Emergent Banners For Your Site

Contacting Emergent

  • Emergent Village
    P.O. Box 390104
    Minneapolis, MN 55439

Creative Commons Information

« An Overview of the Kairos Gathering | Main | emergent churches making the news »


chris lancaster

Emergent, however, I dare say, is a very loose collection of Hegelians

I get what you're trying to say--and I think it make good sense--but probably a better way to say this would be: "Emergent, however, is a lose collection of people who are more aligned with the Hegelian tradition of dialectic and dialogue." To apply the term "Hegelian" to the people in emergent will cause a lot of people to load some theological and philosophical baggage--including Hegel's rather unorthodox views on the incarnation and Trinity--on emergent that is inaccurate and unnecessary. I doubt there are very many emergent "Hegelians" in the true sense of the world, but there are probably a lot who are influenced, in both positive and negative ways, by Hegel. But who isn't? Our critics certainly are.

A good book on why Hegel's philosophy can't be adopted wholesale by theology is The Heterodox Hegel by Notre Dame (and former Yale) theologian Cyril O'Regan.

andy gr

...and of course some of us who would claim to be involved in emerging church are deeply influenced by Kierkegaard, who had no time for Hegel at all...


An anthropocentric, naturalistic movement needs an anthropocentric, naturalistic worldview. I'm glad you've admitted that the evolutionary Hegel provides the starting point for your movement. The rest of us will just stick with people illumined by the Holy Spirit through the Scripture to get our worldviews. You might want to think about getting your ideas from them sometime, since 1 Corinthians 1-3 seems to state that the natural man, like Hegel, can't understand the spiritual things of God; but then you would have to believe the "same old thing" and it wouldn't be as philosophically exciting for you. It's probably the reason the people i've spoken to in this movement don't understand historic Christianity either. Maybe you should be clearer on the Gospel by asking someone, since then maybe some of your disciples would become followers of Christ and drop Hegelian philosophies where they belong. If Hegel told me how to change my air filter, I'd listen, but men ruled by demons are not the teachers of God's people.


seriously- why would you listen to hegel about your air filter?
If he's ruled by demons then NOTHING he has to say will be helpful, correct? It seems like you need to be getting your mechanical advice from someone illumined by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures...

Safer to not listen to anything men like Hegel have to say about any subject... including anything he has to say about how to conduct a discussion...

Splitting life into sections of sacred and secular and refusing to listen to those outside "the fold" in one of those areas but not in another is silly and arbitrary...

If Paul can quote Greek poets, surely I can quote enlightenment philosophers...

but never mind- I think you actually just made Tony's point.

grace and peace to you, man. I hope someday you grow to see that your comments here are the farthest thing from conversation "full of grace and seasoned with salt. "


Actually, this proves my point about how dense you people are. My whole point about listening to someone secular about things that did not have to do with divine teaching that THE SCRIPTURE says cannot be understood by the natural man. If you want the devil in your ear about theological matters, then I hope you will mature enough in the truth one day so as to not go with him.


sigh... I'm sorry.
You're right. You've bludgeoned me into submission.

I guess I just can't figure out why you refuse to listen to the Scriptures on your tone of conversation...


youareallidiots, tony just used hegel to illustrate how emergent has a different model of discussion and debate than some of the people who are demanding answers--he did not say that emergent gets its "worldview" or the content of its theology from hegel. that's all your post complained about--and it has nothing to do with what tony's actual point was.

if you can't read carefully enough to understand his simple point, then you're just showing that you can live up to your posting name, nothing more.



I think you are right when you realize that those from outside the fold might have relevant and even enlightening argumentative constructions to their questions, but I do have to wonder how 2 Peter the first chapter is applied in the life of an avowed Emergant, more specifically whar is Godliness? Why do these converstions, if inclusive of a broader perspective, seem to avoid the direct, if not abstract, reference to the scriptures as at least referential and relevant to living and theology?

Trying to be Christlike


Wes Allen

I don't even think you have to use Hegel, though it works in the comparison to Kant, I suppose (hmmmm, "thesis" + "antithesis" What's the synthesis here?). This is actually part of the history of the Church and our Jewish ancestors. The ecumenical councils were conversations. Sometimes, kind, other times not so nice (didn't Athanasius smack Arius at one point?); but through the conversation the Church established the language of orthodoxy that's still in use today. Before them, the rabbi's argued with each other in the Talmud (read the JPS commentaries for some really fascinating conversations going on). The idea that we're trying to "converse" is part of the history of the Church, and in the inspired Scripture itself!
In a very real way, the emerging church ISN'T new, it's vintange in the best sense of the word.

Steve B.

But Tony, conversations involve assertions and could not productively take place without them. Conversations also involve taking responsibility for our assertions. Part of taking responsibility for assertions means being willing to give reasons for our assertions when asked to do so. Further, it means being willing to change and revise our assertions when our assertions are challenged in ways that show they need to be asserted. That is a Hegelian model, and does not view an assertion as a finalized, once-for-all settled event. But without the practice of making assertions and taking resonsibility for them, I'm not sure such an approach qualifies as Hegelian, at least as I read Hegel (through Stout, Brandom, and Pippin). Refusing to state what our opinions on some subjects are places us as immune from critique, questioning, and responding, and so actually prevents us from participating in the Hegelian dialectic.



I'm not saying that we won't make assertions. We've made plenty, about poverty, social justice, the need for healthy churches. We will not, however, be baited into debates on 5-point Calvinism and some other "litmus test" questions by which people like to weed the heterodox out form the orthodox.


Steve B.

Tony, well I understand having more productive things to do than rehash interminable debates. But that is different from not stating one's opinion on an issue.

If some issue is important enough to an individual that it is the definition of orthodoxy for her, doesn't she have a right to know her (potential or actual) conversation partner's opinion? If the conversation partner doesn't wish to go around and around on it, all he has to do is say I think such and such about civil unions and go read such and such book if you want to understand why. Then he could begin a conversation about why that issue is a boundary marker for the other. But it is hard for me to understand a situation in which someone would refuse to state his opinion on an issue, when the content of that opinion matters to others who are attempting to determine where they stand in relation to the individual. If it makes all the difference in the world to someone that 5-point Calvinism be the defining mark of orthodox christianity, it seems like a respectful conversation partner would divulge that information, even if it doesn't have that same status to the one as to the Calvinist. Same goes for gay marriage. The next conversational move, though, would be: on what basis do you make issue X the defining line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and the reasons given for that could be questioned.

I guess I'm just suspicious of people who won't say what they believe. Cornel West has lost a lot of popularity for stating his opinions on gay and reproductive rights. His opinions on those issues alienate him from many African American Christians. I respect him for being truthful even at the cost of losing influence with a constituency. That engenders trust, in my opinion. Obviously no one person can say, "Emergent believes this about this issue," but if anyone involved in Emergent were to say, "I'm not going to tell you my own personal opinion on this issue" then I find that troubling. That's a conversation-stopper. Even if he doesn't think it's that important, he has to respect the people who do.


And, therein, Steve, lies the difference between my blog and this blog, between me and Emergent -- the same as the difference between Cornel West and Princeton University. The University has worked hard to carve out a niche where West and someone who dramatically disagrees with him can work shoulder-to-shoulder toward the same goal: educating students.

When you walk into a pub to have a pint and talk with a friend about gay rights, do you first ask what is the pub's official stance on gay rights? I doubt it. The pub is in the business of serving beer and offering an environment conducive for conversation.

Emergent is in the business of providing a place for conversation about the future health of Christianity and the church, especially for persons who have felt chilled out of conversations in their former ecclesial contexts.

This is the Emergent blog, not the Tony Jones blog. As you know, I have an opinion about almost everything. I am not, however, about to drag Emergent into morass of my opinions.



Let me first say, as someone still unsure of what I think of Emergent, that I am very saddened at the attacks on you of some who purport to be more orthodox than you. Their very words betray their lack of love. Some of this is of course the very nature of the internet where people feel the ability to be rude where they never would be in real life.

All that being said, I find it odd that you are willing to make assertions about poverty and social justice but not about the nature of the Gospel. I for one am a big believer in "major on the major and minor on the minors." While I could be described as a "5 pointer", I in no way feel that those who aren't are not Christians.

At some point the lack of definition comes across as defensiveness. I don't see why this is necessary. At an Emergent conference in Atlanta last year, Dr. Brueggeman was more than willing to state what he believes.

As someone who is truly interested in much of Emergent and in many ways agrees with the critique of the modern church, I'm having a hard time knowing what to think about it. I am honestly and humbly looking for some guidance here.

Peace to you,



I wrote in the post above what I think is the nature of the gospel: the good news in/of Jesus Christ.

And when I say that Emergent has taken positions on issues like poverty and social justice, I mean that we have done so by the types of speakers that we have invited to conferences and the types of authors whom we recommend to others on our site and ask to write books in our publishing line.

And, if you'll recall, Bruegemann actually avoided some questions while I was questioning him, like, "Did Jonah really live in the belly of a fish for three days? If a 16-year-old asked you if that's true, what would you say?" Bruegemann answered, "I make it a point to never hang around 16-year-olds."

You see, some questions are traps. A savvy interlocuter has every right to avoid the traps and instead engage the questions that will move the conversation forward.


thomas m.

A savvy interlocuter has every right to avoid the traps and instead engage the questions that will move the conversation forward.

I think that's an important point. You don't have to be around evangelicals very long to realize that there are some subjects which are used to trap others, marginalize them, and then rhetorically "destroy" them.

One's belief about the Bible is good example of this kind of trap: for a lot of evangelicals, the defining issue is whether or not you believe the Bible is inerrant. If you do, you're fine, but then you must move on to the next stage. Your questioners are convinced that they know exactly what this inerrant Bible says and means, and on the basis of that understanding, they then begin to regulate your beliefs and effectively control what you think (because if you depart from their conclusions about what the scriptures say, then you obviously don't affirm an inerrant Bible and are sliding down the slippery slope, and no good Christian does that). Anyone who doesn't believe in inerrancy immediately gets trapped by labels and accusations--like you "don't believe the Bible", you're a "liberal", or "you pick and choose what scriptures you like"--even though those accusations are most likely not at all representative of someone's true convictions and practices. True dialogue never has a chance to start, becuase the discussion never gets past this issue.

There are lots of other issues along these lines: gay marriage, women in ministry, Calvinism, and even poverty and social justice. By playing the game, you expose yourself to the traps, and they are always and only black holes. You're left with the question: why play the game? Evangelicals have been playing it for 50 years and haven't been able to move past it. Why follow their lead and jump off their cliff?

Emergent has a chance to be different, to provide a safe space for conversation and debate. Why get sucked into the black hole?



I'm confused now. What exactly is this "conversation" about? If we can't discuss the nature of God, his Gospel, and his relationship with us, what is the conversation about?

I don't mean to be snide about this; I am honestly asking because I don't know.

I'm also not looking for some "aha" moment where you tell me what you believe and I then say, "oh, you're a liberal" or whatever. The only thing I could conclude if you said that you didn't believe in the inerrancy of scripture is that you didn't believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Same thing with any other issue. Not sure what that has to do with your faith in Christ either way. I get the impression that some Emergent people are concerned that they will be labeled something if they come out and say what they believe about various issues. However, people will label you regardless and I would argue that it is best to ignore those people.

I'm trying hard to engage you in dialogue but I am having a hard time understanding.



Fascinating post .... well in Asia, probably terms like Kantian or Hegelian aren't on the lips of the common Christian :-) But, the idea of "We also want to place practice at the very center of theology" is something I can relate to. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxi relationship with each other may be "distinguished" for discussion but cannot be "divided" in real life! And if the emergent conversation aims to "carve out a place for conversation, dialogue, dialectic, and debate." and re-emphasize "theology isn't just about getting what we believe right; it's a rich matrix of what we believe and how we live that matters for the Christian faith." then this to me is good news.

as for terminology, I think distinguishing between the wider "emerging church" conversation and specifically "emergent" as a network (or more organized effort) is helpful ... when things are called "emergent church movement" it seems to spin things off to all sorts of directions or distractions!

That's my two malaysian cents ... furthermore, as an Asian I'm a little tired of any idea of "importing" debates to our shores which I consciously avoid and focus on what's essential and what efforts we want to do together. I rest assured my American friends will work things out and I can see "able" voices liek the two Jones (Tony JOnes - you, and an interesting Andrew Jones - from a slightly different angle).

On our end here, we're just starting to "carve some space" and it's so far so good ... not that much anger, some frustration, fumbling to articulate what's going on in our churches and context .. but bringing things right to the grassroot level is a good start ... we'll learn as we go ... this "space" is so needed.

Wes Allen

You see, some questions are traps. A savvy interlocuter has every right to avoid the traps and instead engage the questions that will move the conversation forward.
Yup, I call this, "theological mugging." It usually happens to me after a sermon when I'm greeting people after worship and someone comes up and says, "What do you think about the world-wide flood? I saw on TV that some people don't think it was world wide, what do you think about that?" This happens when the sermon is on loving your neighbor.

I've seen a lot of "but what is this conversation about..." posts in this thread. Here's the deal, and Tony might disagree with me (hopefully I'll make it to the Central Jersey cohort and we can disagree over a pint), everything is fair game in the discussion. The nature of God, TULIP, innerrancy, soteriology, ecclesiology, any -ology you can think of - but you don't walking into a store and say, "What's your stance on this?" Because what people hear is, "What's your stance on this, huh? Huh? You'd better agree with me or I'll start protesting in obnoxious ways and make your life miserable!" Actually this is, sadly, also what people sometimes mean by the question.
On the other hand, if you want to comment on a tread and say, "Gee, see this is why I think this shows why innerrancy is so important to hold on to" it should be welcomed (it may not be, but we'll smack those people the same way that rowdy drunks are asked to leave a bar). If people are inclined they may start talking to you about what you said, and conversation on precisely that topic will ensue (man we need threaded comments on blogs). But one way is seen as an attack (and frequently is an attack), the other is veiwed as an open invitation that people may or may not accept, but frequently will.

J Decker


Just a friendly point (it's too bad that I even have to specify which tone to read my comments in, but I've read the last couple of threads, and it doesn't look like the tone has always been friendly). The position you ascribe to Kant and the position you ascribe to Hegel are not at odds. They're not even on the same topic. The Kantian point is partly metaphysical and partly normative. The metaphysical part (the part that has to do with reality and what it's like) says that there are objective moral obligations. The normative part (the part that says what ought to be done) says that we ought to figure out what the moral obligations are and conduct ourselves accordingly. Hegel's claim (as you've stated it) is neither metaphysical nor is it normative. It's a piece of descriptive epistemology (it concerns how we actually come to have knowledge). It's not even normative epistemology (that is, it doesn't tell us how we *should* go about seeking knowledge).

This sounds like a nit-picky point, but there's actually a serious confusion here that crops up all over the place. The confusion is to start with a thesis about how we humans actually come to have knowledge and conclude some thesis about what reality is like. The dialectical reasoning that is supposedly crucial to rationality gets projected onto the world itself. It's only if we do this that we get from your Hegelian claim to something that stands at odds with the Kantian claim.

Notice that if Hegelian thesis is supposed to be descriptive epistemology, then to see if it's true, we just need to go out into the world and look at how people actually reason. I doubt that the thesis will find too much support. But perhaps your phrasing of it was just a first gloss, and it was really supposed to be a thesis about how we *ought* to search for truth. But if that's the claim, we should want an argument for why this would be a good way to gain knowledge of the world. Perhaps you have such a story, in which case I'd love to hear it. This is a heavy--duty philosophical thesis in epistemology, not the sort of thing we should take on board without good reasons.

A second point---and this one *is* nit-picky (apologies)---is that Hegel's dialectic, as I understand it, does not lead to a reflective equilibrium. I think the term "reflective equilibrium" comes from John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (although the idea was formulated earlier by Nelson Goodman in "Fact, Fiction, and Forecast"). Without getting into the details (interested parties can learn about RE at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/), reflective equilibrium is an *end-state*, when one has brought one's general theoretical judgments about some topic (say Justice) into line with intuitions about particular cases. The Hegelian dialectic, as I understand it, has no end state. But I could be wrong about this. I'm no scholar of Hegel (and even if I were one, I'm sure I wouldn't be a good one).

By the way, this post of yours begins to answer a question I asked in the other Emergent Criticism thread about Emergent's epistemology. I don't know if this was intentional or inadvertent, but, either way, Thank you! It's much appreciated. I want to see the "conversation" go deeper, and your post is a step in this direction.




I remember reading the transcript of Brian McLaren on Larry King (w/ the Left Behind people...), and being struck by the fact that Brian wouldn't answer any direct questions... instead he would address the context of the issue. ie, on gay marriage, instead of blurting out pro/con assertions, he talked about the relational context the church has been missing. in some ways i wonder if that IS the emergent approach... to first address the context that many of these questions arise from, and by addressing the context, working towards a deeper, or new, or at least more authentically experienced dialogue. I am not going to critique that method as good or bad, I just offer it as an observation.

and practically speaking, I also know that there is a larger issue of those emergent-types who are in paid leadership positions who actually DONT believe in innerancy, or calvinism, or that homosexuality is a sin, or in the exclusivity of the Gospel, or in a wide variety of standard evangelical issues, but publically they simply cannot say so, because they will loose a job, or an audience, or a community. I wonder if the increased critique from evangelical circles will force the issue and you'll see more people leaving long-held positions and protestantism continuing to splinter even more.

I also think that many in Emergent do not make blanket assertions/denials because they know that the community is so very diverse... there is no single blanket perspective on many of these issues (although i would say it is pretty safe to say that, epistemologically, at least classic sola-scriptura seems right out). so for one contingent (ie, emergent-us) to make an assertion, they might actually be at odds with, say, the community at theooze.

at any rate, i make these observations as a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, where i see both similarities and dissimilarities. of course, the Orthoodx are immersed in a profoundly different epistemology (apophatic vs cataphatic) such that kantian/hegelian traps and possibilities are just not entirely relevant. we can make profound historically contiguous affirmations of the faith, and strive to make those affirmations hearable to ears listening today, all the while *practicing & presencing* the realities of theology as theoria, where the theologians are not those who merely read books and talk "about" God, but those who encounter God, through self-emptying love in praxis and prayer, thus removing the necessary distance inherent in any 'about' conversation. a direct, living, life-changing encounter with God is not only possible, but necessary to being a Christian.

as any visitor to an Orthodox church will realize immediately, the point of reference is different: you are invited to lay down your life in the Church... not to re-make the church in a way that fits the contingencies of your current epistemological cultural context.

in this way, to become an Eastern Orthodox Christian is to not merely exchange one set of ideas for another... rather it is to enter into an actual and new way of life (ascesis), one that addresses the deepest existential needs of the culture/person, but does not change the millenial-old stream of proven praxis because culture is seen as the hinge/referent point.

and while i think there is a similarity between the emergent approach Tony articulates and Eastern Christianity, i often wonder if the still profound and sheer difference is the referent point itself.

meaning... for us, Holy Tradition lived in the Church is the referent point, and it seems that Emergent makes the culture the reference point. for us, Holy Tradition is the entirey *body* of revelation in the Church (scriptures, the sacraments, the councils, the Fathers, etc...) all inter-related and interpreting one another, holistically. Holy Tradition is charismatic, present, alive... never the repetition of old formulae. and we seek to enter into the rhythm and practice of Holy Tradition, with real self-emptying love in the community. in this way, the Church is always the referent point in that YOU change your life in the Church, you don't change the church to fit your life. ie, the Church doesn't "emerge" into something new... instead YOU emerge into "behold, all things have become new".

the Church is revelation and encounter, not emerging. instead, YOU are the one who is to emerge, from the old to the new.

and as an aside, i often wonder if what emergents often call 'culture' is no more than marketing niche's created by capitalism... ie, capitalism exists to create contingent sub-cultures based on identities that can be *bought*... in this way forming desire and then selling into that desire. which is also, i sometimes wonder, why many emergent churches are made up of self-made sub-cultured transients... which seems very different from how culture used to be understood, where culture was tied to deeper existential issues of race/heritage/tradition and not what music you listen to, or clothes you buy).

continuing, absent the contortions of both Scholasticism and Systematics, we in the East can still make affirmations without apology, knowing that the context for those affirmations have profound limits, and that apophatically speaking(!), those limits are sourced by the reality that God cannot be KNOWN (in the conjugal sense) intellectually (because intellectual knowledge implies an "about-ness", where statements 'about' something imply a distance from the thing itself) and so therefore God can only be *known*, experientially.

another way to say this is that our faith is sacramental, a sacrament being 'a passage that reveals and restores the kingdom of God'. and a sacrament is not an idea, it is a passage. the Eucharist is not an idea, it is not merely 'about' something in the past, where you take the elements back to your seat and think about something that happened in the past... it is a passage towards encountering Christ Himself. sacrament of course means 'mystery'. and a mystery cannot be known 'about'... it must be entered & encountered. the Orthodox hermeneutic is a Way of martyrdom and communion.

it is the difference between (when i was an Emergent) walking to the fountain to quench my thirst whenever i was thirsty, and also making sure the fountain was sub-culturally flavored so as to taste as relevant as possible so that others could quench their individual thirsts...... to quite simply being thrown into the River Itself.

this is all perhaps over simplified and probably not entirely germane to the conversation. nevertheless! there remain intriguing possibilities between the emergent conversation and Eastern Christianity.

)( sky/seattle


Wes (and others): Another thing that's not a cop-out is to say that there is an appropriate time and place for certain conversations. The Internet, and particularly blogland, has shown itself to be highly prone to misunderstanding and a lack of grace. You want to talk to me about homosexuality and inerrancy. Come to my house, visit my church, take me out for coffee or a beer, even call me on the phone. But I am not going to take a highly nuanced opinion that I have spent *years* forming -- and which is sure to change in the future -- and type it up in a couple hundred words on a blog, only to have mean-spirited people savage me. I get plenty of that after I speak at conferences. So, I hope to see all of you at an Emergent event in the future, or at my front door, and we can talk about anything you wish.

Jason: The Internet is, however, a great place to talk about methodology and to be corrected on one's philosophy. Yes, your post is a little nit-picky, but I love it! I was trying to use some philosophical shorthand to describe what I see as a difference between how Emergent is attempting to tackle problems that face church and society and how the majority of churches and Christians (at least our critics) face these problems. Basically, I want to propose that we enter dialogue with openness to change and yet a rootedness in tradition. That is, tradition is the default commitment, but we need to retain our openness to new knowledge from God's revelation, however we believe that comes to us. Thus I place myself in the line of Hegel-Heidegger-Gadamer-Ricoeur, stripped, of course, of metaphysics.

Sky: Two former "emergents" in Seattle, two so different choices! Ha! I couldn't be happier that you're in this conversation (which, in some ways, makes you still emergent!!!). The Eastern Epistemology that you propose is so intriguing, and there are surely connections between it and emergent. But I wonder, is God's revelation confined to the church? An Orthodox priest once told me that the term "theologian" is used for only a small group of persons in the Orthodox tradition, and that they are all dead. I find this troubling -- while it can protect against any old street-corner idiot posting a blog claiming to be theology, doesn't it also confine God and denigrate human reason? (I'm guessing that you're going to say "no.")

Wes Allen

I find this troubling -- while it can protect against any old street-corner idiot posting a blog claiming to be theology, doesn't it also confine God and denigrate human reason?
Heck, I'll say no to that one. Orthodox use language differently than people who grew up within a western mind-set. "Theologian" (note the capital) is a particular title of honor reserved for people who showed a devout devotion to Christ, and a great depth of understanding for the Apostolic Tradition (again, note capital). It's a way of saying, "This person was a son of the Church and his writings are in accord with the Scripture and Tradition." I actually appreciate it very much.

But I am not going to take a highly nuanced opinion that I have spent *years* forming -- and which is sure to change in the future -- and type it up in a couple hundred words on a blog, only to have mean-spirited people savage me. I get plenty of that after I speak at conferences.
And here you and I may disagree, though I certainly understand; I've been "mugged" far too many times not to be cautious. On the other hand, I participate in an online forum called "Christdot" that is a mix of: Fundamentalists, Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Liberals, Evangelicals, Emergents, Athiests, a Muslim, and at least one Mormon. The level of civility is staggering (it's a new aggregation site w/o modding), and the community actually has some sharp disagreements on policial, theological, and moral issues with only rare trolling (there are a couple of nut-jobs). If you shared you understanding of how a Christian should respond to gay marriage, most people would have a good discussion on it (heck, the head admin once did a journal entry on why he thought Abortion should be legal, and Christian ought to seek to stamp it out in other ways than Roe v. Wade; people disagreed, but it was a good discussion). What I'm saying is that you can share these views in the context of discussion; but I'm with you in that I'll never walk into someone's trap if I can help it.

Mark Diebel

This discussion says something about the context you find yourself in. For me, who knows little to nothing about Calvin's, what was it, 5 points, a little discussion to orient me would be helpful. For me to ask what you think would be indeed a question not a trap. Is there a presupposition here?

Well, I suppose we have to read carefully and know who we're talking to. Sometimes I know I've been wrong about a situation and a question. But other times I have been right on.

This is the first time I've been to this blog... and it seems very interesting. You might also be interested to know that I've been an Episcopal priest for about seventeen years now... but only in the past nine months learned of the emergent movement at all! I like the intention to be a place to encourage conversation. I'll check back.


To base oneself on Kant and Hegel is hardly postmodern. Secondly, Hegel focused on the "what" while Kierkegaard attacked him and focused on the "how"

A good site I came accross that actually takes "emergent" stands on theological issues is

Even though I do not agree with all the blogger is writing, it is interesting to see him/her making an attempt to answer theological questions within an Emergent areana. Check it out....

The comments to this entry are closed.