We have been told that a few high-powered conservative evangelical voices have targeted us for critique.  We have expected this for some time, and have so far been impressed by how generous and restrained critique has been.  That restraint may end soon. 

One of the reasons emergers have become concerned is the forthcoming book by DA Carson, who is a Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. It will be called Becoming Conversant with Emergent (an unfortunate title, I think, as the good folks at Emergent would likely to be mortified to imagine anyone considers them the authoritative voice of the emerging church which this title might imply). Carson’s book is based on the Staley Lecture Series he gave in February of this year at Cedarville University. (Tapes or downloads of the series are available). (In 1996, Carson released the massive The Gagging of God, which focused more on postmodernism per se and its implications for faith.) 

Andrew Jones (a New Zealander in the Emergent Coordinating Group and an A List emerging church blogger) listened to these tapes and they disturbed him so that he couldn’t sleep and blogged on them a couple of times. (If you follow these links, be sure also to read the extensive comments).  

Another feature on this horizon is the recently released Reclaiming the Center, edited by Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth and Justin Taylor. (You can read chapter one of this book here) DA Carson puts in an appearance here as well, with a review of Stanley Grenz’s 2000 tome Renewing the Center. Douglas Groothuis of Truth Decay fame also contributes a chapter, as does the philosopher JP Moreland.  

Finally, with Christianity Today, which claims a readership of 341,000, publishing a lead article on the emerging church conversation, the profile of the emerging church community has never been higher. Such a high profile inevitably leads to comment.  

It’s possible that the coming storm will be by the numbers. A smaller group discerns imbalances in a larger group of sufficient magnitude to break out in some way, either entirely or – as is the case with many in emerging church circles – to form conversations alongside the larger group (online and f2f) without breaking way. The smaller group attracts significant attention to represent some sort of perceived threat to the larger group and they feel forced to respond. The smaller group becomes defensive and entrenched; relational and organization breakdown ensues.  

But in the case of the emerging church and the larger evangelicalism that by and large birthed her, I do not believe this to be a fait accompli. Rather, I believe the coming intensified conversation can instead work to leaven evangelicalism and balance the emerging church.  

There are several fruitful avenues the course of this conversation could take; I’ll just mention three: 

1 - In its tending to focus on the spiritual health of the individual, evangelicalism is served well by the emerging church’s concern with social justice. At the same time, the emerging church over-reacts when it might not give sufficient weight to the spirituality of the individual.  

2 - Some in evangelicalism have seemed to subscribe to the omnicompetence of information as the key to spiritual transformation and would do well to pay more attention to more transpropositional approaches by some in churches emergent. At the same time, the emerging church must take care not to depreciate inordinately the importance of biblical and theological information.  

3 - Similarly, as some in evangelicalism have perhaps been too triumphant in touting theological formulations of the past, it’s an emerging church excess if they ignore the theological spade work of those who have gone before.  

By focusing on these and other areas, the coming dialogue between evangelicalism and the emerging church can be one that strengthens the church of Jesus Christ. But for this to happen best, the conversationalist will need to remember the following:

Lean Toward the Other. Just as a bicyclist leans toward the ground when making a turn in order to avoid falling to the ground, participants in this coming conversation will, counterintuitively, need to lean toward the other rather than away. When we are confronted with someone who strongly disagrees with us, and perhaps even expresses that disagreement in a way that we find distasteful, it can be our tendency to defend ourselves. The wise and mature individual, however, will remain calm and move toward the other person both relationally and in terms of their content.  

Ask non-rhetorical questions that unearth the other’s presuppositions. This has two effects. 1) Interpersonally, not responding in kind to harsh or angry criticism can have the effect of diffusing the emotion of the situation. 2) It also has the effect of leading to mutual understanding and a genuine interchange of ideas.
 
Value Criticism as Pure Gold. A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. Proverbs 17:10 (English Standard Version, see also 10:17, 12:1; 13:18; and 15:5,10,31,32 Even if one is absolutely certain one does not agree with the main thesis another is advocating, that does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from the other. Many times, one may find that the issue is more complicated than it appears prima facie. When one takes the time to drill down into the reasons why another is advancing a certain position, one may find that one actually agrees with the reasons while disagreeing with the conclusion. This realization then leads to a more comprehensive and creative conversation rather than the sometimes prematurely binary right/wrong argument.  View criticism as opportunities to increase in character, wisdom and learning. The one who speaks critically is not an enemy to be battled but rather a friend to be embraced. He or she may bring undiscovered treasures to the table.

"Balance Advocacy with Inquiry" This is a phrase from Peter Senge’s wonderful book, The Fifth Discipline. Balancing advocacy with inquiry is an art. It implies neither an inflexible adherence to one's own beliefs nor an immediate casper milquetoast capitulation to any position someone else suggests. Rather, balancing advocacy with inquiry means that when in the middle of disagreement, one retains one’s own beliefs while hypothetically entertaining the possibility that the other is either entirely correct or has something of value to offer to one’s own understanding. It, in fact, is the practical expression of humility when in the midst of disagreement.

Gordon Conwell’s Center for the Study of Global Christianity’s World Christian Database lists over 635 denominations in the United States and 9000 in the world. It should be obvious to almost everyone that the church has not done a good job at the art and practice of Christian disagreement. A further breakdown and atomization of the church as a result of this coming conversation is not an inevitability; the status quo of ecclesial disagreement does not have to be maintained. We can do this differently. We can do this in a way that makes God smile and brings us closer to Christ's mind.

Stephen Shields is the founder of faithmaps.org and the moderator of the faithmappers' online discussion group.  Stephen is a Manager with USA TODAY, formerly a bi-vocational pastor with Brian McLaren, and a frequent contributor to Next-Wave.  Stephen received a M.Div from Grace Theological Seminary and lives with his wife Bethany and three daughters - Michaela Siobhan, Skye Teresa, and Alia Noelle - in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. He can be contacted at sshields@faithmaps.org and blogs at emergesque.