'm at.

Last night I attended the Zydeco Mass at the Cathedral, which is a riotous Eucharist with a zydeco band playing. It draws our most colorful members out of the woodwork. Afterward, I attended the Cajun dinner and was seated next to two men who at first made me uncomfortable because they were a little bizarre. One man kept referring to women in his life as "prostitutes," the Latinos in his life as "Mexicans," and he even knew some "lesbians." He referred to others who were "living in sin," etc, etc. The other man was a professed alcoholic who was drinking wine. So at first I was uncomfortable. Then I thought about how you were so unthreatened by [Joe] and you actually welcomed him. I tried it out. I just listened, because they both seemed to want to talk. As I listened I felt my usual misgivings about these men and I almost said to the one man, "if you're in AA and you understand your alcoholism, then why are you drinking tonight?" But I decided to just listen because that was clearly what they needed. They both had been through a lot of hardship. They both had sparks of divinity shining through all their weirdness. A couple times friends attempted to rescue me from their conversation but I stuck with it. And it turned out that we were the last people to leave the hall. The alcoholic paid me a compliment saying, "thank you for being who you are. Just your presence is wonderful," which is about the best compliment I've ever received. I felt totally safe and unthreatened. It was such a neat experience. Thank you for inspiring me to accept people on their own terms. It ended up being really good for me!

I feel like it's the start of an interesting journey in my life.

Brian: I've experienced this again and again in my life too - when I'm tempted to pull away, but I remember that a follower of Jesus always "moves toward the other" with nonjudging love and respect and a willingness to listen ... and, as Hannah says, a desire to see the image of God in people who at first seem to us unlikely.

It might be wondered if it is quite fair to characterize Emergence by quoting an airhead like Tim Soerens. We might be asked if Soerens wouldn't make a better poster child for ADD/ADHD than for a philosophical or theological school of thought.

We all know that if we had been told to write a definition of Romanticism and we handed in a slip of paper reporting that Romanticism came after Classicism, that Classicism appealed to ideal forms and concerned itself with order, balance, proportion...and then if we coughed up some extremely vague platitude about "the myth of" order, balance and proportion so as to suggest that Romanticism didn't have its own sense of order, balance and proportion, we would know exactly what kind of grade to expect.

So, getting back to my question, could we not be accused of finding the least credible proponent of emergence?

It's an intriguing thought, but I don't believe that case really could be made convincingly; not after the swashbuckling ignorance of guys like Mike Morrell, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Tim King.

Let's take the case of Brian D. McLaren. Here is Brian posing the first of ten questions. Bear in mind that this is not a lecture or even a conversation, this is an episode. An episode with a sweepstake! It is an advertisement; it is a marketing device. In fact McLaren's blog is nothing but a marketing device.

(It's really all about gimmicks. It has always been about gimmicks. Gimmicks like Trucker Frank, the Church Basement Roadshow, the couches, the finger-painting, those daffy Sparkhouse chatterboxes, and that post-modern documentary video shot, presumably, for a basket-weaving class at Mars Hill Graduate School.)

In this episode coal cars are rolling along the horizon as Brian, standing appropriately among piles of organic material, introduces us to his first cage-rattling question: What is the Shape of the Biblical Narrative? Brian's complaint is that we don't understand the shape of the biblical narrative. According to this freelance dolt, we see Jesus only through St. Paul, St. Paul through Augustine, Augustine through Aquinas, Aquinas through Luther, Luther through Wesley, Wesley through Calvin, and Calvin through Hinn. Brian thinks we need to discover the real narrative of the Bible. He thinks we can hopscotch our way back to Abraham and "the Jewish narrative into which Jesus comes".

I hope you can appreciate the scope of McLaren's lunacy.

First the obvious falsehoods: we do not see Jesus only through St. Paul; we see him through Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, the author of Hebrews.... Likewise, we do not see St. Paul only through Augustine and we do not see Augustine only through Aquinas.... Brian McLaren might have learned this if he ever went to seminary. And Brian's oversimplification will make sense only to other seriously uneducated people. The shape of the biblical narrative is far more complicated, far more elaborate, and far more interfused than Brian can tell you.

Some of us understood this complexity a long time ago, and that's why we bothered to study Greek, Hebrew, Church history and systematic theology. We knew there would be disputes over texts, we knew there would be disagreements between theologians, and we knew there would be conflicts in our approaches to doctrine. We are not the ones who need to be told that our theology comes to us mediated by Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Fathers and Doctors, and Brian McLaren is not qualified to tell anyone which of our beliefs are assumptions and which are reasoned conclusions and which are inspired revelations.

Second, it is hilarious that the man who wishes to understand the shape of the Biblical narrative by going back to Abraham can't even read the language. I'm all for going back to Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah to understand the shape of the Biblical narrative. In fact I've recommended highly the work of Robert Alter for just that purpose. Who will be making the more preposterous assumptions about the shape of the Biblical narrative, Alter (who translated the entire Pentateuch) or McLaren? Is McLaren even able to draw all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet?

A significant pronoun begins this statement by McLaren:

We bring an assumption about what the big story is about. If we are willing to loosen up on those assumptions and let the Bible itself generate a narrative for us, I think what that will do is open up immense new territory for us.

The truth is that we all bring some assumptions. All we can do is work to eliminate as many assumptions as possible and draw as many reasonable conclusions as possible. Brian McLaren is dismissive of that work.

What this emergent episode tries to do is suggest that there is no difference between what Alter does and what McLaren does. Emergence is the superstition that what uneducated people do on couches can produce a useful understanding the shape of the Biblical narrative.

One begins to appreciate Mr. Pye's sentiment if not his choice of words.

So I would define post-modernism as the thing after modernity, and when I think of modernity I think principally of the enlightenment, I think of reason, I think of progress, umm, or what I would probably say is the myth of progress. And so when I think of post-modernity I think of whatever, as far as philosophy, as far as uhh, zeitgeist of the age, whatever is going to come after that.

And for myself, I'm a pastor in a downtown neighborhood, and when I reflect on post-modernity I'm actually quite excited about it because I think that it, for what I do, it breaks open the possibility of getting beyond...well, I guess I would say...what I said earlier about, umm, thinking that science and reason is going to provide an ideal way in the future primarily. I think the 20th century has proven that's not the case and that's primarily why we even have post-modernity.

So I'm a pastor of a new, smaller church and umm, we're taking the neighborhood...we're really wanting to narrow in on this neighborhood, and crafting a way of life within the neighborhood, that connects local service and relationship amongst the people that have signed up for this journey, with Christian spirituality. So, what we're trying to do is, what we believe is joining God's work in the neighborhood by integrating a way of life that connects service, relationship and spirituality.

---Tim Soerens

For those of you who might desire some light diversion, here is a hilarious video.

Also for those who have friends suffering from clinical depression or if you have co-workers who casually raise questions around the water cooler about effective means of suicide, or if you know someone who keeps a picture of Dr. Kevorkian in his wallet, you need to pass on this link.

Their problems will vanish inside of 18 minutes and they will skip home whistling What A Wonderful World.

Here are four young brainiacs: a graphic artist, a student of architecture, an owner of a coffee bar and Pastor Tim Soerens to define post-modernism.

Tim Soerens has worked out that post-modernism is that thing that comes after modernity. He is also knowledgeable about "the zeitgeist of the age" and is an ardent proponent of "otherlyness".

Tim actually holds two degrees, believe it or not: a B.A. in Rhetorical Sciences from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a Masters of Divinity from Mars Hill Graduate School, Seattle, (both of which I think make this video especially moving).

You might save a life today.

This is an interesting time for Emergence or Emergent Church or post-modernism or post-orthodoxy. I guess the name historians will put to this little episode may depend on their sense of humor.

For a while emergents could pretend that their critics didn't get it. Guys like Carson, MacArthur, Mohler, Sproul, and Wells just didn't understand our times; not like these wunderkinder understood our times.

Turns out that when the Church Basement Roadshow bus ran out of gas, it was something of a metaphor. Not even those schooled in strategic foresight saw what was coming.

Actually, the movement has been out of gas for quite some time. People have drifted off, blogs went dead, posts were vacated, promises were made, complaints were aired, affirmations were offered, moments of excitement were occasionally reported, energy was up (we were told)...and nothing continued happening at a pretty fast clip.

But now certain internal voices are raising questions about this "conversation", and asking questions of Emergence is very different from asking questions of Evangelicalism. If you questioned Evangelicalism you were creative and imaginative, if you question Emergence you are fearful and unloving.

...Brian McLaren said in a video that those of us who take them and others to task are held in bondage to fear and thoroughly un-loving; my motivation for analyzing the theology and beliefs of leaders within the emerging church is fear-based and inherently un-love. One word: ridiculous. I am not fearful; this has nothing to do with fear. In fact, the loving thing to do is in fact confront, prod, and question.

Jeremy Bouma says nothing doing, he ain't no scaredy cat, he's confronting, prodding and questioning. You ought to take a peek at Bouma's theological musings. It might be worth getting his take on it. He came into, passed through and has gone beyond. You might say he is one of the few who've actually emerged from the other side.

Mike Morrell, our own dim-witted futurist, sat down and placed a lot of words end to end pretty much in a random fashion so as to put a smileyface on all this. He's linked to quite a few—what should we call them?—judgments of the work of Brian McLaren. Some of them borrow quite heavily from the Emergent style handbook, if you know what I mean: you might not want to click on those links if an impressionable child is at your elbow.

If you go down his post about three screens or so, you will find three links. One is calling McLaren a true son of Lucifer (an insult I can't imagine Lucifer finds flattering), the third one I won't repeat, and Mike tells us that he left "some of the worst ones out".

Yikes. Blogging in the way of Jesus.

Mike ends his post with this whimper:

May all of us - missional and emergent, evangelical and mainline, Catholic and Pentecostal, gay and straight, deconstructionist and Radically Orthodox - fling ourselves upon the Throne of Grace and mercies of the Father, Son, and Spirit, one God, who alone saves and restores.

Amen?

Well, we'll see, Mike, but I don't think that's a throne, I believe that's just one of those ratty emergent couches.

Maybe it's just time for another rummage sale.

What are you guys asking for Pagitt's trombone?

The theological ignorance of emergents (assuming the term emerging church still describes a non-imaginary thing) is mildly irritating. One of the many things that escaped emergents' attention was the actual patterns of worship established by earlier generations of believers. They paid paltry lip service to Robert Webber and his ancient future idea, but when these posers spoke from their hearts they quoted U2 and Bruce Springsteen. Brian McLaren wrote a little pre-adolescent verse. Then there was Mark Scandrette and his faux beat poetry and the Church Basement Roadshow—which wouldn't have been invited back to a karaoke bar for Free Beer Night even if members of the audience agreed to tune their instruments for them.

All these people did was hang cheap prints of a few saints, light some votive candles and sing In The Garden at me.

So as I say, this is mildly irritating, but I can handle it because I'm a patient man. It's unfair to expect anything more from clergyfolk who don't even know the significance of the rainbow in "The Flood Story". From flunkies like this you don't expect great devotional insights or a moving liturgy.

What is completely insufferable is a "conservative church" (assuming the term conservative church still describes a non-imaginary thing) that does precisely the same! We expect illiterates to miss the importance of the Psalms of David just as easily as they miss Christ's teaching on Hell or St. Paul's on the atonement. What beggars an imagination raised on Homer, Jules Verne, Edgar Allan Poe, Lord Dunsany, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien is that fundamentalists who proclaim their highest regard for an inerrant Scripture should abandon it for fluff that Lawrence Welk would have been embarrassed to play.

You owe it to yourself to read about the place of the Psalter in the history of the Church. If you are a fundamentalist, you may not know where to begin, so I will recommend this. Recent archeological discoveries have shown that David's collection of Psalms was not collected by the Roman Catholic Church or Calvinists who lacked evangelistic zeal.

Do the purveyors of "conservative Christian music" believe the Psalms are "archaic, irrelevant, or even unchristian", or is there some other explanation for this conspicuous wickedness?

I'm certainly grateful for the people who—having the greatest respect for Scripture—had the good sense to tighten the thumbscrews on people with too-long hair and too-short skirts. That was most helpful. And having dealt so prudently with those larger issues, they might now turn their attention to the smaller details of actually introducing the inspired Psalter to their worship.

Please understand: I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking on this. This is just a suggestion to consider.

Watching someone in the "foresight field" struggle with simple definitions and elementary ideas was like watching a live fish in a dry bucket: frantic, violent and noisy.

Part of his problem is illiteracy and part of his problem is ideology and part of his problem is general gullibility, samples of which you can find on his blog. When Howard Zinn, Dorothy Day and Tom Sine sit in the honored seats around the table, it's not hard to spot the serious handicaps.

By way of amusing example, you may not know that the cell phone is "the single most transformative tool for development" of the global poor. Yes, people, the cell phone. They might as well pass out mood rings.

But there is another explanation, one that almost provokes our sympathy: where in christendom was a persuasive case being made for conservatism? Where was the attraction in the culture of the orthodox, separated church?

The FBF? Soundfroth? Steve Pettit's Hoedown Kings? The fine thespians of Maranatha Baptist Bible College? The seductive beauty of Majesty Hymns? The homiletics and liturgy of a movement still losing its own young people?

Tell me again that culture is not important.

Recently we were poking through emergent's casual thoughts and verbal pranks when one emergent gremlin came forward to help us illustrate the point.

I'd said previously:

It is clear that Emergents have pitched their tent toward Liberalism; there is a traceable lineage and a recognizable attitude that I'm not eager to dismiss. So if someone says, or if you have ever said, that Emergence is repackaged or renovated Liberalism, that doesn't land you in the sin bin. I would say we have no quarrel worth mentioning.

I went on to make what I believe to be a necessary distinction, and I think that distinction must be observed for us to understand our times. As for the traceable lineage I spoke of, I think Mike Morrell helps us with some of those tedious begats and son-ofs.

These people do think in stereotypes and speak in jargon. When Tim King and Spencer Burke make their dichotomy between Conversion or Contribution, they themselves spell out the difference between Christianity and Emergence. Emergent belief is that if you take Modernism and stir in some contemporary buzzwords like empowerment, global, inclusion, mystery, humility, multi-cultural, sacred narratives, gender, climate...you have something new, fresh, vital and attractive.

You really don't.

Some things never change, even when uttered from a couch.

Here is a Puritan's observation to remind us of the obvious: the world has a lot of pretty, painted baubles to bewitch the gullible.

O LORD,

The world is artful to entrap,
approaches in fascinating guise,
extends many a gilded bait,
presents many a charming face.

Let my faith scan every painted bauble,
and escape every bewitching snare
in a victory that overcomes all things.

In my duties give me firmness, energy, zeal,
devotion to thy cause,
courage in thy name,
love as a working grace,
and all commensurate with my trust.

Let faith stride forth in giant power,
and love respond with energy in every act.

I often mourn the absence of my beloved Lord
whose smile makes earth a paradise,
whose voice is sweetest music,
whose presence gives all graces strength.

But by unbelief I often keep him outside my door.

Let faith give entrance that he may abide with me forever.

Thy Word is full of promises,
flowers of sweetest fragrance,
fruit of refreshing flavour when culled by faith.

May I be made rich in its riches,
be strong in its power,
be happy in its joy,
abide in its sweetness,
feast on its preciousness,
draw vigour from its manna.

Lord, increase my faith.