I’m just sad so much energy in put into this kind of “critique”. I’m concerned that Asian English speaking readers just buy these critiques without “seriously” understanding what is happening in the climate of Christianity in America and the wider western world (I don’t think we should blindly agree with all things “emergent” either … even though the missiological and ecclesiological questions and impulses have many similarities – I see it as a good chance for mutual exchange & learning) and now, I’m just getting tired of the amount of “energy” used for this kind of critique. Can’t we do better? I need some “energy” to do something else.

It sounds like Mohler is an echo chamber for DA Carson. To reduce “whatever is emerging” to Brian McLaren and his books is a serious flaw. In my conversations and contacts, “whatever is emerging” is not tracable to a modern Martin Luther who fearlessly takes his stand, but to a dawning of awareness at the grassroots level that USAmerican modern evangelicalism has run its course, i.e., a Christian creation of baby-boomers.

The article really didnt say much of anything except basically screamed “I am just following D.A. Carson’s critique”… sad..

Umm, McLaren may not be the one who produces the ec mindset, but he is the product of it. Therefore, his MINDSET and BASE PRESUPPOSITIONS are the same as those in the ec that I have seen. I really think Scot that you are the one who needs to blog around more to see how those in the ec revere McLaren precisely because they hold to his presupps (not every individual belief he comes up with). You yourself have said that you seem to have some of his presupps as well, so that’s why there is a need to go to epistemology first (since it leads to all of the other conclusions one makes on individual issues). Please don’t say, “Well many disagree with McLaren.” I know that. But on what do they disagree? On his presupps? I don’t think so. More on on his individual beliefs on certain systematic issues. What do you think?—tooaugust

Scot,Are you a regular reader of Dr. Mohler’s blog? Most of his blogs are just summaries of what other people have said, similar to a book report. Regular readers would probably not expect anything more from Mohler on emergent.

No, I’m not a regular reader and am sorry to those who see it that way. It is hard always to know this from two things: (1) the title doesn’t say it is a review and (2) the comments within, including the allusion to this being a two-piece article, make me think it is more substantial than simply a repeat of what others have said.

And I just checked again and this is not from Dr. Mohler’s blog, but from a e-magazine (?) called the Christian Post.

Dr Mohler’s second part is now available, and I have read it. Again, largely a re-hash of DA Carson’s book and he sides with the presentation of the Emergent “church” by Carson as well as the doctrinal issues Carson leveled against McLaren (subsitutionary, penal).He asks some good questions for the Emergent movement at the end, and I hope some of the leaders bite on some of these questions.Here they are:The real question is this: will the future leaders of the Emerging Church acknowledge that, while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less? Will they come to affirm that a core of non-negotiable doctrines constitutes a necessary set of boundaries to authentic Christian faith? Will they embrace an understanding of Christianity that reforms the evangelical movement without denying its virtues?At the same time, the tables must be turned. Will evangelicals be willing to direct hard and honest critical analysis at our own cultural embeddedness, intellectual faults, and organizational hubris?

I’m not 100% sure about this but I think Mohler and Richard Land helped start Christian Post. You can see who the editorial advisors are here http://www.christianpost.com/aboutus/board.htmthe Post posts many of Dr. Mohler’s blogs in their opinion section.