Thread: Theology of the Emerging Church?

Friends, if anybody who is up to speed on this "emerging church" stuff could give a quick summary of the theology behind it, I would be grateful.

From http://www.emergingchurch.org/postmodern.html:

what is postmodernism?

well, there are many answers to the question, coming from the vantage points of architecture, philosophy, music, sociology, literature, and theology, so the definitions are multi -phasic and nuanced.

"postmodernity" refers to a cultural stasis or "state of being," while "postmodernism" references cultural currents or streams circulating within the stasis.

in any case, the notion of postmodernity arose out of the matrix of western civilization and its attendent cultural and philosophical foundations, which presuppose the prior "pre-modern" and "modern" dispensations.

the cultural shift from the modern to the postmodern began in the 1960's. the famed political economist francis fukuyama described the shift from the modern to postmodern era as the great disruption.

anyone born after 1960 is "native" to this era. other generations are naturalized citizens. so, whether native or naturalized, we all are part of the postmodern world.

in our postmodern context, many churches find themselves in the shoes of dorothy as she discovers that she "ain't in kansas anymore."

many churches have yet to come to grips with postmodernity and the radical shift of stasis helpful for doing ministry in this context. but when the awareness does dawn, it can cause panic, head burying or excitement about "mission oz" (heel clicking be darned).

in a large nutshell, some key characteristics of postmodernity include:

skepticism about or outright rejection of enlightenment assumptions

the rise of globalization & pluralism

the "gnutellafication" of authority and knowledge

the customization and subjectification of truth.

the rejection of enlightment principles includes the loss of faith in the salvific powers of science and in the eternal hope for "progress."

the rise of globalization & pluralism means (for example), that the literary contributions of "dead white males," are no longer deemed superior to the contributions of women, native peoples, and people of color. in other words, "gone with the wind, meet "the wind done gone." in all fields of endeavor, previously closed canons are being opened up, and new gifts are being added to the mix.

the gnutellafication of authority & knowledge references the brilliant digital music swaping platform called gnutella, which not only cut out the music industry middlemen (a la napster) but also cut out all "central servers." in other words, in the postmodern culture,the roles and functions of all "experts" and "gate-keepers" are being reduced or re-directed.

for the church, this will have profound implications for the roles and ministries of seminaries, bureaucracy, episcopacy, clergy and all the baptized people of God.

the customization & subjectification of truth means that culturally supported meta-narratives and broad-cast notions of truth have been defacto de-constructed. postmodern truths are concepts that are narrow-cast, self-discovered and authoritative only for the person seeking them.

the modern creedal orientation of "we believe,"has been subverted by the postmodern creedal orientation summed up by sheryl crow in her song which proclaims "if it makes you happy, it can't be half bad."

if you want learn more from those who are really into the details and nuances of postmodernism, then visit the links on the right side of this page.

One amazon reviewer joyfully butchered this nonsense:

Brian McLaren doesn't know anything. That's not an indictment regarding his lack of
knowledge - it is a summarization of his philosophy. And this is why he is seeking, as the title of his book declares: A New Kind of Christian. He is looking to help other Christians join the ranks of those who do not know anything. At least anything absolutely. For Postmodern thinkers like McLaren you see, one doesn't really posses objective truth. All truth is so helplessly bound up in our modern grids, cultural frameworks, personal biases and institutionalized thinking, that the only thing we really CAN know (though one wonders even about this) is that we really don't know anything - except perhaps - our own "stories".

McLaren is "the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church" just outside of Washington DC. He is a sought after conference speaker and author of several books on the impact of post-modernity on the Church. A topic crying for serious reflection by the Church. This book, A New Kind of Christian, is ostensibly "For all those who want to be spiritual without being "religious"'" (as the inside front flap reads). It is the fictional account of a series of conversations and emails between a High School science teacher ( Dr. Neil Edward Oliver - Neo throughout) and pastor Dan Poole, with some additional side lights with Poole's wife Carol and youth minister Casey B. Curtis. And since story telling is (apparently) both McLaren's and Post-modernism's preferred method of communication - it is, a story. We are led to assume (at least by the Introduction), that ANKOC is at least the semi-biographical account of McLaren's own journey through sorting out some of the ramifications of post-modern thinking and his own Christianity and ministry. It is in some ways, his story.

If you are not familiar with Postmodern parlance, stories are what postmodernists prefer to either history or truth. Since truth really can't be known, and since history is typically merely the version the winners tell, stories (it is argued) are meant to be retold and passed on and used to serve as markers - but they really shouldn't be taken too seriously. After all, stories are blends of interpretations and slants and revisions. No one gets bent out of shape if you retell a story a little differently - like they do when you try to re-write history. Ultimately, you can know something of other's stories, but mainly you have the best grasp on your own story. So if you want to tell it a little differently each time - have at it. Who's to say? Stories as a framework then lend a great deal of flexibility. One doesn't really have to be worried so much about accuracy or truth. One merely needs to be able to tell their story.

What makes this line of thinking so very attractive, is that in your story, God is who and what you want Him to be. Hell may or may not really be at all. You can be what you want to be. Men may or may not really need to be justified before a holy God, but it really doesn't matter because - its your story. You get to tell it the way you want to - and somehow, by some freakish particularity of our created or evolved universe (depending on your story) - everybody's story get to be true no matter how much it contradicts anybody else's. What's true, is what's true for YOU. Not really what's "true". Except for some.

Who are the ones who have the pipeline to real reality? The Brian McLaren's of the world. As the book explains, it is a very narrow group who understand these concepts and their import. In one email, Neo relates to pastor Dan that he had a dream about him. He repines that "in the dream, you were exhausted and worn to the bone, struggling to shape a church that was meaningfully expressing the gospel in this new world we've been talking about. I asked God why you were so tired, and this answer came to me: there are so few working on this exploration of faith in postmodern territory, and all of those are exhausted because it is so difficult. It seemed like God's heart was pained at how few are exploring beyond the edges of our modern maps and at how exhausted those few are." Here then are the new elite of postmodern churchdom. These are the few who have God's heart's pains. The rest of Christianity is summarily marginalized. Here are the new Prophets.

One of the most fascinating and untenable self-contradictions that arise in the book, is the critique of the Modern mindset. Neo wistfully states that "in the postmodern world we disabuse ourselves of the myth that theory precedes practice". This however appears near the end of a discussion theorizing about what seminaries should look like once postmodernism has its way. The self-contradiction emerges as we listen to the postmodernists theorizing about how to get us to where we no longer theorize. In no other discipline (other than certain branches of Art perhaps) would such a notion be looked upon as credible. Pilots for instance learn all about flight techniques and the theories of aerodynamics before they ever dare to take the controls of a jet liner. Rightly so. Even when they have mastered their craft, they file flight plans before they set out, follow detailed and proscribed pre-flight procedures, and keep up on-going training and education. You and I think about where we're going and how we're going to get there even before we set off to the grocery store. How much more when we begin to delve into the eternal verities that impact the destiny of our very souls?

To be sure, McLaren is razor sharp at times when he slices and dices the caricature of Christianity that so often prevails in the marketplace of American pop-Christianity. But at the same time, he seems to want little to do with our historical moorings. His approach is about blazing new trails, not relying on the tried and true ones handed down to us. All that came before us is uncertain. Twenty centuries of "Christian universes." Jude (1:3) feels compelled by "necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." But McLaren's concepts are more about forging new paths. So it is that the students in his non-theorized theoretical seminary would be helped to "construct their own model of reality." This of course forces one to reject the very notion that God has a reality and that that reality governs all that there is. It subtly yet certainly indicts God as being either unable, or unwilling to communicate objective truth or reality to us in any meaningful way. Or at least that He is unable to help us understand it with any more accuracy than that of a re-told story.

McLaren too is dead on when he criticizes the oft-too-tolerated notion that mere theological knowledge or doctrinal precision can be traded off against a genuinely Spirit-led and godly lifestyle. At the same time, he completely disregards the fact that the Bible owns no such aberrant Christianity as genuine either. Sadly (and alarmingly) his answer is to jettison theological precision altogether. But the cost is too great. It is at least as intolerable, if not more so, to try and correct such an ill at the expense of Biblical authority, the Gospel message - and quite possibly men's eternal souls. Sure, there are licentious abuses of the grace of God. Scripture condemns them by itself. The corrective is truth - not the eradication of it. McLaren, I fear, doesn't want to speak post-modernese so that he can communicate the Gospel to postmodernists, he wants to BE postmodern. He wants a postmodern gospel. A storied Gospel.

Well, what does this new Kind of Christian look like? First, he has a Bible, but it is not God's infallible, inerrant Word. In place of it, the NKOC takes the view that God has only managed to leave us with "a pre-modern text, emerging from a people who believed that truth is best embodied in story and art and human flesh rather than abstraction or outline or moralism." As such, it is NOT authoritative as much as it is "useful." It is not a God-breathed production, but a human emergence. Nor does the NKOC study the Scriptures in something the like the Historical-Grammatical method. Interpretive science is exchanged for "a grid of decency." He himself, the reader is the ultimate arbiter of truth. He sits in judgment upon Scripture rather than Scripture sitting in judgment upon him.

The New Kind of Christian has grown past such passé exercises like daily Bible reading and prayer in order to cultivate his personal relationship with Christ. For him, these are far too constrictive activities. They engender quota type thinking. How much should I read, how often? How long should I pray? etc.. Journaling is one of the suggested replacements. Listening to one's own heart and mind supplants listening to God in His Word and then relating to Him and casting yourself upon Him in prayer. These older methods carry too much of the Modern. In fact, in some ways (he would argue) they can be downright selfish and individualistic. There is no question of course that men can and do abuse such things and make ends out of them rather than the means they were designed for. But once again, we are met with a tendency rather to abandon than to correct.

I want to say this carefully, but yet frankly as it is portrayed in the book: The impression one gets (and I am willing to be corrected here - but at least what I came away with) is that the NKOC wouldn't dream of having his heart broken over the thought of loved ones perishing in a Christless eternity. Even if he COULD know that such a thing as Hell really exists, he takes the stance that "It's none of your business who goes to Hell", as the title of chapter 14 boldly declares. There appears to be no room in his paradigm for the gut-wrenching agony we see in the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 ("I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh"). The NKOC falls back on each just having a different story. I could not help but seriously wonder what the NKOC would say at the death bed of a loved one? And what does this do for evangelistic zeal? The Biblical concepts and language of dire concern for the souls of the lost is entirely defanged.

Again, the NKOC would never ever say that he is "right" about anything. Even about that - I would assume. Instead, the NKOC is only concerned about being good. Good, according to his story that is. Jesus may have told His version of the story that says there is none good but God, and that we need His goodness - but that does not directly translate to us. McLaren's Gospel seems to distill into "do your best, be nice, and God will accept you." The absurdity of how this fleshes out is obvious. Forgive the sarcasm, I use it only to illustrate - but could you imagine a student at the end of a math exam saying "Teacher, I know my answer isn't right, but it IS good"? How about imagining a postmodern surgeon who is more concerned about a good operation than a right one? "The operation? Oh, it went swimmingly! The patient died but the operation was SO good!" Beloved, if it were not so bankrupt, it would be laughable. Can one really imagine themselves before the throne of God arguing that they willfully ignored what God said and required, but that they lived up to their own story? We have a shocking warning about such skewed thinking in Acts 5 with Ananias and Sapphira. They concocted a story that worked for them. And it ended in God's immediate judgment upon them. They couldn't just decide to do it their way. Neither can we.

One assumes that the NKOC would consider Elijah's behavior on Mt. Carmel reprehensible as he mocked and exposed Baal and his false prophets. There is no room for such actions in the NKOC's story. No other religion should ever be treated that way. For him, the Bible "calls us to live as part of its own story, the story of a loving Creator who started something wonderful and beautiful that in spite of our many failures he will surely bring to a good completion. As we live by that story, we find followers of other stories interested in ours because our story, rightly understood, has plenty of room for them and for their stories too." Yet we must consider those words in light of the Biblical narrative. Scripture never paints the picture of a God has room for Baal or any other God in His story. One is forced to conclude that "You shall have no other gods before Me" should be considered narrow and Modern by McLaren's NKOC.

Note too that the NKOC would never "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." In the first place, he would not contend against anyone except Christians who say they actually know something. Secondly, he knows it is far too arrogant to suppose anything like "the faith" exists. Our story maybe. THE faith? No. Third, "once for all handed down" contradicts the idea that we need to create a new reality. A new story. "Once for all" just doesn't fit the paradigm. Ever new is the mantra. Being a "defender" is most certainly undesirable. Only being a seeker is kosher. Once you begin to think you've actually found something to defend, you've crossed the line. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" just does not fit the pattern.

Lastly, the NKOC knows nothing at all about a need for actual regeneration. Being born again is not actually being transformed inwardly by a sovereign act of God, making one into a new kind of creation. He just heard the story, liked this one best (for now) and came along. Now he's in transformation.

So let's recap: The NKOC has a good story; has no real need to pursue reading the Bible or prayer; considers too much time spent on a personal relationship with Jesus selfish and individualistic; refuses to consider that men might perish in a Christless Hell; doesn't know if he's right about anything - especially about God, Christ, sin, salvation or Hell; excludes no other religions; has no faith to defend and is not concerned about being regenerate. This really IS a NKOC! Because it isn't a Christian at all. At least not in the Biblical sense. It is a good old fashioned pagan. "Holding to a form of Godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Tim. 3:5)

The NKOC is simply the same old guy that still has need of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. He isn't a "Christian" at all. He needs Christ.

At the end of the day, one wonders what the NKOC would really say while standing at the bedside of a dying loved one? It is here that absurdity and tragedy of such things comes painfully into view. Perhaps they might inquire as to whether or not the perishing one is comfortable with their story about what's next. Have they believed their story? Have they lived up to their story as much as they thought was good, when it seemed reasonable? As Neo put it in the closing prayer to his sermon on death: "Although I can't be certain or prove it scientifically, the second story we considered today makes more sense to me." Can we truly comfort them in death by assuring them that while nothing can be proved, at least they have a story that makes more sense to them? "Maybe there IS a Hell, but don't you like your story better?" How ghastly. What utter and total disregard for the souls of men.

The Apostle John said: "these thing I have written unto you...so that you may know." Brian McLaren has written to tell us that he doesn't know, and neither can anyone else. Who are you going to believe?

They don't really have a theology, per se. They call themselves the "emerging church" because they see themselves as replacing the actual (traditional) church, which is passing away into irrelevancy in their eyes. They reject that such a thing as propositional truth exists. They are post-modernists under a Christian banner. Os Guiness addresses this and general worldliness in sheep's clothing in his little book Prophetic Untimeliness: A Challenge to the Idol of Relevance.

Chuck Colson (who has his own problems) has been responding to McClaren:

http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000160.html

as has Mark Dever here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2002/002/13.26.html


Al Mohler has been responding to the movement as well:

http://www.modernreformation.org/mr9...freespace.html

http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/Fidelitas...ticle=fidel048

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblog...tml?view=print

As has Doug Wilson (who has is own problems), but take cheer, the one he is addressing is Andrew Sandlin.

Go to his blog and look for the stuff on Postmodernism.

This is on the broader topic of postmodernism, but the same gun will kill both:

Seeping Postmodernism

Sandlin the Postmodernist?

Knowledge and Blood

An Applied Bible

The Difference Between Arrogance and Certainty

Inerrancy is too Weak

The moderate (squishy evangelical) guy think that the Bible got a B plus, and is in general agreement with the contours of the wrong answers. He works for Christianity Today.

Cobelligerents in the War against Modernity? Maybe not...

Thanks for the links, Jacob. The inerrancy link, which you quote, is genius. I love that Doug points out that the idea of enlisting postmodernity to critique modern is basically stupid.

Doing some campus ministry I have come across an handful of students that have been thoroughly influenced by McClaren. One, after listening in on a conversation between me and a group of non-believers, pulled me aside and said something to the effect, "What you say is too influenced by modernism." "What part of what I say? Because I'm not committed to modernism or postmodernism." "Uhm...well...read this," and then he hands me McClaren's "A New Kind of Christian". I was supposed to read it and get back to him, but I couldn't get passed the first 3 pages. The first few pages I read annoyed me.

Personally, I see it as the postmodern version of Bill Hybels. Hybels is a modernist; McClaren the postmodernist.

A church out in Seattle, WA, Mars Hill, seeks to pull of an emerging style church with theological depth. I attended the church once and felt extremely mixed upon leaving.

openairboy

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by openairboy]

Exactly Kieth. If you speak about theology and structured thought the Postmodernist responds that you are being Modernist. Never mind that theology pre-dates modernism. I'm not interested in playing their game really. They love to fight with labels and ethereal language. I say "Let's talk Bible".

There are some things within the movement I feel is positive but they are basically unequipped to do anything meaningful in the public sphere except "love on people" and "pioneer".

Originally posted by Ianterrell

There are some things within the movement I feel is positive but they are basically unequipped to do anything meaningful in the public sphere except "love on people" and "pioneer".

I hate phrases like "love on people" or such that are just plain silly and make no grammatical sense. I love people. Love is not a substance. Yuck.

Haha...yeah.

I think the title of this thread is a contradication in terms.

Emerging Church and Theology?

Don't seem to go together to me!

They sure don't. Emergent people hate the term theology. But the person who started this thread apparently didn't know that.

Fred,
Is that emoticon slapping the other emoticon? That is hilarious. People have accused me of thinking in Enlightenment paradigms, but assuming that in some way my thinking is influenced by Calvin and Co., wouldn't my teachers predate Modernism?

They try to make it
Postmodern vs. Modern without realizing Calvinism as a viable alternative.

But let's make it even tougher for our emerging friends. Let's draw from theologians after the advent of Enlightenment:
Abraham Kuyper
Van Til
To name a few.

Gene Edward Veith has written an exceptional introduction to postmodern thought (more generally), from which, obviously, all this emergent stuff gets its raison d'etre. It's called Postmodern Times

Douglas Groothius has written a pretty good critique of postmodernism in Truth Decay.

It is also good to pick up a few smaller works on postmodernism by Stanley Grenz and others, just to represent it accurately. This is important because it takes away many of their arguments when you quote their own authors back at them.

I went to an emerging church for a while. It emerged from a local Dispy seminary.

I was invited to attend while it was still at a house. While there, I found out that they "had a heart" for my neighborhood, which is full of gay young rich artists, and they were prepared to "love on" these people big-time!

BTW I am not gay or young or rich. Whether or not I'm an artist is not germane to this IT"S JUST MY STORY!

After the meeting I discussed with the person who brought me whether I could get a ride there in the future, as the church wasn't actually in my neighborhood yet. He told me that they weren't really ready for people yet, you just get to try it out once, don't call us, we'll call you! Well!

They never did! Someone finally told me it was in the neighborhood, and where and they'd already been meeting there for a month! I felt "loved on" I must say! While there I met another gal about my age. She works in the neighborhood as a hairdresser and sees just about everybody. They invited her to be in the "core group" and later changed their minds about that, but didn't tell her, they just started meeting without her! Seems she just wasn't their type either! They never listened when she tried to tell them about the locals, they already knew who they were, they'd been studying them from a distance before they ever came over.

My poor friend comes from an even more perfectionistic pentecostal background than I do, and really needs to hear the Gospel of grace! If these people "love on" too many more people, I don't know if I'll be able to keep picking up the pieces! This is disgraceful, in many respects!

I'm fed-up with programmed churches! End of story!

Originally posted by turmeric
I went to an emerging church for a while. It emerged from a local Dispy seminary.

I was invited to attend while it was still at a house. While there, I found out that they "had a heart" for my neighborhood, which is full of gay young rich artists, and they were prepared to "love on" these people big-time!

BTW I am not gay or young or rich. Whether or not I'm an artist is not germane to this IT"S JUST MY STORY!

After the meeting I discussed with the person who brought me whether I could get a ride there in the future, as the church wasn't actually in my neighborhood yet. He told me that they weren't really ready for people yet, you just get to try it out once, don't call us, we'll call you! Well!

They never did! Someone finally told me it was in the neighborhood, and where and they'd already been meeting there for a month! I felt "loved on" I must say! While there I met another gal about my age. She works in the neighborhood as a hairdresser and sees just about everybody. They invited her to be in the "core group" and later changed their minds about that, but didn't tell her, they just started meeting without her! Seems she just wasn't their type either! They never listened when she tried to tell them about the locals, they already knew who they were, they'd been studying them from a distance before they ever came over.

My poor friend comes from an even more perfectionistic pentecostal background than I do, and really needs to hear the Gospel of grace! If these people "love on" too many more people, I don't know if I'll be able to keep picking up the pieces! This is disgraceful, in many respects!

I'm fed-up with programmed churches! End of story!

OH! Don't you just FEEL the LOVE, brothers and sisters!!! I mean...oh, brother.

Sorry about your experience.

I think I'll pass on being "loved on".

Originally posted by turmeric
I went to an emerging church for a while. It emerged from a local Dispy seminary.

I was invited to attend while it was still at a house. While there, I found out that they "had a heart" for my neighborhood, which is full of gay young rich artists, and they were prepared to "love on" these people big-time!

BTW I am not gay or young or rich. Whether or not I'm an artist is not germane to this IT"S JUST MY STORY!

After the meeting I discussed with the person who brought me whether I could get a ride there in the future, as the church wasn't actually in my neighborhood yet. He told me that they weren't really ready for people yet, you just get to try it out once, don't call us, we'll call you! Well!

They never did! Someone finally told me it was in the neighborhood, and where and they'd already been meeting there for a month! I felt "loved on" I must say! While there I met another gal about my age. She works in the neighborhood as a hairdresser and sees just about everybody. They invited her to be in the "core group" and later changed their minds about that, but didn't tell her, they just started meeting without her! Seems she just wasn't their type either! They never listened when she tried to tell them about the locals, they already knew who they were, they'd been studying them from a distance before they ever came over.

My poor friend comes from an even more perfectionistic pentecostal background than I do, and really needs to hear the Gospel of grace! If these people "love on" too many more people, I don't know if I'll be able to keep picking up the pieces! This is disgraceful, in many respects!

I'm fed-up with programmed churches! End of story!

Sounds cultish

More arsenal against postmodernism

Impudence on Stilts

The Patron Saint of Epistemology

Demands for apology (as a weapon)

Objective Exegesis

I found some mp3's from D.A. Carson where he comments on this movement.

Here is the link:
http://www.apologetics.com/default.j...agetitle=Audio

They also have a two hours where the hosts of Apologetics.com discuss the movement as well.

My own take on the movement is that it is simply the outworking of Christians growing up without being taught how to think critically or Biblically. The complete secularization of our public education system and state accredited colleges have produced a population that regardless of religious background are not taught any critical thinking skills and that it is ok to have contradictory beliefs. As well as all of the garbage that they learn directly or indirectly that our lives are "all about us" instead of "all about God".

I am convinced that Christians need to start a revolution that consists of giving their children a thoroughly christian education. If we do this then I believe that God would be pleased in blessing us with true spiritual prosperity.

I think Greg Bahnsen does and excellent in his message "Christian Education as Covenant Faithfulness" in outlining how if we neglect giving our children the type of education that God commands in His word, then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences. I believe that most if not all of the problems that we are having in the church today is rooted in our being covenantally unfaithful to God in the area of educating our children.

Here is a link to Bahnsen's message:

http://radioapologia.com/radioapologia_audio_files.php

I think you have to sign up to be able to download the message but sign up is free and you might find other messages on this site that you would like to download. I was very pleased of the selection of messages that this site has to offer, and they are all free to boot.

In Christ,
David

Thanks for the links, David. I didn't have to sign up to download Bahnsen's message.

That review on Amazon was great....

As was Dever's article in CT. Here's my favorite quote:

This second character is called"”acronymically"”"Neo" throughout (perhaps with a nod to the protagonist of The Matrix). Yes, he really is. This well prepares the reader for the subtlety that marks the book.

Yeah, I've had my experience with them, as well as with parachurch ministries. I am just thankful the Lord brought a middle-aged couple into my life back in 1994 who exposed me to the Doctrines of Grace -- and I have not looked back since!

I'm wary of any movement where it's uncool to capitalize proper nouns and the first word of each sentence.

The "theology" of the EC can be found in Jeremiah 23 and Jude.

ldh

Originally posted by JasonGoodwin
Yeah, I've had my experience with them, as well as with parachurch ministries.

My impression of them is that they're an outgrowth of the parachurch ministries movement.

Al Mohler has a blog article on McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy:

http://tinyurl.com/7x55c

I'm wary of any movement where it's uncool to capitalize proper nouns and the first word of each sentence.

Benjamin,

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a good while. I like it.

More roasting of postmodern arguments

PostEvangelical Babies?

Bell Bottom Blues

The Aroma of Burnt Marsh-Wiggle

Three Toddlers

Postmodern is, as Derrida might say, Le Dead (this one is good)

Postmodern Lechery

There is more at his blog.