I found the "interaction" of the Pontificating crowd and that of the Orthodox group, which Andrew refers to, quietly, but sadly, comical.

Before expanding, I will first go along with Paul Chen’s suggestion that we be a little more biographical in an endeavour to provide some background to my comments. I have personally had very little interaction with any traditional churches and have no axe to grind with them at all. I was brought up in my faith within a pentecostal (sic), world-mission-focussed discipleship background. It has taken me many years to begin to appreciate (by dint of opportunity, as well as attitude) older traditions such as Anglicanism and Catholicism, or at least, of the faith of people within them. My participation in the "emerging conversation," principally through OST, has coincided with this emerging appreciation, and only deepened it. I have not consciously encountered any sense of scorn or cynicism regarding these older traditions. My only complaint regarding emerging chuch conversations is that they too frequently draw upon "straw-man" arguments with regard to evangelicalism or fundamentalists

(being British, I’m still uncertain whether I’ve ever met a fundamentalist… I’ve certainly never seen one thump his Bible, which I’m led to believe they do incessantly :) )

How ironic then that both the above mentioned critques of e/c also fell so readily into the "straw man" trap. Here is a interesting post that might have / yet help genuinely interested parties to discern the wood from the trees : seven habits of successful emerging discussions.

I also noticed within another discussion on the Pontificating site examined whether or not whole denominations / rafts of the Christian community ought to be excluded from the understanding of the "one true, apostolic, catholic church," - so it is not only e/c which is re-examining ancient theological battles that have previously been done to death (sic) in earlier periods.

~

Thus, back to my quiet, sad comedy. Perhaps I missed something, but the ire of several of the parties which took aim at e/c seemed to amount to little more than annoyance at (our) perceived (or indeed measurable) lack of ignorance and perhaps at our doubting too. I was tempted to cite St Paul, directly, upon the Pontificator site:

Behold, you are called a (Jew… Pontificator… Catholic …. Orthodox…), and rest in the Law, and boast in God; and know His will and approve the things excelling, being instructed out of the Law; and persuading yourselves to be a guide of the blind, a light to those in darkness; an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who have the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law. Therefore the one teaching another, do you not teach yourself?

(You who say, Do not doubt; Do not discuss with doubters… do you (ever) doubt?)

But I thought it would only add fuel to the smouldering fire, rather than the more needed "light and love." Perhaps that’s a sign of my insecurity though, if Pontificating contributor, Sue Sims, is to be believed:

I can’t help feeling that it’s terribly spooky how nice [within e/c] they all are to each other. I imagine that they would say that this is demonstrating love: actually, as a linguist, I’d say that it radiates insecurity. There’s very little of the cut and thrust of debate - it’s almost as if they feel that nothing matters enough to get agitated, angry or even brusque. Niceness is a curse when it’s confused with love.

I wonder whether any of us would identify with that. I do think it’s an interesting point, even while I doubt whether it was made in real earnest. I’m not even sure what kind of insecurity is being thought of: personal, psychological, spiritual, theological, debating skills? It’s particularly interesting to me after the robust debate Richard and I had regarding persecution; a debate which, at times, got us both a little hot under the collar, yet which we both clearly found quite motivating … would that suggest we were less secure or more secure? Perhaps only someone like Sue is qualified to say.

But, in a sense, isn’t the raising of this sort of issue typical of the kind of easy side-swipes which many are seemingly ready to take at the e/c? And does perhaps suggest that, in fact, the e/c conversation perhaps quite readily breeds insecurity in some others? Or perhaps we look in vain for such insecurity: perhaps it does simply breed ire, as said before, at our (corporate, with exceptions) apparent ignorance or at our (corporate, with exceptions) doubt. But why be annoyed because people are coming out of the woodwork and discussing these things? We were all out there already and no-body from the various orthodoxies (be they Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical) etc, seemed particularly concerned to "find us" as per the good shepherd who went looking for the one lost sheep? Is it ok that we are out there and questioning, doubting, debating… it’s just when the e/c adopts / gains a particular profile that it now so clearly irks?

All of which left me wondering whether, in fact, the real issue that representatives of orthodoxies have with e/c is not, in fact, of the title "church." Emergent / conversation etc…. these kind of buzzwords would not get in the way, I suspect, or raise any ire. The issue - in a way that brings to mind some of the ire which Jesus himself raised in identifying himself with the seemingly vaunted office and perceived inheritance of the Messiah - is in the assigning of the "emerging" moniker to the seemingly vaunted title and perceived inheritance of "church."

I’m not sure what the answer to that is - although a deepening impression of the real nature of Messianic calling : to learn obedience through suffering, might help - but to go personal again, I have, over the past few years, trained myself to think, instead of "church," in terms of Christian, or rather, Messianic Community, precisely in order to get away from the cultural baggage of the terminology of "church" and to examine what really "makes the kingdom of God grow." I have found that a liberating and fascinating experience, though it has it’s own downside too. Like many others of the contributors on OST, I do not have a classical philosophical or theological training with which to compare this kind of thinking. I have only the four cornerstones which John Wesley suggested with which to practically do my theological thinking: scripture, reason, experience and tradition.

My personal experience and conversations suggest that genuine Messianic or Christian faith is robust enough to stand up on that basis to fairly robust investigation and scrutiny and indeed to actually bear quite significantly good fruit, the kind that suggests evidence of an "abiding in the true Vine." It might not be the prescribed or preferred litmust test of the orthodoxies, but, as Eric Liddell famously elucidated, "God made me fast, and when I run, I feel His pleasure," an idea I think many within the emerging church / conversation might like to adopt, in order to say (something like), "God made me philosophical and when I enquire, I feel his pleasure."

shalom! - john