Our Response to Critics of Emergent

We offer this in response to recent criticisms, with the hope that it will cause  some to better understand us and others to find hope in a document that they can sign on to.

PDF here for download.

By Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay

We continue to be amazed by the enthusiastic interest in the work of emergent, a conversation and friendship of which we are a small part. This conversation is bringing together a wide range of committed Christians and those exploring the Christian faith in wonderful ways, and many of us sense that God is at work among us. As would be expected, there have also been criticisms. A number of people have asked us to respond to these criticisms. These ten brief responses will, we hope, serve to clarify our position and suggest ways for the conversation to continue constructively for participants and critics alike. It is our hope and prayer that even our disagreements can bring us together in respectful dialogue as Christians, resulting in growth for all concerned.

First, we wish to say thanks to our critics for their honest feedback on our books, articles, speeches, blogs, events, and churches. We readily acknowledge that like all human endeavors, our work, even at its best, is still flawed and partial, and at its worst, deserves critique. We are grateful to those who help us see things we may not have seen without the benefit of their perspective. We welcome their input.

Second, we have much to learn from every criticism – whether it is fair or unfair, kindly or unkindly articulated. We pray for the humility to receive all critique with thoughtful consideration. Where we think we have been unfairly treated, we hope not to react defensively or to respond in kind, and where we have been helpfully corrected, we will move forward with gratitude to our critics for their instruction and correction. We especially thank those who seek to help us through cordial, respectful, face-to-face, brotherly/sisterly dialogue. As we have always said, we hope to stimulate constructive conversation, which involves point and counterpoint, honest speaking and open-minded listening. As a sign of good faith in this regard, we have invited and included the voices of our critics in some of our books, and as far as we know, have always treated these conversation partners with respect. We have also attempted to make personal contact with our critics for Christian dialogue. Even though most of these invitations have not been accepted, we hope that the friendly gesture is appreciated.

Third, we regretfully acknowledge that in our thought, writing, and speech, we have at times been less charitable or wise than we wish we would have been. Whenever possible we will seek to correct past errors in future editions of our books; when that is impossible, we will make other forms of public correction.

Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is "in" and "out" of their circles. These boundary-keepers have an important role which we understand and respect. If one of your trusted spiritual leaders has criticized our work, we encourage you, in respect for their leadership, not to buy or read our work, but rather to ignore it and consider it unworthy of further consideration. We would only ask, if you accept our critics’ evaluation of our work, that in fairness you abstain from adding your critique to theirs unless you have actually read our books, heard us speak, and engaged with us in dialogue for yourself.  Second-hand critique can easily become a kind of gossip that drifts from the truth and causes needless division.

Fifth, because most of us write as local church practitioners rather than professional scholars, and because the professional scholars who criticize our work may find it hard to be convinced by people outside their guild, we feel it wisest at this juncture to ask those in the academy to respond to their peers about our work. We hope to generate fruitful conversations at several levels, including both the academic and ecclesial realms. If few in the academy come to our defense in the coming years, then we will have more reason to believe we are mistaken in our thinking and that our critics are correct in their unchallenged analyses.

Sixth, we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas.

But we also acknowledge that we each find great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation, even about the items noted in the previous paragraph. Throughout the history of the church, followers of Jesus have come to know what they believe and how they believe it by being open to the honest critique and varied perspectives of others. We are radically open to the possibility that our hermeneutic stance will be greatly enriched in conversation with others. In other words, we value dialogue very highly, and we are convinced that open and generous dialogue – rather than chilling criticism and censorship – offers the greatest hope for the future of the church in the world.

We regret that some of our critics have made hasty generalizations and drawn erroneous conclusions based on limited and selective data. We would welcome future critics to converse with us directly and to visit our churches as part of their research. Of course, they would find weaknesses among us, as they would among any group of Christians, including their own. But we believe that they would also find much to celebrate and find many of their suspicions relieved when they see our high regard for the Scriptures, for truth, for worship, for evangelism, for spiritual formation, and for our fellow Christians – including our critics themselves.

Seventh, we have repeatedly affirmed, contrary to what some have said, that there is no single theologian or spokesperson for the emergent conversation. We each speak for ourselves and are not official representatives of anyone else, nor do we necessarily endorse everything said or written by one another. We have repeatedly defined emergent as a conversation and friendship, and neither implies unanimity – nor even necessarily consensus – of opinion. We ask our critics to remember that we cannot be held responsible for everything said and done by people using the terms "emergent" or "emerging church," any more than our critics would like to be held responsible for everything said or done by those claiming to be "evangelical" or "born again." Nobody who is a friend or acquaintance of ours, or who agrees with one of us in some points, should be assumed to agree with any of us on all points. Nobody should be held "guilty by association" for reading or conversing with us. Also, contrary to some uninformed reports, this conversation is increasingly global and cross-cultural, and because North Americans are only a small part of it, we urge people to avoid underestimating the importance of Latin American, African, Asian, European, and First Nations voices among us.

Eighth, we are aware that there is some debate about whether we should be considered evangelical. This is a cherished part of our heritage, but we understand that some people define this term more narrowly than we and in such a way that it applies to them but not to us. We will not quarrel over this term, and we will continue to love and respect evangelical Christians whether or not we are accepted by them as evangelicals ourselves. However others include or exclude us, we will continue to affirm an evangelical spirit and faith by cultivating a wholehearted devotion to Christ and his gospel, by seeking to join in the mission of God in our time, by calling people to follow God in the way of Jesus, and by doing so in an irenic spirit of love for all our brothers and sisters.

(We hope that those who would like to disassociate us from the term evangelical will be aware of the tendency of some in their ranks toward narrowing and politicizing the term so that it only applies to strict Calvinists, conservative Republicans, people with specific views on U.S. domestic, foreign, military, or economic policy, single-issue voters, or some other subgroup. We pose no threat to these sincere people, nor do we wish to attack or discredit anyone, even though we do not wish to constrict our circle of fellowship to the parameters they propose.)

Ninth, we felt we should offer this encouragement to those who, like us, do not feel capable of living or explaining our faith in ways that would please all of our critics: if our work has been helpful to you, please join us in seeking to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace by not becoming quarrelsome or defensive or disrespectful to anyone – especially those who you feel have misrepresented or misunderstood you or us. As Paul said to Timothy, "The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, patient when wronged." In addition he warned Timothy not to develop "an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction." The apostle James also wrote, "the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness." We believe it is better to be wronged than to wrong someone else; the Lord we follow was gentle and meek, and when he was reviled, he didn’t respond in kind.

Instead of engaging in fruitless quarrels with our critics, we urge those who find our work helpful to pursue spiritual formation in the way of Christ, to worship God in spirit and truth, to seek to plant or serve in healthy and fruitful churches, to make disciples – especially among the irreligious and unchurched, to serve those in need, to be at peace with everyone as far as is possible, and to show a special concern for orphans and widows in their distress. We should keep careful control of our tongues (and pens or keyboards), and seek to be pure in heart and life, since this is "religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless."

With millions suffering from hunger, disease, and injustice around the world, we hope that all of us – including our critics – can renew our commitment to "remember the poor" (Galatians 2:10) rather than invest excessive energy in "controversies about words." "They will know you are my disciples," Jesus said, not by our excessive disputation, but by our love. Words and ideas are essential, for they often set the course for thought and action, and constructive dialogue is needed and worthwhile, but we cannot let less productive internal debates preoccupy us at the expense of caring for those in need.

Tenth, we should say that along with a few critiques, we are receiving many grateful and affirming responses to our work. Respected theologians and other leaders have told us, either in private or in public, that they are grateful for the emergent conversation and that they stand with us and support us. We are frequently told that people sense God graciously at work in the emergent community. We hope that those who see problems will not overlook the signs of God’s presence and activity among us, just as we do not overlook our many faults, including those pointed out by our critics. Only time will tell what the full outcome will be, but in the meantime, we welcome the prayers of both friends and critics.

We must once more thank both our critics and those who affirm our work, because we know that both are trying to help us in their respective ways, and both are trying to do the right thing before God – as we are. At the risk of redundancy, let us state once again that we welcome conversation with all who desire sincere and civil engagement over ideas that matter.

If you would like to be involved in the emergent conversation and friendship, we warmly invite you to visit emergentvillage.com. And feel free to pass this response on to others for whom it may be helpful.

Comments

[Kristine Socall]

Well said! Thank you for writing such a gracious post. After coming back to Wheaton, IL from WALP and the Emergent Convention, I have told many people how gracious I perceived the speakers and conversation facilitators to be. I hope that spirit is something we can all be known by. Regardless of varying doctrine or belief, I found there to be something in most of the people I met at the conventions--something that I have a hard time labeling, other than to say that they embodied love and exuded Christ. When I happened to be in the same restaurant or be sitting in the same coffee shop, I saw many of the Emergent folks treating the servers with such respect, with interest in their stories, with a gracious and loving spirit, and remembering the names of those who served you coffee multiple times over the course of the conventions. I watched as you walked around places, not so much in a hurry to get to the next thing, but with a genuine interest and selfless attentive spirit to those around you, able and willing to be interrupted and listen to the folks who wanted to say hi. That speaks volumes, more than what is said in a seminar. Thanks for living what you speak of.

[andrew jones]

feels good to get this document posted and public - a little scary also. i am proud to put my john hancock on the top.

[Jay]

Well done guys.

[Glenn]

Thanks for taking the step for us all who think/feel/see/understand (or not)/envision/hope/believe differently but yet alike. It is a time to take what we see playfully seriously and progress with the Good News. It's all too important to let the criticism sting and not look at ourselves in the eye of the critic.

[Dan-D from Canada]

I have this irresponsible urge to quote Yul Brynner from 'The Ten Commandments' - "So let it be written. So let it be done." Sorry, everyone.

After reading this post I feel very encouraged. All of the names attatched are of people who have stuck their necks out time and again, waiting for the axe of fundamentalism to attempts numerous messy haircuts. As a fellow Christ-follower in this crazy world of ours, I say thank you. The encouragement you pass along to countless believers who have needed to hear your words is an example to us all.

This is an excellent, gracious response to the critics of emergent. Thanks again, and may God help all of us to extend grace the way you have demonstrated.

[Barry from Fresno]

Great response everyone. I feel so confident in the leadership of emergent and emergentvillage when I read a response as gracious and generous (thanks brian) as that. While we continue to encounter God how we feel he has called us, we can only respond to critics with love, open ears and grace. Thanks again.

[Existential Punk]

Very well articulated and filled with honesty and humility. Thank you! After the Emergent Convention was over in Nashville, the manager at the kiosk on the 3rd floor commented to me and my friend that our group of people were the nicest, quietest, and most patient he had seen. Keep up the beautiful work!

[Mark Berry]

(Also posted at TSK) mmm it will be interesting to see what EmergentNO make of this... for my part I think is an excellent response and unlike Roger (Ateam) feel that considering the bile that has been spouted by many about the emergent conversation it is extremely charitable and balanced... Well done all and thank you from one not so articulate.

[rivertribemike]

Thank-you guys, for this. Your words are generous, gracious, and vulnerable. As one who has attempted (badly) to engage some emergent critics recently and coming away remimded that: "a fool is known in a multitude of words" , I appreciate your leadership and eloquence. I will shut up now and get on with what I am supposed to be doing...

[the holly]

amen and amen.

[Matt Stone]

Thanks for the post guys, its a well needed contibution to the conversation, but what you don't seem to make clear enough is the distinction between Emergent (as a group) and the Emerging Church (as a scene).

I take it from the title and the "official" tagline that you're answering on behalf of the former, but the first responder was clearly confused on that point when I visited his site.

If Im mistaken and your answering on behalf of the larger scene then I'd suggest broader international representation is required. I'd appreciate it if you could "officially" make it explicit. God bless.

Matt Stone

[Chad Farrand]

Well stated! Thanks yall.

[Mike Morrell]

This fills me with hope for our little "spleen" of the Body of Christ; it is good to know that we can have unity in the Spirit even while experiencing cognitive dissonance amongst ourselves.

Thank you for the gentle character you continue to display, my brothers. It is a high-water mark in the Way of Jesus.

[lillylewin]

gentlemen! thanks for displaying the generosity and graciousness of jesus! i am proud to call you friends. and i am excited about what is in the future. i'll be praying as the crew meets this week listening for what god has up his sleeve next. thanks again for all you do! lil

[brian McLaren]

A quick reply to Matt's suggestion about a broader inclusion internationally ...

First, thanks for being sensitive to this issue. We're working hard to be sensitive to the issue as well.

Because of the realities of publishing, markets, etc., it is "western" voices that get published most often (and of western voices, Americans most of all), and therefore get criticized most often. (A Latin American theologian friend of mine says, "Remember - Latin American theology is quite rare in Latin America. What is most common is exported North American theology!")

As you imply, the voices of our brothers and sisters in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are too seldom heard. The only upside of this is that they aren't being criticized as much. It didn't make sense to invite these good people to join in a response to criticism they aren't receiving. I'm sorry if this seemed like yet another snub to their voices ...

Please know that we're trying to help their voices be heard so they receive the attention they deserve - for example, Spencer Burke's work with theooze.com creates space for one of the most international conversations available, and we've included articles from emerging leaders around the world on the emergentvillage.com website, and hope to do more of this in the future. Soon, a new international website will go up - its name, leadership, language diversity, and content will, we hope and pray, help all of us pay more attention to our sisters and brothers who are nonwestern and non-English-speaking. Of course, "going public" with their postcolonial Christian thinking will probably expose them to criticism similar to what we've received - I hope many of us will come to their defense if that occurs.

Also, as you imply, I know that some folk (especially in England, I think) identify a lot with the term "emerging church" and not so much with the emergent conversation - for a number of reasons. I'd say that this conversation is not as much a "group" as you might think. My sense is that its edges are very blurry, and it is probably as much a "scene" as anything else. My hope (just speaking for myself) is that this conversation will resource, stimulate, encourage, and help our fellow Christians in many "scenes" - the emerging church (however it's defined), the evangelical church, the mainline protestant church, even the ancient churches ... since we believe that God loves the church at large in all its forms, and so do we. We're all in this together.

Again, we didn't want to make ourselves spokespeople for anyone but ourselves - we tried to make that clear in the statement. We who signed the document are drawn together because we have published books and spoken and worked together, and in the process, we have become dialogue partners and friends. As well, we have been the subject of criticism in a number of books, articles, etc., and it was to those criticisms we were seeking to respond helpfully. I hope that addresses, at least in part, this important comment/suggestion from Matt.

[Marty Duren]

Thanks guys for your openness and humility. It is very encouraging.

[Ivy]

Thank you, my friends, for these thoughtful, gracious and well written words. You, as always, continue to be my community and the people who keep me sane.

[Randy McRoberts]

Thank you for the clear statement and for the excellent example you set for all of us.

I'm a newcomer to the emergent conversation, though an oldtimer in all other respects, even older than Brian McLaren (wow!). Even a newcomer can easily see where many of the misunderstandings come from. One basic misunderstanding is that post-modernity (the cultural era) is often confused with post-modernism (the philosophy). We are all becoming post-moderns, some kicking and screeming more than others. We can't help it. Few of us, however, will accept post-modernism (the philosophy) en toto. Until they understand the difference between these two concepts, detractors will continue to spout nonsense. Do they refuse to understand, or have they just been slow to pick it up?

Anyway, thanks. You are helping me grow in Christ.

[Aaron Shafovaloff]

Here are some questions I have:

- What role do you think repentance and final judgment have in the proclamation of the gospel?

- When Jesus said, "No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other", did he imply that those who don't love Christ really hate him?

- Do you publicly affirm penal substitionary atonement? Did Jesus take the punishment we deserve?

- Would it be correct to say that the gospel helps people escape the hate of God as described in Psalm 5:5, 7:11, 11:5?

- Do you publicly affirm eternal punishment / torment / hell?

- Do you publicly acknowledge that God has perfect definite foreknowledge?

- What is your stance on the following Brian McLaren quote?

"I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts." —A Generous Orthodoxy

- Paul says that "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." What type of faith is necessary for this work of love? What does justification have to do with it?

- What type of authority/position do elders have over their people?

- If a Muslim rejects the deity of Christ, can he still be saved?

[Deborah Dombrowski]

Unfortunately, this response to criticism doesn't do much to heal the damage that has been done by you who have made comments and endorsed writings that are a denial of the Cross of Jesus Christ. Only God knows how many people have been misled away from the true gospel because of what you have done. You speak out of both sides of your mouth -professing Jesus Christ on one side and denying Him on the other. Teaching yoga workshops, endorsing the books of New Age authors such as Alan Jones, making comments about Christianity and Islam having common ground and your general promotion of mysticism i.e. contemplative prayer have done damage that a statement like the one you have just posted will do absolutely no good at all but will further deceive people.

[liz rios]

This is well said. Thankfully. Unfortunately, people like Ms. Dombrowski support a dichotomized view of the world which for so long has cast Christians in a light where most don't think we "think" deeply about anything except the cross of Christ. I applaud your courage. I wish you well.

Liz Rios

[Dan-D from Canada]

Liz - While I understand your point and think you make an excellent one, you may come across a little judgemental in your language ("people like Ms. Dombrowski..."). May I recommend being slightly more careful with what you say? I think we all want to respond to critics with grace and care - just a friendly suggestion.

Re: Generous Orthodoxy quote - an excellent response is by McLaren himself. Check out the following link - http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000394.html. I hope it's helpful.

Re: Deborah Dombrowski's comment - I think that the above Response should accurately represent the side of emergent that you yourself admit professes Jesus as savior - but I don't see the other side in it, the side that you suggest denys him. Would you or anyone else be able to support that claim with an example of where one of the above Responders has done so? (and please, please, PLEASE take what they write in context. It's only fair.)

From the Great White North,

[Kyle]

wonderful response guys. your acceptance, welcomeness, and security in the criticisms and critiques is honorable and generous. peace and blessings.

[Karen]

I just want to say thank you for this statement. I am continually amazed at how you all respond with such grace, love, and humility towards all, especially those who disagree with you! Thank you for being such an example of Christ.

[Wes Roberts]

Gentlemen and brothers (some of you I know personally...some I know from your writings)...I, for one, could not be more thankful for this statement so grace-filled expressed. In fact, I'm taking it to an important gathering in the mountains tomorrow. 'Tis a sacred privilege to call you friends and to be journeying with you...even at the wild olde age of 63. Hope is what I experience from this splendid gathering of your minds and hearts so soulfully expressed. God is blessed...and so are most of the rest of us. May you know our Triune God's blessings for your courage and creative vision.

[A Wolf in a Lawyer's Tuxedo]

While this is an admirable statement that deserves consideration, it will take more than a single blog post to undo the damage inflicted by Mr. McLaren's ungenerous caricatures of "modern" evangelicals that continue to be propogated by his "A New Kind of Christian" trilogy as well as his book "A Generous Orthodoxy." As long as these books are out there confusing the issues, little progress will be made.

[Randy McRoberts]

Those four particular books are among the most enlightening I have ever read. I thought I was the only Christian who wrestled with such things. Brian let me know that there are many like me and I need not keep my mouth closed for fear of being labelled a heretic.

[graham]

Very helpful response. Thank you.

I was so encouraged by the reminder to remember the poor. At the end of the day, this thing of ours is not about being emergent or otherwise. It's about following Christ, whose grace is evident in these wise words.

[watchman]

Ms. Dombrowski says it all in one paragraph...the enemy is within the gates, and is posing as " more authentic" , while it is simply a new age counterfeit.

[mary fran]

Beautifully written gang!!! Thank you for your gracious responses in spite of some of the harsh personal attacks many of you have had. As usual, thank you for the encouragement!

[chris]

You silly liberals! I love how you have to correct yourselves all the time. "Now Liz, remember to keep in mind that your words might come across as offensive." Your project doesn't even work in your own house. It is impossible, you simply can't guard your tongue the way system demands.

Warmly, CT

[Herold]

It's called PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE. This statement is no different than everything heard before. The underlying sentiment is that the critics are narrow-minded, selective legalists and misguided dinosaurs. Nice try, Slippery, Slimey Emergent! You fool only those entranced by your poetically smiley luster. Soothsayers!

[Tera Yakel]

Thanks for such a well worded, loving and thoughtful response. I have been continually impressed by the amount of love and grace that I see in the majority of those involved in this emergent conversation.

[njboss]

Very, very well said and stated, Emergent fellows...very, very, very sad words from the "other" side professing Jesus as Lord...when will so-called followers of Jesus ever learn that their vitriolic responses, their "name withheld" e-mail boxes, and their weak theological stances simply do nothing more than betray their supposed allegiances to Jesus, the Risen One?
Keep writing, keep following, keep looking beyond and past the so-called "keepers of the gate" who are nothing more than Pharisees meandering through the 21st century blogosphere.

[Name Withheld]

I agree with Herold on one important thing:

The commenters on this post who praise the "response" are dismissive of the commenters who are critical of it. They use language that is just as harsh (though more disguised) as the language of the dessenters.

I'm new to the whole thing, and openly admit I don't get it. But I'm not being harsh in my words. I'm just saying, if the emergent church movement is about dialogue and acceptance and respect...it doesn't show from the commenters who so quickly bash the words of critics.

If someone disagrees with the emergent movement...are they wrong? Because that's the message the comments on this post send.

[Dan-D from Canada]

Name withheld - I think many of us try to support the Response without "critic bashing" - but you are right to warn us of this. It is a temptation that I fight when I read some of the comments posted by people that are overtly insulting - I think we've all seen good examples of that, from both sides. I pray we can live up to the standard you and others rightly call us to.

I am more than willing to respectfully dialogue and agree to disagree with anyone, as well as to accept correction when applicable - I think we have alot to learn from our critics. I do stand by my earlier comment, and want to say again: Would anyone be willing/able to support the claim that emergent denies Christ as it professes him with an example of where one of the above Responders has done so?

[name withheld]

I wasn't talking about you d-dan, your responses seem genuinely polite.

I was just pointing out that there are, what...40 comments here? And of those 40 who care enough to read and comment on this "response" there are at least three or so that label critics with negative terms. I was particularly offended by the guy above my post, who wrote about "so-called Christians" being "Pharisees" and "keepers of the gate." (I even chose my screen name from his post).

If emergent is going to have any resonance or relevance to regular non-seminarian guys like me...then it cannot be as judgemental as some of its critics.

The "Responders" you refer to...I'm guessing those are the authors of this post...and they indeed used language that was polite and kind.

I wonder about (and worry about) the regular Joes...the ones latching on to Emergent without actually grasping its apparent message of embracing diversity.

[bob]

"Name withheld,"
There are thoughtful critics who earn and get thoughtful responses and then there are people who say things like "Nice try, Slippery, Slimey Emergent! You fool only those entranced by your poetically smiley luster. Soothsayers!"

At a certain point it's okay to call out someone's unhelpful negativity for what it is, right?

[J@mes]

Wow - a little bit of hate here, huh?

Honestly, really honestly - I appreciate what all y'all in Emergent have done for us guys out here who had similar problems and suspicion on our faith; y'all have put feelings into words that have deeply helped me and helped those who I am ministering among.

Haters can hate all they want, I'm living this life just like many others here - just trying to be faithful and follow our Savior's teachings.

May God continue the hated, yet deeply loved work of the emergents.

[caroline]

Your sixth point is mealy-mouthed and will be seen as such, rightfully, by those who only see liberal nonsense (and worse) in your movement.

From the 6th Point: "...yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism..."

So any 'hermeneutical position' is as good as any other, yet you aren't relativists. And 'absolutism' is 'arrogant' (and absurd and dangerous) by definition, implying that any claim to Truth - such as, for instance, that five solas theology is Biblical Truth - is arrogant, absurd and dangerous. OK. No, you're not relativists, and, yes, you believe there is such a thing as truth, except that you don't. Or, you do, and you don't. Got it.

[Mike Morrell]

For those who continue to have difficulty with the relative few folks who have penned the above response, it might be helpful to "fly above" and see just how diverse the voices are who are participating in this conversation. You'll probably find brothers and sisters who have some of the same questions and concerns that you do who, rather than eliciting a kneejerk reaction from "emergers," are welcomed as important dialog partners. (For such an example, I think of Frank Viola's Will The Emerging Church Fully Emerge?) Its not what you say, but the spirit in which you say it.

[john umland]

i'm an outsider looking in. been looking for a short while. left my thoughts on my blog. i did get irritated with straw men in this "response." FWIW, http://umbl0g.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-response-to-our-response-to-critics.html
God is good
jpu

[tom montali]

re: Emergent response

A masterful declaration of dialectic deceit. The apostle Peter warned the church of these.

2 Peter 2:17-19
"These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."

By the way, the church of Jesus Christ is not a "human endeavor" (to quote you), this is where you do greatly err. If you are presently involved in this work of 'man' you need to come out. If you're 'contemplating' entering the movement, be warned also by the apostle Peter....

2 Peter 3:17
"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

Run. Fast.

To those who would deem this to be "harsh".....the standard is and must always be the Word of God and not the words of men.

TM

[Mike DeVries]

Let me be another voice that says "thank you" for your thoughtful response. I think that what some people are exhibiting here in their comments is exactly what disturbs me the most about the past few months. Many, many people quoting things out of context and making enormous leaps in logic.

While I, like many others, welcome the critique of our thoughts and expressions, I have to admit that I have been disturbed lately by the lack of dialogue between those of us who are seeking new expressions and those who are critical of the exploration. I have seen very hurtful and inaccurate things said about dear friends of mine [who love Jesus immensely and are committed to the Kingdom] in print. To make matters more disturbing is the reality that when these friends have reached out to enter into dialogue with critics, the offers have by and large gone unaccepted.

Let me reiterate that we welcome the critique. Critique is necessary and healthy - but it needs to be done in a spirit of love, trust and dialogue. Too often there is only reaction, rather than true dialogue - which is unfortunate. I know from personal experience the hurt of being judged by people who take things out of context - making statements about thoughts without entering into a honest, mutual dialogue over the issues at hand. Being involved in this exploration has cost me and my family much - like many, many others out there.

Thanks, again for the response - which I felt wwas grace-filled and thoughtful. I only wish that more of the critics would exhibit the same generosity that was expressed in the reponse.

[tooaugust]

OK, Let me give this a shot. Here is a statement from an ec critic in the same spirit as the one above:

I appreciate the ec's critique of the modern church and its acceptance of all of Church History, as long as one realizes that "all" to some usually refers to Theresa Avila and Francis. We respectfully disagree with the ec on some points, but realize that some will feel a bit more inclined to submit to their experiences and emotions, and we're OK with that. We may not be theologically dysfunctional like some in ec, but we really love them and respect their right to be without the Christ of the Bible.

We appreciate the shift away from a Christ always filled with wrath, and would affirm the love of Christ to be predominant in His children, but would respectfully disagree with the Christ who is always nice even in the face of something false or evil. However, because many have grown up with Mr. Rogers and that is a part of our culture, we respect and tolerate lovingly and with many smiles, the inclination of ec to conform Christ to his image even if we personally feel you are lost for doing so. We love you even if your uninformed and on a different road than those who know Christ.

In summary, blessings be upon all: prophets, false prophets, Mother Theresa and Hitler. Grace to everybody even to those who would disagree and be less than thrilled with this post. I love you even in your dislike of me or what I stand for because they fuzzy monkeys that live in my brain told me to do so. Have a happy clappy day shiney people.

[randy]

Great statement, guys!

And thanks for your graciousness in the midst of sometimes difficult conversations.

[bob]

tooaugust/littleC

good times, good times... thanks for the grace-filled words...
To quote you from the emergentno site- if you don't like it, you don't have to come here and read it. It sounds like maybe you should just kind of ignore us heretics from here on out. The little monkeys told me to tell you so. :)

[rob Lewin]

Hey you horible men,
Knowing you and your passion for Jesus has been life changing for me.
I believe in you, and am grateful for your endurance in this.
Thanks for being willing to honor all these voices.
Keep walkin'.

[tooaugust]

Bob, when did i say that? Please let me know because I don't remember ever saying that. Where is it? Sounds a little venomous to me. Why the hostility. Am I not allowed in the conversation because I don't agree with you?

[tooaugust]

PS, I never ignore wolves. I'm a shepherd.

[Todd]

I am saddened by what I read in the blog entries that follow the statement. I see those of us who call each other "brother" or "sister" and yet treat each other as we would some lesser person or worse. How sad it must be for anyone who does not know Christ and stumbles upon this blog. Unfortunately I have grown up in this environment and can't imagine what it would look like otherwise. We who claim to know the truth bickering and sliming each other, great picture of Christ's grace and love. What great examples of being Christlike. And we wonder why those outside the Church will not consider Jesus as a valid option(?).

[tooaugust]

Umm, Todd, they don't consider Jesus as a valid option because their in rebellion against Him and we should not cater to culture to try to make our message more relevant. I for one am not going to abandon the Church of God to this trendy nonsense because I don't want the world to know that not all people that claim they speak for Christianity actually do. The world should know, as you should, that there is a difference between the visible and invisible Church, and that Christ is filled with grace and love and yet says directly and through His Scripture,

Why don’t you go castrate yourself (Gal 5:12), poisonous snakes (Matt 3:7; 23:33; Lk 3:7), morons/idiots (Matt 5:22; 7:26; 23:17; 25:2, 3, 8; 1 Cor ), hypocrites (Matt 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29, Mk 7:6; Lk 12:56; 13:15), liars (John 8:44-55; 1 Tim 4:2), children of the devil (8:44; Acts 13:10), children of hell (Matt 23:15), dogs (Phil 3:2), wolves (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29), fox (Lk 13:32), unreasoning animals (2 Pt 2:12; Jude 1:10), worthless men (Deut 13:13; Judg 9:4; 11:3; 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 25:25 about Nabal “Idiot;” 30:22; 2 Sam 16:7; 20:1; 23:5-7; 1 Kgs 21:10, 13; 2 Chron 13:7; Job 13:4; Prov 6:12; 16:27; Jer 10:14-15; 51:17-18; Zech 11:17; Matt 25:30; Lk 19:22; Titus 1:16-2:1; ).

Sound unChrist-like to you? Maybe it's because your Christ isn't very Christ-like. I'm not for calling names just to call names, but you people are ridiculous. You've been burned or just didn't think that Church was the what you wanted it to be in its attitude and now judge all things by this standard. Unfortunately, you pretty much exclude every Christian in History as being unChrist-like, including as stated before, Christ Himself. Maybe it's time to change your mind, rather than Christ's character.

[tooaugust]

I cut and pasted this the last time I saw it posted here. It is amazing how many times this has come in handy around the net. You guys use the same arguments over and over again. And by argument I mean ad hominem fallacy.

[Jeff Henderson]

I agree with Todd. I think it is fine and usually construtive to disagree, but let's try to keep derogatory comments out of it. I am fairly skeptical at many of the ideas coming out of the emergent church, yet I agree with them whole-heartedly that we should approach discussions with open minds and that we should be gentle with our words. I am not here to prove that I am right and that others are wrong; I am here to offer reasons for what I believe and consider the reasons others hold to different beliefs so that we may both come closer to the truth.

[Jeff Henderson]

Hey tooaugust,
I don't believe that Todd was committing the ad hominem fallacy. By that I mean, he was not discrediting a view because of the conduct of those who hold to the view. Rather he was merely critising the way in which people were sharing there views regardless of which views they are. I believe this is a valid critisism. Yes it is true that Christ and the Apostles used harsh language at times. Yet most of these are just examples of them calling evil by it's own name. In none of these passages are they using hurtful comments in order to put down their brothers and sisters in Christ just because they diagree with them. On the contrary, scripture is full of commands to be gentle and tactful with your speech (Colossians 4:6, 1 Peter 3:15-16).

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think it is rude or arrogant to say that your view is right and someone else's is wrong. It is arrogant and rude to suggest that it is their stupidity that led them to have an opposing view when you do not even know them. I don't know, that seems a little more like an ad hominem to me.

[Sivin]

Amen ...

I really appreciate this corporate response, now let's move on together!

[Mark Berry]

Helmut Theilike once said... The Gospel has to be constantly readdressed because the recipient is constantly changing his place of residence (paraphrase)- this kind of debate is not new it was going on in Biblical times too - e.g. Paul and the Jerusalem Council. Here in the UK there is not as much fear of the Emergent conversation, with "traditional church" involved e.g. The C of E report "Mission Shaped Church" and even sponsoring Emerging explorations and 'Fresh Expressions' perhaps our longer history and smaller population means we are much more comfortable with diversity - denominations have worked together for years - acknowledging theological differences but celebrating and worshiping the same Triune God. It is sad that there is so much venom in this discussion and so much "you are evil and here are lots of passages to prove it" type posting, I refer this type of poster to 2 Timothy 2 - Again I say, don’t get involved in foolish, ignorant arguments that only start fights. The Lord’s servants must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone. In this country it is fair to say that the traditional church is failing to engage with the vast majority of people and the seed of the Gospel is landing on the path not the field, we/they have recognised this (largely) with humility and a willingness to take risks in the name of Christ... because we like Paul love the people outside of the church so much that we want to share our lives with them, to affirm their spiritual quests and to help them to reach out to God (1 Thess 2/Acts 17) in confidence that God will come rushing out to meet them in His grace and love. I'm sorry to say that those who say that everyone who is not "in church" has chosen to rebel against God just doesn't hold up - some may have rebelled against church culture most simply haven't heard nor been given the chance to take the first steps on the road - Christendom no longer exists in the West - to me the point of this whole exploration is to seek the Misseo Dei and to readdress (not throw out) the Gospel of the risen Christ which says... you are loved though you may not know it, you have hope though you may not feel it, you have a choice though you may not have been told of it, and that God is closer than you may think and is indeed waiting to run out to you with open arms, no matter who you are or what you have done and to forgive and hold you and restore you to the relationship for which you were made.

[Mark Berry]

BTW if the above statements make me a liberal, a false teacher, even a wolf etc. etc. in your eyes, oh well so be it... the only one who knows my heart is God.

[Dan-D from Canada]

Again I ask critics, skeptic, etc. - Would anyone be willing/able to support the claim that emergent denies Christ as it professes him with an example of where one of the above Responders has done so?

Name calling is easy. Reasonable discussion is hard. I am not as informed about some of the nuances of doctrine as I could be - I would be happy to hear from someone better-learned about genuine concerns in "emergent doctrine", such that it is. The last few critical posts haven't given any reason/proof as to why they think we're off base, just said that we are and affirmed their right to treat us harshly for being so. I don't think I'm being guilty of "ad hominum fallacy" here - I have concerns about emergent too! Anyone with me on this?

[robbymac]

The response was well-done, and very gracious. Thanks for posting it.

[caroline]

Dan-D from Canada, this site:

http://emergentno.blogspot.com/

goes into doctrinal matter regarding things emergent. Start with the recent post that is a response to this current post we are all commenting on.

[tooaugust]

Look, people, my comments come from discussing for A LONG TIME NOW with ec these issues. It is clear that this statement is not to be trusted. For instance, what does no one comes to God except through Christ mean? Does that mean through a submissive relationship with the person of Christ revealed in Scripture, or does it mean the Christ-like character that even a Hindu may have through His own religion. I have taken quite a few interfaith classes in my day and all of the above can be reinterpreted as it also is by cults to sound more orthodox. If all above is meant to say exactly what it means historically and not just the same words reinterpreted, then I'm ecstatic and will admonish ec as brothers (which is an assumption I do not now hold, so the comment above about bashing brothers is beggin the question to me). It seems to me that, from McLaren and others, at least some of the above is not being defined in an orthodox way, so the words are meaningless.

[tooaugust]

Once again, I get from these comments the following:

1. The purpose of the Church is evangelism.
2. Only the world and the Church exist and so why bicker among the Church? It's so unChrist-like.
3. Jesus and Paul are harsh even with names, but we make exception to them because we don't want to speak against them, but we'll slam everyone else who does the same.

BTW, I never said people hold what they do because they're stupid. I don't believe BELIEF has to do with intelligence, but in whether one is submissive or rebellious.

[caroline]

Here is a two-hour discussion on postmodernism and the emergent church:

http://apologetics.com/audio/05_21_05.mp3

Here's a good essay on postmodernism vis-a-vis the Bible:

http://thirdmill.org/files/reformedperspectives/hall_of_frame/HOF.Hale.Derrida%20and%20VanTil.6.30.04.html

[Dan-D from Canada]

caroline - thanks for the resorces. I'll peruse them as I get the time. I've been to emergentno, and I found Carla's response to be... lacking. I think she made a few good points but they seemed to be lost in a borderline-paranoid rant about "hidden insults" within the message. Very Bible-Codeish. And she seemed to be appealing to common knowledge that emergent was way off - I guess I'll have to read farther back in her posts to get where she's coming from. And I'm not sure if my meager dial-up connection can handle a 2-hr debate, but I'll give it a try!

tooaugust - you said, "For instance, what does no one comes to God except through Christ mean? Does that mean through a submissive relationship with the person of Christ revealed in Scripture, or does it mean the Christ-like character that even a Hindu may have through His own religion. I have taken quite a few interfaith classes in my day and all of the above can be reinterpreted as it also is by cults to sound more orthodox." Excellent question, and an important one that must not be overlooked. I'll agree that erroneous interpretation of doctrine can occur from any statement of faith. Personally I don't think any religion's characters, no matter how "christ-like" are equal to Christ himself, and I don't think Ive seen McLaren or the other say as such... Lesslie Newbigin in 'The Gospel in a Pluralist Society' wrote, "[My} position is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revalation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of salvation to the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian Church, but it rejects the inclusivism which regards the non-christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisivness of what God has done in Jesus Christ." (p. 182-183). This message is more in line with what I see and hear at emergent than out-and-out universalism.

I would like to hear what you have to say to a question of mine (with no agenda, my jury's still out on it): Does someone need to have heard of Christ in order to be saved by him? ie. King David (or any pre-christ Jew for that matter), a bushman in africa with no encounter with the church, native americans/canadians for hundred of years before missionaries reached them - are they all, according to your understanding of the gospel, screwed?

[Mark Berry]

Tooaugust asked... what does no one comes to God except through Christ mean? Does that mean through a submissive relationship with the person of Christ revealed in Scripture, or does it mean the Christ-like character that even a Hindu may have through His own religion.

well I can't speak for EmergentUS but as someone involved in the emerging church conversation in the UK, I believe that the former is the case, when submissive means to let go and allow Christ to lead you by the hand as you seek to know God better - the prodigal son did not know all the answers or even what to expect when he arrived at the house when he left the pig pen - he simply knew that there must be something better... he did not have to work out the entire route and how to knock on the door - his submission was the humility to take a step which the Father honoured by rushing out to meet him... for me it is that humility which is part of the underpinning of Missional (emerging) church - allowing and expecting God to run out and meet people as we walk with them - not feeling I need to teach them every step.. I suppose it is a matter of Faith... I believe and trust that God will rush out and embrace them on their journey...
secondly I think I know what you are getting at with your Hindu question... what I think (as it is only my thoughts, imperfect as they are) is that with respect you are misinterpreting this... my interpretation is that there are two parts (as explored in "A New Kind of Christian") there is accepting Christ as central and pivotal (MaClaren says - 'Christ enters in'), but there is then how you express and deepen that relationship... I suppose I would want to say that accepting Christ into the centre of your life, does not necesarily mean having to look and behave culturally like a western Christian... e.g. Worship, language, Structure, dogma that has been built through culture etc. Dean Borgman once asked "Besides our Christian beliefs and lifestyle, what cultural identity, beliefs and values are we passing on to our Children? For what in our culture would we be willing to sacrifice oursleves or even to die?"
I think we have to ask what in our culture and ourselves is infact a false stumbling block on the road to the cross? I was asked by a 15year old last year why is was that the church denied him the right to seek God? When I questioned him about this he explained that it was the attitude of Christians (holier than thou, dismissive, judgemental, hypocritical etc.) and the culture of Church (he had explored traditional, charismatic and others and found himself feeling unwelcome, unloved and a stranger amongst strange people in a strange and irelevant culture across the board) to me then Emerging Church is, as one our Bishops put it... rather than planting a culture and/or structure we plant the Gospel and nurture the church that emerges from the struggles, relationships and culture from which it grows. That culture may have much to affirm in it, and if it is a religous culture the churches may have resonances of that culture e.g. might an African use a drum to worship rather than an acoustic guitar, might a Tibetan feel drawn to God in silent meditation rather than corporate singing or liturgy? And no doubt the concerns of the community will be different because of the local situation and the stories of the people. I suppose the major area we might disagree on is that I am a firm believer in Missio Dei, that God is at work in the world and in peoples lives before we get there and much of the conversation is about affirming, exploring and recognising that(e.g. Acts 17).
We may never agree on this but I believe you are an intelligent faithful person seeking Gods way and I hope and pray you may come to say the same thing about people like me... but ultimately (as I said above) it will be God I stand before and not The Church.

[caroline]

Dan-D ASKS:
"I would like to hear what you have to say to a question of mine (with no agenda, my jury's still out on it): Does someone need to have heard of Christ in order to be saved by him? ie. King David (or any pre-christ Jew for that matter), a bushman in africa with no encounter with the church, native americans/canadians for hundred of years before missionaries reached them - are they all, according to your understanding of the gospel, screwed?"

Yes everyone needs to have been made know of Christ to be saved. King David (that you bring up) and other Old Testament people had faith in the future arrival of the Messiah, via prophecy of Him and signs and symbol in ceremonial laws, etc., just as we have faith in the Jesus Christ Who has already come. As for people in other parts of the world and in times - BC or AD - where they were isolated, apparently, from missionary or Bible, God, if they seek Him, makes Himself known them (it is the Son that appears to man in the Old Testament, and He can have appeared to others not mentioned in the Bible). God (the Son, Jehovah too in the mystery of the Trinity) also makes Himself known via visions and angelic (or Angel of the Lord) appearances. So, any person or people you can pose as having lived in as isolated a place and time on Earth as can be can have been made aware of the Son even if no missionary or Bible reached them. God is in control of where people are in geography and time regarding their salvation. It has to be remember too that all human being are guilty, and also the potter can do as He will with His creation. Also remember, when an individual is moved by God to seek God he finds God. (James) when you come nigh to God, God comes nigh to you.

I can't believe it! I actually got intelligent answers back instead of insult. Maybe now we can have a discussion. Thank you, Gentlemen, for answering.

Dan, thanks for responding and always being willing to talk. Let me address one thing first and then I'll answer your question.

1. What you just described is exactly what I was talking about in redefining the doctrine of exclusivity. I wasn't talking about universalism, where each person is saved through his or her religion. I was talking about the Vatican II type inclusivism that says one can meet a spirit of Christ without knowledge of Christ. Therefore, as far as Hinduism retains a Christ-likeness within it, a Hindu who follows it can be saved. This is not saying the religion saves, but that Christ saves and the means of being saved is one's faith and practice that is consistent with Christ/Christianity. That is not the historic position as you may know. So first I want it acknowledged that the statement above IS redefining what is said and yet not clarifying to the average evangelical that what ec means by it and what has been meant by it historically are completely two different things (perhaps it is thought that the evangelical's poor mind can't take such a dramatic shift in thinking like the more understanding ec leaders and he's a little to irrational and stuck in his ways--you know like someone might be with their grandparents on certain views). This to me is the dishonesty I was talking about before that I have witnessed over and over again in the cults that I have dealt with.

2. Your question unfortunately is poorly answered today for a few reasons.
A. There is lack of Biblical understanding of the sin nature.
B. There is lack of Biblical understanding of why God draws an individual and to what He draws them.
C. There is too much emotional and anthropocentric theology in the Church today to really come to the truth on the issue without great offense at both the type of God (one that requires theocentricism even at the cost of men's souls) revealed in Scripture and those who would exalt such a God.
D. There is a lack of understanding of how the Spirit works and what the Spirit works with to place a man in communion with God, so that man has a true relationship with Him.
E. The definition of "good" is confused in our culture, and as such is not distinguished as being Christian or non-Christian, eternal or temporal, theocentric vs. anthropocentric.

Let me now unpack this Biblically:
A. The Scripture says that all are separated from God by means of their sin and are therefore without God in the world (Eph 2); that no one seeks for God and none are good (or let us say, "no one has the Christlikeness"), not even one person--Jew or Gentile (Rom 3). Hence, Paul concludes, all are under the condemnation of God. Now, perhaps some would agree so far, perhaps not. Either way, the importance here is to know that all are condemned apart from Christ; that the "people who have never heard" in Rom 1 are the same people who hold the truth given by God in creation and don't come into a relationship with Him. There are none of all the Gentiles mentioned in Rom 1, who come to God. The same ones who have the knowledge reject it and fall under condemnation. (The same for the Jews with the Law for that matter in Rom 2.) There is no such person in that text, which is the text people usually go to in order to say that maybe people who have "never heard" believe, but the whole point of the text is that everyone has heard, and because of the sin nature, everyone rebels and does not seek for God.

B. We have to ask how one comes to God then? And the answer in Scripture is that God draws (lit. drags) a person, but to what, or should we say whom; and for what purpose does He draw them? As you may be familiar with John 6, Dan:

36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day... 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 "It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me."

So God draws all His people to the Son. No one is drawn to anything else, but the Son. Now you may ask, but what does being drawn to the Son mean? Well, in the context it is belief/faith in the Son. That is the whole point He is making with the Jews. Now what is faith in John? Obeying the Son (3:36), abiding in Him through what He has spoken (15:3-8, hard to do if you've never heard of Him), knowing the Son (17:3), and worshiping Him as well as the Father through the truth (4:24). If you look in a concordance to see how many times the phrase "knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" etc., it's quite extensive and always referring to one's faith/relationship with Christ.
If the objection still is, "But perhaps faith isn't something you believe through spoken words, etc.," then one should read the entire Gospel of John to see otherwise (such statements as "My sheep hear My voice, the voice of another they will not listen to) as well as Paul's statement that "13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!" 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" 17 So faith [comes] from hearing , and hearing by the word of Christ" (Rom 10:13-17).
Secondly, God draws a person to Christ so that the person's salvation would give Him glory, not just some day in heaven, but here on earth (the entire book of Eph is good for this one). He saves us to become representatives of Christ (Rom 8:28-29). I'll explain why this means more than moral examples of Christ below.
Please note then that, in this entire thing, it is God who brings a man to himself and therefore, why would He ever bring someone half way? why would every just let someone stay in their own religion or without Him? Notice in Rom 8:30:
"and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified."
Please note one major thing in the passage overlooked by pretty much everyone. The very ones he predestined are the very ones HE CALLED and the very ones He called here are the very ones He justified and the very ones He justified are the very ones He glorified. There is no other group. The calling is always a reference to the preaching of the Gospel in the NT, a bringing one into a relationship with God by God's message to him or her. So all of His elect hear the gospel and are justified by the gospel and are glorified by the gospel they hear. The are brought to be Christ's representatives, not through mere moral example, but through first having faith in the gospel which is spoken to them. There is no one else.

C. With this in mind then, God's purpose in a redeeming His select people is to be exalted as Lord, not to save everyone. This is the most difficult thing of all, but He has done these things in order that it leads to the praise of His glory (Eph 1), that everyone will confess that He is Lord (Phil 2:9-11), whether in the overcoming of evil by His mercy in His elect or overcoming it by His utter damnation upon those He chooses to leave in their first choices (Rom 9). So then, any who do not come to Him through the Gospel today are not elect, whether that is in America, Europe or some Pigmy tribe in Africa. If he elects someone, His gospel makes its way to them through us. And let us remember from Rom 1 that all are with the truth and deny it. The problem then is not how much truth one has, but the rebellious nature of a man, which is the point Paul is making in Rom. That's offensive to many, but that is God's choice. Our responsibility is to preach the Gospel to the whole world and to die doing it, but the responsibility of who believes it is God's; and God will use it to bring His people to Himself, but His people don't come to Him without it. Note that it is God who puts a man in a place where he does not hear.

D. The Spirit of God works through God's Word. Can you please tell me where you have the Spirit working through something other than God's SPECIAL revelation that we now have in Scripture? Whether with the 10 Commandments in the Temple or the teaching/words of Christ, the Spirit's work in bringing one into communion with God is through spoken truth (Exod 20, 32; Deut 4; again John). The Spirit in the OT had His communal presence around the Temple/Jerusalem/Israel to draw those both in Israel and outside of Israel. If you look at all of those who come. It is through Israel in the OT. Salvation is through the Jews. But we may speculate perhaps from Acts 17:16ff we might conclude that God drew men in other nations to Himself when Israel's light could not be seen (although what Paul is talking about is ambiguous at this point).
But the real question for us, Dan, is what about now? Paul acknowledges that PERHAPS it was the case that one could come to God through ignorance in the OT, but we're in the NT now. He therefore says that although God overlooked this in former times, NOW has commanded ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent (in Acts always referring to turning from one's former convictions to Christ and His gospel). So as Caroline said, OT believers are believers because they would have believed through the Spirit's means of communal presence, the Word. Frankly, ours is the same in that. We have a relationship with Christ through His Word and the communal presence of the Spirit then resides with us as temples. I'm not sure how one is a temple without the spoken word and how one can have the communal Spirit of God without being a temple which contains the word. Anyhow, no one who does not have the Spirit belongs to Christ (Rom 8); no one without the word has the Spirit; therefore no one without the spoken word belongs to Christ.

E. Good that is eternal explicitly glorifies God and His truth as the one who produced it. That is why only one who has a relationship with Christ through the truth can do good and everyone else is said to be in darkness with the deeds of darkness. Everyone apart from Christ does not seek God and is not good. No one can please God apart from this relationship (Rom 8:6-9). Any work done that testifies of God's relationship with a person and His work in his or her life because of their submission to His Gospel is a good work. Christians can do both good and evil then, but the world can do only evil as to this TYPE of good. Eternal Good, which is true good, is the only one that really counts in eternity.
The second good that is confused with it is temporal good. Temporal good is that which makes others happy, or gives some sort of benefit to them temporally, but testifies of a false belief system and something that is demonic--good absent of God's explicit, communal presence in one's life. An atheist can only do temporal good; a Mormon, temporal good; and emergents/emergings? I'm waiting to see.
In other words, good which please God is only done by one in a relationship with Him and glorifies the truth. Therefore, one who has never heard is only evil. No good at all for that which counts (as though one can be saved through goodness anyway), but the point is that there is no reason for God to save the person who has never heard because they have never believed. He does not save them because they're like Christ because we just established that they are not. Christ's good is always eternal good. A Christian's good is always eternal good. A non-Christian's good is never eternal good. How is that like Christ's character?

So after a dissertation, Dan, I've given you what I think will be much disputed, but perfectly in context and more of a Biblical theology of things rather than just proof texts (which is why I encourage you to read the entire books and look at the theology they convey because I think they will confirm the verses I did quote). I only said this much because I'm always accused of just making accusations and never backing anything up. So, although overly long and boring, here it is. Sorry, Tony, for taking so much space, but maybe this will be a starting point for