I've had a lot on my mind lately, most of it weighing pretty heavily thereon. I'm not sure where to start really. I've been reading more and more from emergent churchers and as I do I'm becoming more and more concerned. I have a very close friend who is thinking along many of the same lines and it concerns me. He has sharpened me in too many ways to count and it pains me to read and talk with him about some of these things. I also have a friend with whom I've been re-aquainted recently and a new friend who are both exploring the emergent church.
I recently read
here that it occurs to at least one emergent churcher that most of the criticisms he's faced have been from evangelical calvinists. He then wonders aloud if it isn't because they are foundationalist in their epistemology and aversionist in their feelings and emotions in worship. What I find ironic about this conjecture is that he lumps all calvinists into those broad categories; yet, this is the very same thing that those in the emergent conversation abhor. I'm told by its members that there is no monolithic 'emergent church' and that many criticisms fail to hit any particular emergent churcher. Interestingly enough, I am a calvinist who is neither a foundationalist nor an aversionist (nor do I really consider myself evangelical--depending of course on how that's defined). It seems then that broad-stroking isn't just on the calvinist side of the fence. I guess, then, when you are postmodern, consistency (along with correctness) isn't much of a concern.
I've also read much about being 'correct' and how that has been too much of an emphasis of the church. Presumably, this is because correctness is seen to be equated with certainty (perhaps it isn't. I'm conjecturing mostly becuase it's not clear what is meant). And certainty is a result foundationalist (enlightenment) epistemology. Whether or not this is conjecture is correct (see...there it is again!) is of little consequence; for, an emergentist cannot possibly respond to it. To respond to it is to assume that it is
incorrect and as such needs
correction. You see either the emergentist is correct in his critique of correctness or he isn't. If so, he has cut off any possiblity of response but if not, then why does he have a problem with anyone who claims to be correct? I don't understand why being correct is a problem. Claiming that I am correct doesn't commit me to claiming that I am absolutely, certainly and without any possibility of being wrong (ie, it doesn't make me a foundationalist). It means that I hold my beliefs to be true. I could be wrong (I have once before) but it doesn't follow from this that I shouldn't claim that I am correct.
