Isn't that the whole point of dialogue? To make sure we truly understand what the other person is trying to say (as opposed to immediately classifying and judging based on our own concept of the words used)?

I just thought it was ironic to read this post as an apparent issue of emergents in general – at exactly the same time as others (who felt they were part of the movement for quite some time) express their desire and need to shed the label “emergent” now.

The way I read it, the parallel here is: a perceived fixation of content that does not describe people's values and passions. And I understand why some are baffled about the desire to leave the conversation when conversation implies that disagreement was and is a necessary and a welcome part of the process.

I guess the other side would respond that the diversity of voices and disagreement are welcome but not heard or ignored when it comes to a general image being cast to the general public (particularly through the printed media). In their opinion, a certain theology is being promoted that they just don't feel comfortable with (see Bill Kinnon's “crossless” comment on Brian's “A New Kind of Christianity”).

Which brings me to one final question for you (trying to incorporate the whole roundtable idea as well):

How can we possibly avoid continuing splintering in movements like Emergence when first of all it's logistically impossible to have all voices heard and involved, and when due to its inherent aversion to formulating contents of belief and to hierarchical leadership there seems to be no clear understanding of who is speaking for whom?

Isn't that the whole point of dialogue? To make sure we truly understand what the other person is trying to say (as opposed to immediately classifying and judging based on our own concept of the words used)?

I just thought it was ironic to read this post as an apparent issue of emergents in general – at exactly the same time as others (who felt they were part of the movement for quite some time) express their desire and need to shed the label “emergent” now.

The way I read it, the parallel here is: a perceived fixation of content that does not describe people's values and passions. And I understand why some are baffled about the desire to leave the conversation when conversation implies that disagreement was and is a necessary and a welcome part of the process.

I guess the other side would respond that the diversity of voices and disagreement are welcome but not heard or ignored when it comes to a general image being cast to the general public (particularly through the printed media). In their opinion, a certain theology is being promoted that they just don't feel comfortable with (see Bill Kinnon's “crossless” comment on Brian's “A New Kind of Christianity”).

Which brings me to one final question for you (trying to incorporate the whole roundtable idea as well):

How can we possibly avoid continuing splintering in movements like Emergence when first of all it's logistically impossible to have all voices heard and involved, and when due to its inherent aversion to formulating contents of belief and to hierarchical leadership there seems to be no clear understanding of who is speaking for whom?

1. If (hypothetically speaking) a definition of “Christian” existed that we would deem appropriate and accurate in its description of what we are, what we believe and value, and what we do and want to pursue, what would that definition look like?

2. How would that definition not just describe the opinion and the preference of an individual but be descriptive of the all encompassing nature of the body of Christ in the world and of what all members would agree and subscribe to?

3. If conflicting and contradicting definitions were the result of such a survey / conversation, who gets to decide what a Christian is and isn't?

4. Even if a very broad consensus on these issues were possible, how could we be confident that this result not only reflects what we are comfortable with on an inter-personal level but also reflects God's design, purpose and approval?

5. If labels themselves are the problem because of their inherent tendencies to create borders, divisions, exclusiveness etc. what label other than “human” could possibly avoid those very tendencies? Doesn't the label “emergent” in the end have the same drift?

6. If we were to emphasize our Christ-connection (doctrinally, relationally, pragmatically) in the word “Christian”, would there then also be an understanding of what it means to be “non-Christian” / “un-Christian”?

7. What would the implications of the answer to # 6 be regarding the understanding and definition of evangelism?

1. If (hypothetically speaking) a definition of “Christian” existed that we would deem appropriate and accurate in its description of what we are, what we believe and value, and what we do and want to pursue, what would that definition look like?

2. How would that definition not just describe the opinion and the preference of an individual but be descriptive of the all encompassing nature of the body of Christ in the world and of what all members would agree and subscribe to?

3. If conflicting and contradicting definitions were the result of such a survey / conversation, who gets to decide what a Christian is and isn't?

4. Even if a very broad consensus on these issues were possible, how could we be confident that this result not only reflects what we are comfortable with on an inter-personal level but also reflects God's design, purpose and approval?

5. If labels themselves are the problem because of their inherent tendencies to create borders, divisions, exclusiveness etc. what label other than “human” could possibly avoid those very tendencies? Doesn't the label “emergent” in the end have the same drift?

6. If we were to emphasize our Christ-connection (doctrinally, relationally, pragmatically) in the word “Christian”, would there then also be an understanding of what it means to be “non-Christian” / “un-Christian”?

7. What would the implications of the answer to # 6 be regarding the understanding and definition of evangelism?

Instead I say, “Well… it depends. What do you mean by 'Christian?'” They then explain what they mean by the word, which usually are extremely legalistic and probably hypocritical practices done by people they know, or their own church. Then I answer, “Oh, then no. I'm not one.”

At this point I have the opportunity to share what it is that I am, what I know to be true about God, what it means to be a part of his kingdom, and how God shapes and transforms my life. Every time I'm asked if I'm a Christian (which is nearly every day), I get to share the gospel with that individual. And I get to do that while distancing myself from their current (and often twisted) view of Christianity.

And what if I'd just answered “yes” in the beginning…?

Instead I say, “Well… it depends. What do you mean by 'Christian?'” They then explain what they mean by the word, which usually are extremely legalistic and probably hypocritical practices done by people they know, or their own church. Then I answer, “Oh, then no. I'm not one.”

At this point I have the opportunity to share what it is that I am, what I know to be true about God, what it means to be a part of his kingdom, and how God shapes and transforms my life. Every time I'm asked if I'm a Christian (which is nearly every day), I get to share the gospel with that individual. And I get to do that while distancing myself from their current (and often twisted) view of Christianity.

And what if I'd just answered “yes” in the beginning…?