Conversations with An Emerging Church, part 3

part 2
part 1

Some questions for emerging church theologians and philosophers...

How do we set up safeguards to ensure the practice of philosophical humility without philosophical compromise?

Do we have a philosophy that is biblically coherent? If so, how can we express it so that our various listeners are better able to understand?

If ecclesiology and missiology are at the core of the emerging church, what might we be doing or saying that is confusing the issue? What, from our side of the conversation, might be encouraging the accusations of extreme postmodern philosophy?

What truth is there in the accusations? What can we do? What should we do?

What can we do to more clearly communicate with our traditional evangelical brothers and sisters and lower the frequency and intensity of ballistic volleys?


  1. Philosophy presupposes a certain set of axioms and presuppositions a priori, so some unproven starting point is a beginning reference point for a whole system of thought, worldview, and values. Depends where one wants to begin, and it can all be very subjective.

    A good place to understand the emerging church conversation, at least the Emergent brand of it, can be seen in its order, or values:

  2. Indeed. Taking the ec values as a starting point, how might we (any "we" willing to chime in) answer the questions? That's what I'm pondering. As soon as I'm fully into my restful summer, I'll take up my own questions... until then, ponder on