I appreciate the comments on emerging theology. It seems to me that emerging is a good metaphor for how we could look at not only the theology of the church, but the church itself, and a way to describe the path that the church is on. As the theology is emerging so is (hopefully)the church, and as emerging intimates a continual process, so I think that the healthiest way for the church to view itself is as an organism in process, under way, never assuming that it is complete or has arrived. It is perhaps the very modernistic perception on the church’s part that we had arrived (theologically)that created the atmosphere in which we as followers of Jesus could treat others overly critically and thus put people off the person of Christ. If we are “emerging”, perhaps we will be a bit more humble and willing to listen.

“Emerging” is a good thing to hold onto as theology does begin to take shape in this new matrix (and thus inevitably gain structure, form, and patterns of thinking and living). Once we get settled in our language and conventions, what is now new and alive can become a means by which we, as others have done in the past, pass judgement on others. Keeping ourselves from getting settled is I think essential both to the life of theology and to reminding ourselves that we are, after all, only one small point in a very long history of theology, and subject to all the same traps as the many generations that have gone before. We too will need to be kicked in the pants now and then.

I heartily echo most of the points in Andrew’s outline. I am very curious as to where the first point will take us. I think in reality a spectrum of descriptions about the Scriptures must certainly be allowed, but Andrew’s “both critical and committed” is a good description of the attitudes that should remain constant behind the discussion. And hopefully we can trust that we have these in mind as we discuss…

I would like to see more of point two in point three. What I mean is this: as the life and mission of Jesus set within its own socio-religious landscape forms the core of our narrative, so does the social and historical reality of the early church in the formation and description of eschatology. As the life and mission of Jesus intitiated something new, so the church’s views of eschatology describe a way to respond to the new, and the new that is yet (belieing my beliefs here) to come. It is for this reason that I think we need to define what we mean by “‘post-eschatological’ church” in point four. At least I need to know what is meant by this.

I agree wholeheartedly with point six in that we are reminded why we are called into relationship with God: to learn to give as he himself gives. For this reason I also like point seven, in that I think that affirming that which is good in humanity is as important as pointing out our many deficiencies.