I think I disagree with point number 5

andrew said “5. Many in the emerging church will have more sympathy for the Arians’ interest in Jesus as ‘a loving advocate and friend’ than in the Nicene Christians need to present him as ‘a powerful, just ruler’ (146).”

To be fair I have not read this book and I would love to hear the reasons supporting this point, but for now I will mention a few points in opposition, it largely has to do with definitions of modernism and postmodernism as cultural movements. One of the main tenents of modernism was it’s reliance on rational thought, science, and research. By definition as postmodernism begins to move beyond modernism, I believe, based on the reading I’ve done about postmodernism, that people who are thinking in a postmodern way are looking for something beyond the rational, empirical, scientific world to answer the questions of life. This leads me to believe that they will cling to the trinitarian God that they can’t quite grasp, versus the simplified Buddy Jesus who was a person just like them, who experienced everything human, and then suffered and died. I think they will rejoice in an emphasis on his amazing resurection and his role as the second person as the trinity.

Perhaps I go a little too far to tie the emerging church so closely to postmodernism or even to assume postmodernism’s emergence that some may doubt. But in my experience with a younger generation I see a glimmer of truth in those associations that causes me to watch them closely.

As I said I would love to hear some of the reasons supporting the position that the emerging church will look toward a human advocate and friend kind of Jesus, over a more transcendent view of Christ as part of the trinity. Thanks!