It saddens me to think how we continually do separate ourselves on some of the most trivial things. The unity Christ envisioned within his church does not necessarily have to mean we break down all denominational, creedal or liturgical separations. However, it does require us to be concerned for our brother and sister, wherever they may be, and that we should always defend their right to believe as they do, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. If only it were so, then more could look at us and say that they would like to be a part of something as beautiful as that.

As I pondered this post I found myself wondering whether the conversation you report on is “easier” because it, in great part, has more of a “past-present” dimension than many theological debates. This puzzlement arose because of a cry from the third world I ran cross in a recent book.
“It is utterly scandalous for so many Christian scholars in older Christendom to know so much about heretical movements in the second and third centuries, when so few of them know so little about Christian movements in areas of younger churches. We feel deeply affronted and wonder whether it is more meaningful theologically to have academic fellowship with heretics long dead than with the living brethren of the Church today in the so-called Third World.
-John Mbiti, quoted by Craig Ott in “Globalizinge Theology”
I wonder too whether this cry of a bursting heart speaks to what happens when the conversation moves from academia to the streets of the world?
I so heartily agree with the cry of your heart for respecful conversation and thoughtful dialogue–the church must model it for the political world. My questions have more to do with the “stakes,” and what happens when they are raised by taking the conversation “into the living church” and to far off places. Think of some of the huge African calamities in recent decades. I know this seems rambling but I believe there is something stirring within the question.

It good not to agree on everything. In fact I wonder how we could agree on everything. Unity is not in agreement but in relationship which can supercede agreement. Relationship requires appropriate behavior and civility and openness and acceptance of others. You can debate ideas and vigorously so, as long as you have an appreciation for the person(s) involved. It is maturity. maturity is what you saw exhibited between John Franke and Michael Horton. Maturity in the faith and in their behavior.

I think Kent (comment #3) is correct in raising the “debate” framework that is so much a model for doing theology. Most of us were trained in seminaries where the debate mentality, not dialogue mentality prevailed. Some had to be exegetically/theologically “right” and therefore others who differed were “wrong.” And you debated the merits of the case. “We will prove you wrong” rather than “we will try to understand you” caused a lot of biblical saber-rattling.
Scot, you are a mentor to many of us in learning the power of redemptive dialogue, coversation and discussion without sacrificing your biblical/theological convictions in the friendly, blessing-the-other exchange.

Sacred Journey » Blog Archive » An Emerging Church Evaluation of the WTS Emerging Church Forum

[...] Also, forum speaker Scot McKnight has posted his own “post-game” evaluation, and has now added a second post with reflections on the forum as a good example of church unity. [...]

Yes Scot. I couldn’t agree more on this. One of the “fundamentals” of the faith is our unity in Christ by the Spirit. When we leave that behind we really leave something of the very heart of our faith behind. As you so well say, It’s not our light, but our common life that unites us. If we could keep that in mind, then we could hear each other out in a way that would glorify the Father, and speak volumes to the world.

Powerful.. in the best of the current leadership literature leadership is defined variously as “converging conversations” (Toews) and “relational dialogue” (Drath). Drath’s “third principle” (The Deep Blue Sea) comes into operation when we have to speak and learn across worldviews.. something more and more of us are doing.

great when that atmosphere is there – and i find it quite common. i am not very good at debates because, like john, i always end up noding my head. discussion is much better.

I agree that discussion is better than debate. But one may have to engage in debate, due to format or the one they are engaging with. Then it surely becomes a matter of how one engages it. Do we listen thoroughly? Present our view charitably? And be willing to look like we’ve lost, that is, not to “win” at the cost of love? I am learning to lose like that. I find there’s hope for a real winning when I do.

Scot,
Sometimes I read your blog just to get your take on a concern. Sometimes, I am reading to follow a particular series.
Today, this particular post was so encouraging for me to read. It was so good to hear of Christian people who differ who can exhibit the fruit of the Spirit in the middle of their disagreements.
Maintaining such an attitude throughout difficult discussions seems to give us the freedom to have conversations about concerns that matter deeply (most concerns matter deeply to someone) without destroying one another.
Thanks for an encouraging post, Scot.

I wonder if we do not react to emotion more than we ought to? I was having a discussion about politics and theology with a friendf mine and hisolume went up and his passion was enflamed but he was not being personal nor was he being combative. His emotions came out naturally. He was not targeting me so I did not have to match his emotion or feel defensive. But are we often threatened by the emotional level of another? Can we allow another to have a passionate response and be able to hear the words that are being said? There are issues which I am passionate about, and being large and loud by nature it may seem that I am attacking when I am just making my point – with some force. If we can do this it may help in the dialogue.

I’m glad that you felt welcomed here at WTS. Again, it was a blessing to have you lecture this past weekend.
I hope you wouldn’t forget to invite some of us seminarians to enjoy some libation with you as well!
God bless you Scot.

I can confirm the rumor about the tie requirement at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). One of the legacies of Chuck Swindoll’s tenure as president occurred during my final year at DTS. It was then that he abolished the coat & tie dress code.
I for one was very happy because it is Africa-hot in Dallas!

This on the day when dress codes go out the door!
FYI, anyone going into Chipotle today dressed in a costume (or even the merest attempt at one–my advisee group wore foil hats! We were supposed to be burritos) can get a free burrito with the works. (Other stuff is not free.)
It was fun, but we couldn’t get Dr. Schnabel to wear his foil. He insisted he would pay for his food. ^_^
Everyone else in there looked at us like we were crazy (there were more than 10 of us), but the food was good & we got our picture taken!

Scot,
A beautiful post! Nothing more to say. Beautiful.
Kevin

Scot,
Thanks for this recap of your time at Westminster. It is so encouraging to see Christians who offer different theological perspectives welcoming each other.

We’ll have to have dinner together next time we’re in the neighborhood or you’re up here. Possibly at the FireSide
Or if in Phily we know of a wonderful Italian restaurant with the best Cheesecake in the world!
Jess & Tony

This is the first time I’m reading your blog and I am pretty impressed. I enjoyed seeing another example of how healthy dialog can take place.

Have you heard anything about the Moody students? Are the males allowed to have beards yet? Heck, Wheaton & Trinity have on-campus dances now. There is some a rollin’ in the graves.

Scot, I think I finally found an explanation of the emerging movement that both uses clear, understandable language AND keeps from pointing to any one particular manifestation as the defining example. This is one for the ages, dude.

Scot,
I have read your paper, “What is the Emerging Church?” over the past couple days. It has been a helpful and enjoyable experience. (as was the “Future or Fad” paper) Thank you. Again, thank you!
I am curious: what do you call people who
are intrigued with soft post-modernism and love to read Vanhoozer and Grenz (the first river),
who say “amen” to the need for orthopraxy but are uncomfortable de-emphasizing orthodoxy (river 2),
are evangelical rather than post-evangelical yet a) hope to preach much of the post-Bible-study-piety message to their fellows, b) hold systematic, biblical, other theologies with an open hand, and c) who thoroughly hate (and have been burned by) the in vs. out mentality (a complicated river three) and
drink lattes, carry backpacks, shun Birkenstocks and vote Republican?

Matt,
What a great question.
I’d call them “emerging” and “growing”.

Scot, I very much appreciated your paper. Your section of politics has really provoked me in a positive way. Pastorally, I feel so inadequate to engage my fellow ecclesiastical partners. Are you aware of any good books on the issue of Christians and politics? At this election time so many questions flood my mind. (1) What kind(s) of relationship should the church have with government? (2) Is it valid and beneficial to be a “one-issue” voter? (3) What do you see as the big issues politically facing our culture? (4) What biblical trajectories do we have from Jesus in this area? I have so many questions.

The “post’ nature of this “emerging” movement is puzzling to me. They are said to be “post-modern,” “post liberal,” “post evangelical,” “post doctrinal,” “post Bible-study piety,” “post-systematic theology,” and “post conservative.” I think “post rational,” “post linear,” and “post historical” could be added to this list. (See Scott Mcknight’s article “The Future or Fad: A look at the Emerging Church Movement.” In fact, even though Mcknight says this “post” is not “better” but “after,” this reactionary characteristic describes at least a drift away from what preceded, regardless of internal assessments of what they are now post. Even if this shift was not intentional or always conscious, it is professedly a drift away from traditional evangelicalism, conservatism, doctrinalism, sytematics, Bible-Study piety, etc. I would agree that it may also be a drift away from the old liberalism (“post liberal”), but only in so far as it is aligned with Neo-orthodoxy. Neo-orthodoxy, though a reaction against the old liberalism, simply refashioned the Modernists’ (historical critical) rejection of scripture itself as the only revealed Word of God, divinely inspired, inerrant, as propositional revelation, and translated this view into a Neo-orthodox version riddled with dialectical tensions.
Further, false dichotomies (“straw men”) often propel emerging arguments from lame to crippled. Some examples:
. emerging is about ecclesiology not about epistemology (this is patently false)
. emerging is missional in contrast to pre-emerging Christendom (this is patently wrong-headed as historically mistaken)
. emerging is missional not theologically defined (this is patently a contradiction in terms)
. emerging is formational not informational (this is doubly a contradiction in terms)
. emerging is about God as “being right” not about people being right or wrong (this is patently naïve)
. emerging is pro-Jesus not creedal, systematic and, logical (this is patently dangerous semantic mysticism)
. emerging is relational not rational (ditto)
. emerging is pro-church not doctrinally unified (this patently rejects the principle of the purity of the visible church)
. emerging is a community not denominational or ecclesiastical (this patently collapses the visible and the invisible church)
. emerging is about micro-narratives not about meta-narratives (this is a patent for making true “cross-cultural” communication essentially and practically impossible)
. emerging is about being post-everything but is really post-nothing.
For more, see http://www.xanga.com/StephenTHague
“The only cure for postmodernism is the incurable illness of romanticism”(Postmodernism for Beginners by Richard Appignanesi and Chris Garratt.

I can confirm that not only do Dallas Seminary not wear ties, but a few of us also do have nose-rings and wear our hair in dreadlocks. I say this as I sit comfortably in my bluejeans at DTS’s new cafe. There is even one student in my Discourse Features of NT Greek class who had a mohawk at the beginning of the semester.