To define a movement, we must let the movement have the first word. We might, in the end, reconceptualize it – which postmodernists say is inevitable – but we will should at least have the courtesy to let a movement say what it is (Scot McKnight, “What is the Emerging Church?”)The emerging movement is attracting much attention in modern theology/ecclesiology/evangelicalism/Christianity. (These four are often vastly different.)
For those interested, Scot McKnight has two articles that are worth reading, if you would like to understand some of the genius of the emerging movement. He is one of them, and as he says, they should be allowed to define themselves. Scot does a good, though brief job of explicating some of the major components and concerns of those in the emerging movement.
As you might expect, he does object to Carson’s handling in his book. However, the more I have read about the emerging movement, the more I am in sympathy with McKnight’s critique of Carson at least in McKnight’s major complaint (that Carson painted with too broad a brush). I think Carson missed the boat too often. Though much of what he says is very good, Carson was too narrow in his evaluation.
For some, these articles will prove to be a nightmare, because much of what you have been saying about them will be seen to be false. However, there is plenty of fodder for critique in what McKnight says.
But as always, when we critique someone, we should critique what they actually believe, not what wish they believe or think they believe.
So, if you are interested, these will help you understand what the people in the emerging conversation say they believe.
Fad or Future
What Is The Emerging Church?