I am slightly bemused by the trans-atlantic, trans-website, trans-denominational dialogue that has been taking place, and identify with Andrew’s desire to bring better definition to the term ‘emergent church’, with the suggestion that at present, it is more of a process than a breakaway group. For me, it is more a conversation than a process - an opportunity to think outside the box, and expose rather radical new ideas to the cold light of day and rational enquiry.

I think we are mistaken to describe ‘postmodernism’ as something separate from and opposed to ‘modernism’. I am very doubtful whether many aspects of ‘modernism’ are going to go away, and there is much in the ‘Enlightenment’ legacy that we should treasure. ‘Postmodernism’ has been described as a critique of modernism - and I think that is where the emphasis needs to lie. But the two exist, it seems to me, in an uneasy symbiotic relationship. One only has to think of the rather simplistic ways in which the characteristics of the one are set against the other, eg hierarchy v. networking, mechanical v. organic, institution v. community and so on, but there are occasions when either approach might be more valid, and as Don Carson said in a fairly recent lecture referred to on this site: "Damn all false antitheses to hell!" (including his own!)

What is called the ‘emerging church’ is a (necessary) reaction to what might be called the ‘modern’ church. But just as the so-called charismatic movement produced a wave of changes which eventually were taken on board by many historic churches which had originally opposed them, so I suspect the critique provided by the ‘emerging church’ will in time spread like leaven through the lump.

But what is the ‘emerging church’? As Andrew says, it is more a process than a break-away group. It is people rethinking their position, in the light of the ‘glass ceiling’ effect, which can often be experienced in more traditional churches, as far as the possibility for further growth and movement with God is concerned. It is people finding that ways of doing things which may have worked at one stage in our culture, don’t seem to work in our culture as it is becoming now. It is an exploration and exchange of views, rather than a wholesale abandoning of orthodox belief. The situation may be different in the US, where the reactions of some on the websites on which the ‘emergent discussion’ has been taking place suggests almost paranoid fear of an organised apostacy. But I suspect that things are not very different from here in the UK - where emerging church is often little more than scattered groups of people and individuals, like myself, who are discussing ideas with others, and meeting together to do so. Website-forum discussions can procreate enormous unreality - and convey to some the impression of organised conspiracy.

My observation is that where some form of ‘fleshed-out’ emergent church is developing, it is more often than not based on fairly conservative evangelical theology - because these are the views of the main movers behind changes. The desire is to reach a world ignorant of Christ more effectively with a life-changing message, and more particularly a life-changing experience of God and God’s people. In this respect, take a look at the international 24-7 prayer movement, described in Pete Greig’s book ‘Red Moon Rising’. The spin-offs are a new kind of community, not based on the traditional Sunday meeting and mid-week home-group of the more traditional church pattern, but sitting very comfortably alongside more conventional types of church structures. Then there are many other ways in which innovative patterns of worship and discipleship are being explored - often alongside and within very traditional church structures.

I haven’t read much Brian McLaren, but his theology seems remarkably traditional to me; his views positively eirenic.

Andrew himself seems to me to be offering a very particular and original take on theology - which is not necessarily universally paradigmatic for an emerging church. At any rate, N.T.Wright, whose approach is foundational to Andrew’s method, explicitly distances himself from identification with postmodernism  (eg ‘New Testament and the People of God’ p.xvii and eslewhere), his theology being very largely that of a traditional evangelical scholar. But the tide of theology is running forward, and the kinds of issues on which the narrative/historical theology (-ies) are based will not go away, and are likely to bring lasting change. At least Andrew has spotted the relevance of some of these changes to a ‘postmodern’ environment, in a way that perhaps few others have.

I’m just pointing out that in talking of the ‘emerging church’, we are describing something very diverse, and nothing like a movement which is showing signs of beoming organised and structured. How could it be, when that is part of what it is reacting against?

Perhaps we should all bear in mind too that definition of a theologian: someone who is trying to answer questions that nobody else is asking. I feel there is often more truth in that statement than is realised.