Does this not, to some extent, at least, ignore the fact that many of the early creeds were created not for the purpose of establishing continuity, but for the purpose of identifying heretics? There is no openness in the early creeds! They are a sea of apparent contradictions as the orthodox attempted to carve out middle ground between the extremes on both sides. But the crucial role and purpose was that anyone uncomfortable with or unable to recite a creed was thus easily identified as someone to be shunned. Is this really a tradition we want to keep carrying with us?
To speak of some diversities as inappropriate has no meaning. Diversity IS. Appropriate or not, it IS there, and you have to deal with it. The overwhelming majority of the Church’s image problem right now within culture is that we are seen as a group of people clinging to a non-existent idealized past (a white, male, Western past) and therefore violently trying to force the diversity of our current world through a filter of conformity to purge it of “inappropriate” diversities. This is the core of what must change! The core!

“But the crucial role and purpose was that anyone uncomfortable with or unable to recite a creed was thus easily identified as someone to be shunned. Is this really a tradition we want to keep carrying with us?”
In regards to “the tradition”, are you speaking of recognizing heresy, or are you speaking of the practice of shunning?

Is “emerging” really still too “north american”?
and even if it is, is that bad?
i don’t think we’d critique africans for focusing their discussions about faith, etc. on the wide range of african experiences/cultures/contexts.
i’ve never understood why this “north american” thing constantly comes up…
i’m genuinely curious about this.

I just got the book in the mail from Amazon today! I’m excited to jump in and read it. I’ve got a trip next week and am saving it for the plane… don’t know if I’ll be able to wait that long
As for the point that Franke makes about the emerging conversations being too North American, I’m interested to see what he says. I, for one, agree. If the emerging movement is about being more missional and being more aware of context and culture, then we need to see all of that from lenses that go beyond our nice, white, male, western desks.

This seems like wishful thinking to me. I suppose whether or not it is depends on details like when is diversity not appropriate? The Reformation seems like an odd choice as the damage from the wars resulting from the plurality of that time is hard to miss.

i just don’t see how it’s a problem for a portion of emerging whose context is North America, the context they are placed in and missionally engaging, to therefore be, well, North american.