Introducing an Emergent Blogologue
On August 22, Bill Easum began writing about “The Conversations of Our Times,” in which he wrote, “Prior to the 1980s we lived in what I describe as a National Park world. If you let your imagination run wild with this metaphor you will conjure up many images about the world that was, but for now just think of the world prior to 1980 as a tame, either/or world that played by a set of well known rules. Now change mindsets and think about the world since 1990 as a jungle and let you imagination run wild as you compare the two metaphors, but for now think of the emerging world as a wild and unsafe place of both/and that has no established rules other than the law of the jungle—survival.”
He continued, “In this wild, unruly world, a growing conversation is taking place that no Christian leader can afford to ignore. The players in this conversation are multiplying like rabbits. As we will see in a moment, much of the future of Western Christianity lies at the heart of this conversation. So we had better pay attention.”
Who are the “players” that Easum is talking about? He lists five groups on the following continuum from “far left” (“a radical departure from traditional Christianity”) to “far right” (“closest to third century Christianity”):
Emergent — Incarnational — Organic — Attractional — Reproductive
Many of us in the Emergent Village community were intrigued by Easum’s perspective because Bill Easum is one of the most highly respected Christian futurists in North America.
So we contacted Bill and asked him if he’d be willing to participated in a little “blogologue” (short for “blog dialogue”) with Tony Jones, discussing the questions/issues Bill has raised with Emergent. He quickly responded, Yes, and so here we are.
The blogologue begins today with Bill’s post on “The Emergent Conversations” and will continue throughout the month of September. Please read it and post your responses (answers, questions, etc.) in the comments.
Next Monday (9/8), Tony Jones will post his response, followed by another response from Bill Easum on 9/15, and a final reply from Tony Jones on 9/22. Then I’ll wrap the whole thing up on 9/29 with a summary including some of your comments and feedback on each of the blog posts in the blogologue series—so please be sure to post your thoughts in the comments on these posts!
Here’s the whole schedule:
- September 1 — Introducing an Emergent Blogologue
- September 1 — Blogologue Part 1: Bill Easum
- September 8 — Blogologue Part 2: Tony Jones
- September 15 — Blogologue Part 3: Bill Easum
- September 22 — Blogologue Part 4: Tony Jones
- September 29 — Blogologue Part 5: Wrap-up featuring your comments
Bookmark this article using Remarkable!
Welcome to the Reader's Forum
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my post. I’ll try both to understand it and respond to it. But because you are obviously a deeper thinking than I am, I may read you incorrectly, so I will begin by asking you a couple of questions (I have to admit I’m a bit intimidated by the thoughtfulness of most Emergent conversations).
If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be espousing a Universalist approach to Jesus Christ? Or did I read you incorrectly? If this is what you are saying, then we have very different beliefs in play here. There are too many references in Scripture that suggest just the opposite to me.
Also, are you saying that every community of faith has the right to decide for itself what is “truth.” If we agree that truth is not necessarily fact, but is beyond fact, and if we agree that truth is only truth when embraced by a community then ultimately we discover that one truth is no better or worse or even different than any other truth. If that is what you’re saying, then we disagree quite a bit.
The discussion of what is the “truth” of the gospel can only be discovered in a relationship with both the historical Jesus and our personal relationship to him, since he is the author and finisher of the faith. Jesus is “the Truth”(I read that somewhere). Though the Gospels don’t define Jesus, they do present Jesus as one who can be known and as one who expects his followers to make him known to others even to the point of death. Indeed, those who knew Jesus best and walked with him daily seemed to understand that something about eternity was at stake here … something they would willingly give their lives for. I don’t believe that the martyrs (witnesses) died to uphold a faith that had no real eternal consequences one way or another. Either eternity hangs in the balance or we’re working awfully hard to help the down-and-outs emotionally feel better in this life (because those who are rich in spirit, happy, filled with bravado, well fed, merciless, impure, troublemakers are going to be fine in the end anyway).
Finally, I need to reiterate one of my basic issues with Emergent that I mentioned in an earlier post- Emergent philosophy doesn’t grow churches nor expand the mission of Jesus like I would like it to do. It appeals too much to the theological intelligencia and social services sector. Thinking deep and doing good is not what I feel Jesus died for.
I hope this is helpful
Add Emergent Village to
Join our mailing list:



Sounds like a stimulating exercise…