Blogologue Part 1: Bill Easum on The Emergent Conversations

Hi Bill,
I want to thank you for a much more careful portrait of the Emerging conversation than one normally finds on the web. You have obviously taken pains to genuinely hear what is being said in the emerging conversation rather than listening just long enough to develop more cannon fodder, and for that you earn my highest praise and thanks.
I have comments on two quotes from your posting.
In my view you posit a false tension in the emerging conversation between what the Gospel is and what we can know about the gospel. To say that everything we know about the gospel is qualified by language is not to say that the event of which the gospel speaks is qualified by language. At bottom we must remain convinced that the gospel is a story of what God does for us, but that what God does for us exceeds language. Hence, to say that salvation is only in Jesus Christ (which I endorse passionately) is not the same as to say that salvation can only happen through the literal naming of Jesus Christ (which I reject). There is more to the event of the gospel than our words, but all we can know of the gospel is conditioned by language (and here one must here Heidegger ask “What is language?”).
I fear that to lay it out as a question of adopting a postmodern faith in order to reach the postmodern world is to miss the point. If postmoderns are onto something significant in their criticism of modernity then to posit this choice is to posit an option that is fundamentally “unreal”. If the rationalism of modernity is an emperor with no clothes, then we must go beyond the impoverished modernist notions of truth in order to more honestly speak of the truth of the gospel. Given that the story of modernity begins with autonomous humanity (cogito, ergo sum) rather than creation in the imago dei, it should come as no surprise that the discourse of modernity is inadequate for the task of proclaiming the gospel when the questions now being asked no longer respect the hegemony of humanistic rationalism.
In spite of these not insignificant reservations I am deeply grateful for your eminently worthwhile contribution to this conversation. Blessings.

I don’t normally provide links to my response but it was too lengthy to do here.

http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/09/01/a-response-to-bill-easum-part-1/

Thanks, Jonathan! I hope folks will jump over to your site and read your thorough response to Bill Easum’s post (and my one pushback to your pushback in the comments ;-)

Bill

What an honor that you are engaging this conversation. Thank you.

I do need to say I have followed and been blessed by your writings for years as a United Methodist pastor and now in a non-denom network and a Christian university adjunct prof. I also have followed emerging/emergent around the world, and i don’t think I have met one that thinks

Bill – I am fascinated to hear your views as a futurist, prophetic analyst who is “non-emergent” (my provisional and off-the-cuff adjectives).

If we use McLarens tree metaphor to describe emergence – it goes beyond and builds on what was before (the inner rings), not rejects it, then your views would certainly form an important contribution to the emergent discussion.

If and where emergents are getting it wrong, they at least have the flexibility built in to the conversation to adjust and improve them based on criticisms, praise be to postmodernity!

I’m trying to get a grip on your critique, and I think it centres on the perceived lack of certainty in the emergent position, as you are affirmative of many other aspects of the movement.

I have been introducing myself to the avant garde of popular thought – that of the scientists – over the last century, taking in Einstein and relativity, and Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger et al and quantum theory. The bottom line there is we can only know events (and even matter) with “probability”, not certainty.

Viewed historically, it appears that the “advanced” thinkers eventually filter down to general culture, (as Francis Shaeffer was at pains to point out) including general religious culture – for example in emerging from medieval to modern thought, Copernicus and Galileo’s heliocentric view of the universe, would have been initially viewed as positively heretical, but is accepted today by practically all.

One point I feel bound to make is if certainty was the key element in Gods cosmos, does this not conflict with the age old calling to faith?

I believe that certainty is a myth held in too high a regard by modernity. Reality to the post-modern appears to be far better described by words such as chaotic, uncertain, and probable, which I believe to be more “biblical” thought.

I’m a little concerned by your equating the “growing and thriving community of faith” with this certainty. It sounds too much like the popularist marketeering stance of consumerism.

Again, I hold to what I perceive to be the more biblical emphasis – “quality of heart”, over “quantity of adherents”. However, I take your point that the message should be communicated clearly and plainly, (even if this message is itself complex and mysterious).

Bill – it seems you are as disillusioned with the Emperor as emergents are. So I’m genuinely interested to hear your response to the problems the emergent position is addressing.

Hi Bill – good to see you engaging with the emergent crew. Many emerging communities that I have seen fall over after a time on the back of one of your favourite topics – leadership. What leadership is required in the emergent movement that is similar and radically different from mainstream leadership?

I am really loving this discussion – I wanted to refer all of you to another blog with insights into this issue:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/will-the-real-emerger-please-stand-up/

“In addition, they seem to leave open the option of their theology evolving beyond what we know as Scripture as well as a total reinterpretation of that Scripture.”

I think this is a misleading claim. Whatever re-interpreting is done, it is done with a focus on contextuality and genre. This is not about “newness” per se, but about renewed focus on the vitality of the original text.

Secondly, because the text represents a living, breathing, evolving community, there is a desire to pay attention to what some call “trajection”. In other words, the desire to move beyond “what we know as Scripture” is simply about the recognition that communities are never static, always dynamic. And the body of Christ exists in living, breathing form today, and not specifically in a book.

“However, I do agree with them that we must adopt new methods of reaching the new world.”
This quote probably characterizes where Bill is coming from as well as any in his post. But, methodology is part of the problem. Methodology implies a “how-do-I-get-them-to-do-what-I-want” approach. Plus, I think we also need to examine words like gospel more carefully. My guess is that Bill’s gospel and mine are not quite the same. And, finally, the old truth argument misses the point and is an oversimplification, even a distortion of the postmodern discussion. The church growth crowd and the emerging crowd will have difficulty with this dialogue because of differing perspectives.

This is the first explanation I’ve read about the emergent church (yes, in fact, I do live in Darkest Africa) and I’m interested in the discussion although having been brought up a modern and living in a pre-modern society, I find it a little hard to grasp.

One question I have is, assuming for the moment that modernism is so dead, and so unbiblical, why is post-modernism the best alternative? Given that the the biblical narrative was lived out and later interpreted in a traditional (pre-modern) context, where people believed in authority, mysterious forces, transcendent supernatural beings, and so on, how is post-modernism particularly equipped to stand as the “authoritative interpreter” of the tradition (realizing the oxymoron of that statement)? From what privileged place can post-modernism critique the modern or pre-modern understanding of the story of God and mankind?

Nic, I think your basing any of your faith in uncertainty on “avant garde” scientific facts is rather shaky. The concepts you cite (relativity, uncertainty principle, etc.) are in fact very modern concepts in that they specify quite precisely the behavior of physical systems. They definitely don’t correspond to a generally fuzzy uncertainty. It is true that there is some probability that, a la Douglas Adams, your clothes will all simultaneously jump two feet to the right, or that the sun will turn into a giant goat tomorrow, but the trivial probability associated with these events is not what we usually call “uncertainty.” If our life and salvation were dependent on the precise location of an electron or photon at a moment in time, we would indeed have cause for real uncertainty, but the quantum uncertainty of physics says nothing (or, perhaps, only a virtual, quantum nothing :-) about our lives on the macro scale.

You go on to say that some new ideas have been seen as heretical and then are later accepted. True, but that has happened with all kinds of ideas and worldviews (Marxism, capitalism, imperialism, racism, tolerance) and doesn’t have much to do with the validity of the “new way”.

Hi Bill. :) I like you, you seem very wise. I think it is good to have some ‘older’’ voices probing the emerging movement. We tend to have an overflux of youth (which adds dynamic and vitality), but we could really use some tradition and wisdom too. I’m sort of new to the ‘conversation’ so I can’t really give a defined answer, but I will say this. At the heart of all this, is the Gospel. Postmodernity exists as a era because of the Gospel. Modernity, Posmodernity, all philosophical logic, law, understanding and basic human time exists purely on the foundation that the Gospel exists. There’s no cultural construct or language that can remove this. It is literally impossible for humanity to remove the Gospel, the reconciliational property of the beginning, and ultimately, the redemption of anthropological man himself. Any extra offshoots of what Emergent is, seems to me, to be primarily a recognized experiment in sociology and the psychology of religion. (I’m saying this purely as someone studying postmodern Christianity academically). Ultimately, humans are excessively predictable. There are behaviors, and sociological constructs we can never escape from. The difference in the conversation to me, is how we react to them, and how we develop the journey towards community, with each other and Christ, despite these clearly permanent facets of our eco-systems. As a Methodist, you clearly have a means of interacting with The Other, through your liturgy, communally and in your prayer life. Mine has been through a debilitating depression, the Book of Common prayer and a very unique encounter with those with special needs and newly formed prayer life. Both of us, have paths where we are conversing with God. I think ultimately, we are more similar than we appear. It is absolutely impossible to have a ‘conversation’ without some doctrine being made. The practice forms the identity, as it forms the community, as it forms our history. Emergent will become part of church history, whether we want to deal with it or not. I think as long as we stay within the perimeters of the Creeds before us though, I truly believe both our narratives will intertwine and we can learn deeply from one another. We need the previous generations stories in order to continue the larger one: how Christ compels and affect all of humankind. A postmodernity without fathers of the faith, and a rich history is nothing more than theological nihilism: a making of Being whom we talk to at length, yet have nothing to say to, and one whom we don’t want answers from, because confusion provides a respite from the seeming holy terror that is necessary for us to communally engage an Almighty God, and to approach as a dependable source of grace. We can not know of this grace if we do not know how it works, and we decide to continually test out new methods, not new frames of reference.

Okay, I probably rambled, but I hope you got the point, and thanks for the discussion.

Mike
Hi – I was interested to get a snapshot of your life in Nigeria via your blog. For your interest I am in Cape Town and so the African – European, Pre-Post-Modern culture questions are present for me in some similar ways. See a sketch I drew on one perceived angle, called “On my left postcolonial on my right postmodern” http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/07/02/my-left-postcolonial-my-right-postmodern

Thanks for your response in the Bill Easum thread. I’d be glad to continue discussion regarding emergence, because I am passionate about it. To clarify:

Postmodernism is not necessarily the best alternative, I just see it liberating potential for a more biblical framework. We will move through this phase, and Gods truth will continue to unfold.

Further, postmodernity is for me simply the culture in which I with my particular history, find myself. In my context, the struggle seems to be between modernity and postmodernity.

Postmodernity is well equipped to critique modernity. The question of where is Africa in this is an interesting one; is it pre/post/modern? In my limited experience it is moving both into modernity and into postmodernity/the postcolonial at the same time.

I am not “basing my faith in uncertainty”. I am acknowledging the essential uncertainty of the universe, both physically and spiritually. My faith is in God whom I know in part – uncertainly.

You need to understand my language. I am playing with ideas. I am not an expert, either in science or theology, but I am an experimenter. What i am aware of is that there is theoretical uncertainty at a subatomic level. This insight gives me hope – it is a pattern of being which leads to my assertion that “Faith is the foundation, not scientific certainty.”

Regarding the heretical, well that’s one thing I am not afraid to be. I am on a journey of discovery and if that takes me into territory at odds with orthodoxy, so be it. I agree, Marxism was an example of an experiment that failed, and so might the emergent church.

But so far, what constitutes emergent thought makes a whole lot more sense to me than anything else in my evangelical-charismatic-liberationist-protestant background made.

Bill – I also am delighted that you are taking part publicly in this conversation. You and Tom have been among the foundational voices that catalyzed my own missional reorientation over the last decade, for which I am deeply grateful.

I think you have hit the bull’s eye in identifying the discussion of Truth, knowledge and certainty as the core issues. You put it this way:

“The key issue I have with the Emergent movement is this: Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language within the community of faith at this particular time in history in this particular place with this particular community?”

The first commenter, Henry, gave a good response to that question, but I think his writing is a bit subtle so I’d like to try to put it more directly: it’s both. The Gospel is an actual reality that is eternally true – and – our ability to understand it and communicate it is always an imperfect, conditioned, contextual approximation. It’s an approximation because both thinking and speaking rely on language, which is a “jar of clay” in which the treasure can actually be found. Put another Pauline way, not only do we see through a glass dimly, but we also think and speak through smeary lenses as well. But we do see because there really is Someone there on the other side of the glass: namely, Jesus. I think that accounts for how you were able to find in Tony’s book that many leading Emergent voices, including McLaren, gladly affirm that “yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.”

(A related issue is that “truth” and “knowing” in the Bible are more about relationships than facts in the first place. Jesus shatters the modern category of Truth when he says “I am the truth” for example. I’ve written about that and those who are interested can find it here: http://feralpastor.blogspot.com/2007/09/talking-about-truth-with-evangelicals.html.)

That’s all well and good for theology and philosophy, but you raise another important point: so what? Is this just a discussion for the Academy or is it expected to offer anything for the bulk of the population? (I’ve come to gladly expect that kind of practical, missional shove from you!) I’ll post a second comment touching on that.

Tim

Bill, you ask an important question: “Do you really believe you can reach the bulk of the population when you take the conversation as deep as you do? Or are you really only concerned with appealing to philosophers?”

Personally, I believe that the Emergent conversation is very relevant to the faith of believers in general, but it does need to “trickle down” a bit for that to show. It’s like what I’ve encountered in science, where there are theorists who come up with ideas and experimentalists who then test them out, but eventually it comes to the people doing applied science to make something useful out of it. Sometimes that takes a while, and often it’s difficult to foresee the practical applications.

At this point, I am seeing two “applications” that reach out beyond the postmodern theorists and the Emergent experimentalists.

First: idol smashing. In my tradition, we appreciate Luther’s definition of a god as whatever you fear, love, and/or trust above anything else. It seems common to me for believers to make idols out of their theologies, their own understanding, and the belief in a set of facts called Absolute Truth. These can become idols that often are loved and trusted above all and generate visceral fear when they are threatened. The postmodern critique has the power to dethrone these idols. (It actually undermines them by removing our absolute confidence in language, which is the foundation all theologies and knowledge. Sort of a “trickle up” attack from below.) That causes some people tremendous distress, but it’s so important because it forces us to remember that the object of our faith is not a set of beliefs but Jesus himself, and the content of our faith is not confidence in those facts but rather trust and confidence in Jesus as savior.

The practical applications of this are enormous for believers. If we all take out theologies off the throne and down a notch it makes it clearer that we share the same faith (trust and confidence) in Jesus. So believers can treat each other more like one body rather than rival factions, which would be great for our public witness in the world.

Second: appeal to unbelievers. You already noted that “we can’t come on to postmoderns like gangbusters with an elitist attitude as if we have THE truth.” I agree. Postmoderns are often cynical because they’ve witnessed the failings of all our systems and institutions: marriage, government, religion and even science have all let them down in painful ways. So while they may long for something solid and absolute to rely on they’ve learned to be wary. A Christian faith that’s native to the confidence of modernity will, I believe, become a harder and harder sell among them. But a faith native to postmodernity can offer three things of great value to them.

First, it can name their reality and validate their experience by acknowledging that all of creation genuinely is broken.

Second, because that brokenness also applies to the Christians they meet (as well as the theologies we are able to offer), they are able to hear the Gospel presented with reasonable expectations for our behavior as believers-yet-sinners (and for the theology the Gospel gets presented in.) That means they will be less likely to be surprised and disillusioned when they inevitably encounter our failings and limitations.

And lastly, it helps us to be clear in inviting them into faith in Jesus rather than to build a faith on their confidence in us, or in our theologies, or in our truth claims. Hopefully then, they will be better able to steer clear of the idolatries that I mentioned above.

Thanks to everyone for your kind and reflective comments. I will try to respond to all of the comments so far. So this is a long post.

Here are some of this “old geezer’s” thoughts.

First, Henry you say “Hence, to say that salvation is only in Jesus Christ (which I endorse passionately) is not the same as to say that salvation can only happen through the literal naming of Jesus Christ (which I reject).” I wish you would say more here. Is this the same as what Paggit talks about in “A Christianity Worth Believing” when he shares his conversion story and the subsequent attempts by his mentors to rationalize and concretize that experience? If so, then I understand what you’re saying because my conversion and pre-Christian history is very similar to Dougs.

Second, Nic, I understand quantum physics. In fact I wrote about it in my book Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers. Still, I can’t compare the probability of science with the certainty of my salvation. I don’t think Doug would either. In order for faith to be real to me, it has to be certain.
However, I resonate with Paul, “I believe, but help my unbelief.” Is this closer to what you are saying? If so, we are on the same wave link, or is it a particle link (sorry for the pun).

Third, Nic, I am as unhappy with most of modern day Christianity as are the Emergents. Where we probably differ is I have great hopes for two movements underfoot today- church planting and multiple sites. I see these as reproducible ministries that can grow people and churches. I’m not willing to give up on the established church, not yet anyway.

Fourth, Peter, you ask, “What leadership is required in the emergent movement that is similar and radically different from mainstream leadership?” I have talked about that a lot by using the metaphor of spiritual midwife (I like the use of metaphors, perhaps that makes me closer to Emergents than I know). A spiritual midwife incorporates the both/and of postmodernity- midwives know the woman MUST birth her child in order to live: spiritual midwives know each Christian MUST birth their gift in order to become what God intended them to be; the same can be true with the Church. The spiritual midwife knows the church MUST grow in order to live out its reason for existence. But the spiritual midwife doesn’t lead people to do what the midwife wants them to do as in Modernity. The spiritual midwife assists the person in the birth of THEIR gift.

Fifth, Darren, thanks for your two comments. I have one huge fear of Emergents- that they will take contextualization and interpretation too far and perhaps rewrite the Gospel and in effect write a new Gospel. So it’s good to hear you say “This is not about “newness” per se, but about renewed focus on the vitality of the original text.” I remember writing Brian after his book “Radical Generosity” saying how much of it I resonated with and then cautioning him not to take this journey beyond the pale of legitimate Christianity. I think part of the problem is Emergent writings are so fuzzy and deep they are like trying to get hold of a greasy pig.

Sixth, Chuck, you said, “Methodology implies a “how-do-I-get-them-to-do-what-I-want” approach. Plus, I think we also need to examine words like gospel more carefully. My guess is that Bill’s gospel and mine are not quite the same. And, finally, the old truth argument misses the point and is an oversimplification, even a distortion of the postmodern discussion. The church growth crowd and the emerging crowd will have difficulty with this dialogue because of differing perspectives.”
My understanding of methodology never implies “how-do-I-get-them-to-do-what-I-want.” Just the opposite as I explain in the spiritual midwife metaphor. Also, I still need clarification on the truth issue. I still feel there is much more conversation needed on this point.

Seventh, Mike, I don’t think Emergents would say postmodernism is the best alternative, just one alternative. The one thing I have to concede to the Emergents is they do not make the mistake that Frank Viola made in his newest book, Reimagining Church, and feel as if they are the only legitimate path to the future.

Finally, Tim, thanks for your both/and comments about the reality of the Gospel. That helped clarify some of the issues for me.

Lets continue the conversation and perhaps the journey will lead somewhere when it’s all over.
Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

Okay, I have a question for the group. In several places I’ve said one of the changing guidelines to the future is the shift from propositional truth to embodied truth. Henry, is this close to what you are saying when you said “Hence, to say that salvation is only in Jesus Christ (which I endorse passionately) is not the same as to say that salvation can only happen through the literal naming of Jesus Christ (which I reject).”

Bill – I’m convinced that the shift from propositional truth to embodied truth is pivotal for the whole exploration of faith in postmodern context. For me, it’s crystallized in how we read John 8:31 where Jesus says; “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” In a Modern/propositional mindset, that comes through as “You shall actually have access in you mind (know) the correct information (truth) and that information will set you free.” But in an embodied truth reading (as we find in Jesus’ words “I am the truth”) the passage leaps out at us with a very different sense: “You shall come into relationship (know) with me (the truth) and I will set you free.

Man, oh man, does that sound like Gospel to me!

(No doubt you also recognize that what’s happening in that turn is the undoing of the Hellenization of the Hebrew faith. In the Greek thinking that lies at the root of both science and Modernity, “knowing” is about having access to actual facts in your mind. But in the Hebraic sense, “to know” is also often used in a relational way. So we get the classic “Adam knew Eve his wife…” in Genesis 4:1.)

Rediscovering embodied (relational) truth sets in motion a host of other thrilling developments. Incarnational church life seems to emerge (?) directly from it. Theological disputes and conundrums no longer need to occupy so much of our time and attention. Bible study pivots from learning the principles in the written word to encountering the person of the living Word. Intellectual certainty gives up center place to relational trust and confidence in Jesus. Discipleship is freed from “Christian Education” to become faith formation again. The move from bounded-set to centered-set thinking also flows readily from this.

I remember how unsettling it was for me personally when my Inner Modern felt the ground dissolving under his feet. But the thrill of these things has more than compensated in my faith life for the loss of what used to feel like certainty.

I’m not a theologian but in my experience i have found asking the questions to have a certain degree of certainty to it. That is the reality that i can ask any question, all questions and yet have faith without answers is solid enough.-As rainer said-live the questions.

tim, you said ““You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” In a Modern/propositional mindset, that comes through as “You shall actually have access in you mind (know) the correct information (truth) and that information will set you free.” But in an embodied truth reading (as we find in Jesus’ words “I am the truth”) the passage leaps out at us with a very different sense: “You shall come into relationship (know) with me (the truth) and I will set you free.”

I totally agree with this. So now I understand what you were saying earlier and we have found a basic agreement.

I have no problem with truth being a relationship with Jesus rather than what I call a “data dump.” The reason I push for truth is because of my relationship with Jesus. I know its real no matter what. So truth is my relationship with Jesus.

Ive taught the embodied truth for some time and along with it the concept that the body of Christ should be seen as an incubator of faith. So the unbeliever sees truth in us rather than finds truth in the Bible.

Are we on the same wave lenght here?

I sure think we are on the same wavelength. Let’s do a quick check. I read your summary statement this way: “So the unbeliever sees truth (actually encounters Jesus) in us rather than finds truth (propositional facts about God) in the Bible.” If that’s what you’re saying then we are absolutely singing the same song.

So, Jesus as Truth, alive and embodied, is my starting point. Here’s what unfolds for me next through one more layer of philosophy and then on to application.

In order for an actual relationship with Jesus of Nazareth to be possible, there are some things which do have to be “true” in the modern sense, that is, absolute historical facts. For example, Jesus must have actually lived since I can’t have a real relationship with a fictional or mythological character. More importantly, Jesus must actually have risen from the dead and now be alive because I can’t have a relationship with a dead person. I haven’t delineated the other formally necessary facts, but my gut tells me that it’s a very short list. It’s important in one way at least because it begins to identify a border for relativism. Some things are relative and some truths can be personal instead of universal, but some things can not if we are to maintain a kind of Christian faith that has continuity with the faith of the first believers.

From there I am seeing two practical implications that really excite me.

First, if the “fact set” for real faith in Jesus actually is so small, then a vast amount of the theological debate and denominational division that distracts the Church from discipleship and mission can at least be relaxed, instead of being treated as if these things were “matters of ultimate concern.” As bodies of believers then, we could be better stewards of time and money, cooperate and collaborate more and give a much better public witness to the world (as opposed to “biting and devouring” each other. Gal 5:15)

Second, a minimal “fact set” points us in the direction of working with the smallest possible gospel, rather than the most ornate and all-encompassing theology. Now, I’m certainly one who values and enjoys depth and detail in knowledge, but for the purpose of transmission and replication, smaller is better – way better. I learned this in my days working with viruses: the fewer genes a virus has the less it takes to replicate it. So I find myself thinking a lot these days about “viral Christianity.” What would it look like to do for theology what the simple/organic/house church folks are doing with congregational life? And how fast could we spread the faith infection if we paired the two?

That’s quite a bit to toss out in one blog post… thanks for creating the occasion for me to write it out though. I’m eager to hear your thoughts.

I think i agree with all of the above. It seems as if everyone followed that logic most of the dotrinal issues that separate us would disappear. I agree there is no way to prove jesus other than my relationship with him. I also agree that from that follows the two things youve put forth.

so we seem to have come full circle.

Hi,
Tim has already responded very eloquently to question regarding the move from propositional truth to embodied truth. I would add (in the spirit of Tim’s both/and comments) that to mitigate the role of propositional truth is not to eliminate that role. We use propositions when we explain why propositions are not the ultimate locus of truth, but that does not mean we are thereby endorsing the hegemony of propositional truth, as some suggest. We are using categories of truth that are appropriate to certain functions of the propagation of truth. Propositions fill a legitimate role in the quest for truth, but they are not ultimately sufficient for the elucidation of a truth that is infinite and exceeds our grasp. What we hold to be true is indicated not by the propositions we endorse, but by the way we live; by the way we embody the truth we hold. “I love you” is a proposition that indicates what I wish you to believe about my evaluation of our relationship, and it may indicate how I intend to conduct myself with regard to our relationship, but the truth of my love for you is indicated by how I live in relation with you. This is an uncontroversial understanding of truth but it has not been consistently applied in our soteriology for various reasons.
In regard to salvation being exclusively in Christ but not necessarily corresponding to a literal naming of Jesus the same dynamic holds. When truth is taken to be primarily propositional then one’s statements regarding Christ are of utmost importance, and then (it is thought) one’s life should reflect those statements. If truth is embodied, then one’s life is one’s statement (not only propositional) in response to Jesus, and that response includes propositions, but the propositions are not the primary indication of one’s response. One may say “Yes” to Jesus, but failure to actually follow Jesus in life gives the lie to that propositional response, indicating that one’s real response to Jesus is rejection even if one’s propositions pretend otherwise. Conversely, one may profess to reject Jesus, but one’s life may indicate that one says yes to the real Jesus, even when one’s propositions say “No” to the caricature of Jesus one rejects (along the lines of Jesus’ parable of two sons, though not explicitly exegetical Matthew 21:28ff).
There are related questions regarding those who have never heard, and for the whole notion of salvation by grace through faith, not of works, but this understanding of the nature of truth seems to me to be best able to address those issues in a biblically consistent manner. Of course, if scripture assumes a more Hebraic notion of truth, and if much of Christian theology has drunk too deeply from the streams of Greek and modern philosophy (as Tim has rightly reminded us above), then this should come as no surprise.
Wonderful discussion. Thanks to all.

“Jones clearly states that Emergents believe that no one comes to God except through Jesus. That should put many questions to rest and cause angst to others, but it settles my primary concern.”

This is actually one of my main concerns with Emergent. No one comes through the Father except through Jesus by accepting Jesus as Leader and Fogiver in thier lives by acknowledging Him with thier mouths and believing in thier hearts. Or all come to God through Jesus no matter what they decide or don’t decide about Christ in this life time. They all come to God through Jesus at the end of the game. Just saying that you come to God through Jesus stops short of a complete answer to the question.

Bill; Thanks for your comments. I planted a church, which is struggling to be “real” and have a building. If I would have known they would eventually go this way, I’m not sure I would have planted them. Although the 80+ new converts is encouraging. You once told me to hold off this new plant from building as long as I could. Now I understand.