@jshmuller—"Now even if he can successfully demonstrate that, the question still remains what you do with that." While I have said before that I am NOT simply knitting Pagitt and Pelagius together (my intent is to analyze their writings side by side), that will certainly be the question.

"And who would be the "magisterium" that will define what is still Christian and what is not?" Do you believe that the Christian faith has happened in a historical vacuum? Has not the Holy Spirit been actively involved in the progression of the Christian faith? Do we not have Textual Revelation, given to us in an approachable, understandable manner for understanding how we are to relate to God, others, each other, and the world?

@ron cole—"...the water has broken." nice analogy. I think you're right. I think the time is long over due. Perhaps if the conversation wasn't so petrified at the beginning of establishing some THINGS upon which the apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was founded, what will be birth would now be a toddler.

Jeremy, you asked,

"Do you believe that the Christian faith has happened in a historical vacuum? Has not the Holy Spirit been actively involved in the progression of the Christian faith? Do we not have Textual Revelation, given to us in an approachable, understandable manner for understanding how we are to relate to God, others, each other, and the world?"

Jeremy, I actually share those convictions. I DO believe that the commitment to the guidance of the Scriptures and (from the viewpoint of that very lense) the tradition of historical communal decisions within the church still play an important role in discerning what is of God and what isn't. That doesn't mean however that we have any real ecumenical consensus today regarding where the biblical canon itself ends, which creeds to include or exclude, never mind the wide range of possible interpretations of key parts of Scripture like creation and atonement. As a matter of fact, the mere observation alone that we find a multitude of voices within Scripture itself, describing the same narrative in different ways, should caution us to exclude too quickly those views which don't seem to fit within a particular framework of theology.

This is not a call to emancipation from Scripture nor pure relativism. It is an attempt to take seriously the limitations of our individual perceptions and be intentional about listening to voices outside our comfort zones, even if that presents a challenge to reexamine those beliefs we hold most dearly.

The way I understand Emergent Village - it is a place where people can safely voice their opinions, questions, beliefs and share their personal journey in a mutually respectful conversation where uniformity of doctrinal position is neither an entry requirement nor the desired goal. It comes from an understanding that relationship is at the heart of the Gospel, not a dead orthodoxy (although I'm well aware that only too easily false dichotomies can be created here that pit the way of believing against the content of belief itself - that is certainly not my intent!).

Just as a side note - have you read John Franke's "Manifold Witness"? I think he's making a very strong case for a biblically based irreducible plurality of truth grounded in the trinitarian nature of God himself.

Jeremy, you said, "Perhaps if the conversation wasn't so petrified at the beginning of establishing some THINGS upon which the apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was founded, what will be birth would now be a toddler."

Can you unpack this a little so I don't misunderstand you? Thanks.

Jeremy amen brother. I guess will still have to get through the baby stage...dirty diapers, spitting up know and then, cleaning up messes now a then. But, I'm excited lets raise this baby together.

Hanging on the the pregnant anaology. In the mix, with Brian's latest musings...the water has broken. I'm excited to see, imagine what will be birthed out of the questions. My hope is that what ever is birthed, as friends we'll nurture in humble, gracious generosity.

Ron, I've now read half of Brian's book and the pregnant analogy is the one thing that really stuck out to me so far. I think he's right. Something is on the way. As I read Brian's book I didn't quite share his conclusion to the narrative question, which I think shapes the rest of the book. I think he limited the conclusion rather than opened it up.

I don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions before Jeremy has finished his series. But it seems to me that his whole line of argumentation is trying to show the closeness of the theology of influential people under the emergent umbrella to classical heresies like Pelagianism. Now even if he can successfully demonstrate that, the question still remains what you do with that.

Should books or blog posts that would qualify as "un-Christian" (in his view) be censored or immediately critiqued? Are they no longer welcome to participate in the conversation? Should EV post a statement of beliefs that is in line with classical orthodoxy (something that would be very difficult to define)? Or should only those publications, conferences and speakers be selected to bear the emergent logo that would qualify as orthodox? And who would be the "magisterium" that will define what is still Christian and what is not?

It's always difficult to know what is the driving force deep down in those who are leaving the conversation. But my guess is that it has more to do with not wanting to be identified as in the same boat as those who are deemed heretical (maybe because of the repercussions with conservative peers) than a personal desire to break fellowship.

If the main concern is simply that there is a perception of progressive voices drowning out the more conservative ones, there is an easy solution for that: don't leave, participate more!

Josh, I share your concern. There's tremendous value in critique. We can't simply say what we hold doesn't work without expected some of the same backlash to our criticism.

I wonder if Jeremy is limiting himself by stopping at Pelagian. He's just one guy. I know Doug's work enough to know that he went beyond Pelagian and asked what faith looks like at the time of Jesus. Doug even said, bring it on.

My concern for Jeremy is that he has declared his own dissonance with his earlier evangelical framework, and now he's suggesting that he's abandoning emergence which leaves him in a strange place.

The value of emergence for me is living in the tension of "not knowing". And I think this is where God speaks most clearly, when we get out of the way. It comes in community, and in dialog, and in silence.

Nice post, Jonathan. Thanks.