My impression is that a key question behind DJ's is how do you invite others who, as you would say, "dabble" or play in "the big tent", into the "safer ground" that you speak of? As Christians, it is unacceptable to disengage with the culture, but in our contemporary society, where we live in a culture that is willing, at the slightest hint of intolerance or absolutism, to cut us off — to isolate us, if we don't already do it ourselves, how do you proclaim the truth of Jesus? People that we live with, go to school with, work with, are willing to disengage with us unless we show openness to who they are, where they've come from, what they believe. And they are fine with it! They are perfectly content never fully knowing the historic biblical Christianity that you speak of. So, how do you win them? Do you simply cut them off as theological nitwits? Do you write TD Jakes off as a heretic? Do you criticize Rick Warren and his cheapening of the gospel? Or Joel Osteen? and Bruce Wilkinson? and John Eldredge? C.S. Lewis? Then what chance do we have of speaking truth to Muslims, Hindus, etc. when we can't even acknowledge fellow Christians? Are they not to be considered Christians? Are they not to be considered fellows? 

You are right, dialogue is not the end goal here, and not all conversations do lead to God, but we certainly do need a lot of it. I say, if you've got the truth — speak it! Don't ever stop speaking it! Let's get it on. Many bridges historically have been burned and dialogue is an absolute must to build those back.

While there is a notable divide between PCA and PCUSA, and that divide has specific theological differences, I was not able to discern what you’re saying about what to do about that kind of difference. Are we supposed to disfellowship? Are we supposed to be vocal with an attitude of “I’m right” and “you’re wrong”? Are we supposed to excommunicate or declare heretics?

Or, can we dialogue in some fashion? Can we find points of agreement as well as points of disagreement, while we also fellowship and accomplish some things of Kingdom value?

This is perhaps a difference for me, that I believe that I can hold on to my theological distinctives and doctrines, that which I believe to be essential (and within the spectrum of a traditional evangelical doctrinal position), while I am in dialogue with Christians in the other 2,999 denominations and sects with whom I do have differences in theological details.

My previous comment dated 4/18/06 defined some categories of those that get lumped into the umbrella term “emerging church” — namely relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists. Within this umbrella, a wide spectrum of theological persuasions can be found, even those who are PCA Reformed.

Now, granted, perhaps many of those in the “relevants” category may not want to dialogue with reconstructionists or revisionists, but some of them do. The point here is, not all who are considered “emerging church” want to be associated with “emergent conversation”. Note the difference (and also overlap) of the 2 terms.

The publicity that’s been generated by the “emergent church conversation” has been overly characterized as consisting of solely revisionists, when in fact, it is probably more fairly described as a “safe place” for Christians of differing theological convictions (relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists) to honor one another’s differences, but yet still come together for mutual friendship and explore how to live in a way that honors God, does good for the world, and follow God in the way of Jesus.

Now to continue or at least bring some closure to this discussion, I will answer two questions that DJ raised, that I never got around to answering.
DJ said, “While it is valuable (and safer) to have a tightly and consistently defined theology to uphold for a historic biblical Christianity, is it not also valuable to define those boundaries by those who affirm the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed? Doesn’t that provide sufficient bounds for the diversity and freedom of the 3,000+ denominations and sects in the US and the 30,000+ denominations and sects in the world.”
My response: DJ, you seem to want to have a big tent in which you can explore your faith among the various traditions and new movements of broad, catholic Christianity. Praise God that we can affim the apostolic, catholic faith of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. These creeds deal mainly with the critical Christological debates of the first 4 centuries of Christianity. However, as important as these creeds are, they are not enough because people have become so familiar with these creeds that they affirm them by attributing their own meaning to them. For instance, TD Jakes, voted the most influential Christian leader in a recent poll, is known to embrace a view of the Trinity called “modalism” which is a denial of the historic definition of Trinity. I’m sure TD Jakes would affirm the Apostles Creed, yet he denies the that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are indeed distinct persons, but modes of the one God. This is only one example. The critical questions of our faith — who is God? who is Christ? what is the nature of man? what is sin? what is salvation? and how does one comes to faith? — call for clear definition. I’m sure you would agree. However, you seem to want to explore more than to define. You seem to have no problems dabbling into “dangerous” territory and reject “safer” ground. On the one hand you don’t reject “historic biblical Christianity” but you don’t want to seem bound by it either. For me, give me the safe ground of those who have stood firm on the Scriptures and on biblical Christianity. I’m sure that many in the Emerging Church would consider themselves as “reformers” or “revolutionaries” who are trying to rediscover the Scriptures and the Jesus of the Bible. I guess only time and rigorous testing of our views by Scripture will tell.

DJ said: “From the divergence there, and in the PCUSA vs PCA differences, it appears that reformed theology itself is not able to navigate a straight and narrow and consistent theology among itself?”

My response: The formation of Westminster Seminary was a response to the Princeton Seminary going wayward from orthodoxy in the 1920s. The same with the PCA departing from the PCUS (later PCUSA). No institution is exempt from corruption and straying from its original founding principles. That is what happened at Princeton and the PCUSA. And this is what I see happening with the Emerging Church… you are going the way of Princeton and the PCUSA… into theological ambiguity and openness to things that we ought not to be open about. That is why I stand with the Westminster school (the Old Princeton tradition) and with the PCA. These are not perfect institutions yet they are trying to be faithful to the biblical faith and not be tossed to and fro by the spirit of the age.

This is my concern for you and for those who are open to the Emerging Movement – tossed to and fro by ever wind of doctrine and human cunning (Ephesians 4:14). Rather, let us speak the truth in love and grow up into Him who is our head, even our Lord Jesus Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Now, out of curiosity, and pardon my ignorance, how is it that Princeton with its heritage of Machen can be where it is theologically now? From the divergence there, and in the PCUSA vs PCA differences, it appears that reformed theology itself is not able to navigate a straight and narrow and consistent theology among itself?

And, about the emerging/emergent church, you may find a historical perspective helpful, as Mark O and Dan Kimball do their respective flashback storytelling: www.ysmarko.com/?p=510 and www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/04/origin_of_the_t.html

when you mention certain names, such as Keller and Driscoll, who are friendly to emerging church but are able to do so with theological footing that satisfies as well your definition of historic biblical Christianity, how do you say that gap is bridged? thanks again, i’m really enjoying the discussion.