This Washington Post Article discusses both the emerging movement and the emergent village.
I tried reading it as neutral as possible while trying to figure out the goal of the journalist (was it to persuade or inform?) at the same time.
My impression of the article is that it's 50/50 on the good and bad of what Brian McLaren is a part of leading (call it whatever you want). Open discussions are great, and that is the good part. However, how he thinks we portray Jesus in paragraph 8 is not how I think most Christians perceive Jesus. He thinks conservative evangelicals have aligned themselves to closely with the Republican party, but to me it makes sense because they are currently the one's with the most conservative views on such issues as homosexuality, abortion, and the list goes on.... and those issues are the most important.
Calling McLaren the "true son of Lucifer" because he ignores "absolute biblical truth" is probably overboard and cruel (even if I was jokingly thinking it while reading...kidding).
Here's one piece of the article I find interesting:
"If you have some person or movement coming along calling into question the non-negotiables of Christianity, then those who espouse Christianity find such a challenge dangerous," said Donald A. Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, who has criticized McLaren's theology.
Though a "creative, sparkly writer," added Carson, McLaren has "got so many things wrong in his analysis that his work is not going to last that long."
And the following disturbs me:
"I don't see the issue of homosexuality as the simple black-and-white issue that some of my fellow evangelicals make it out to be," said McLaren, who last year was named by Time magazine among the "25 most influential evangelicals in America."
I'm not sure which part about McLaren is more disturbing...his view on homosexuality or the fact he's one of the "25 most influential evangelicals in America. It seems to me that some of his statement clearly justify D.A. Carson's statement of calling into question a non-negotiable of Christianity that McLaren holds to.
My 3rd post on this subject will discuss in greater detail the July/August 2006 issue of Relevant Magazine's article "Missing the Point? The absolute truth behind postmodernism, emergent, and the emerging church."
I also plan on reading D.A. Carson's book entitled Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church. I believe it is an objective critique of the Emergent Church. I guess we'll see.
I will be honest with my belief, and that is the more I read about the Emergent Church the more troubled I feel...and emerging is good under some definitions and troubling under others...we'll leave it at that for now.
Oh, just for fun here's a link of The Worst Analogies Ever Written in a High School Essay