The White Horse Inn guys are doing a series on the Emergent Church movement. Last week was part 1, and was pretty interesting. Part 2 was posted today, and I haven’t listened to it yet.
Of course, defining this movement is like nailing Jello to the wall; so, don’t expect to come away with a clear vision of what the movement exactly is. But the insight and analysis the guys give is pretty insightful. They are also pretty fair and approach the folks there charitably.
The most interesting term I heard to describe the Emergent movement (by one of its adherents) was “Post-Evangelical.” Whether it’s a fad, a trend, or a paradigm shift, the Emergent movement is something to be reckoned with.
I finally got to listen to part 2. It’s even better than part 1.
Really interesting inteview. I have read some on the “emerging church” stuff and I am still trying to fingure out what church is trying to “emerge.” The terms and expressions that are used are so “vanilla” that it’s hard to figure out with any precision what is meant by phrases/typology being mentioned.
The interview is good, but I get uncomfortable highlighting people within a “movement” in relation to the causes/rational for the movement. It’s like asking a student who attends a professor’s class about a particular subject matter expecting a firm, absolute answer that only the professor is able to give. The student may be able to relate certain ideas and applications, but to rise to the level of authority and originality is not reasonable. I didn’t like that part. I do appreciate that the guys from the “White House” did recognize that the need for passion is lacking in some areas of solid-thinking Christianity. Sometimes the people who are the most orthodix are also the people who are the least passionate. Tragic.
Keep us updated when the emerging church gets out. I’d like to see what it is when it gets out.
Dan, I see what you are saying about the interviews with the attendees of the conference. But I also think it’s instructive to see that the “man-in-the-street” thinks he’s a part of. Brian McLeran knows how to give a polished (and sometime elusive) response. The average attendee is more likely to jump in and offer an answer to the questions.
It’s one thing to ask the professor what he’s teaching. It’s another thing to ask his students. Put in proper perspective, both can be enlightening.
It seems to me like the White Horse guys were in agreement with the e-church guys in many of the critiques of modern evangelicalism, but not so enthusiastic about some of the alternatives the emergent folks were offering.
One more teaser to plug the program… You can hear McLaron explain why he thinks fundamentalist Christians are more dangerous than fundamentalist Islamists.