with this feature, I will post small 'critically engaging' quips on the topic of the emerging church. (what is the emerging church? read this) I am sympathetic in some degree with the movement, because if we are 'always reforming' to the Word of God, we will always be in a sense 'always emerging.' However, I am generally skeptical (which is a very postmodern thing to be) towards the movement. Why? Well, herein lies the purpose for this regular blog feature.

(quip) Kevin Miller asks: When some [emergent leaders] call for the modern church to "give up its affair with certainty," does this mean, "give up a view of Scripture as providing certainty" or merely, "proclaim a certain Scripture with humility?"

(my thought) I like the latter. I would even say that most of my 'emergent friends' would agree with it. Most of the popular literature would even assert the latter, I would think. What i fear, however, is that the academic theology that informs the movement would endorse wholeheartedly the former. George Lindbeck, who is probably one of the chief informants of the movement says of the Bible's doctrine: "they are the rules of discourse in the believing community. Doctrines act as norms that instruct adherents how to think about and live in the world...They are not intended to say anything true about reality external to the language they regulate."
If 'to emerge' means embracing radical skepticism with regards to truth, then count me out. If 'to emerge' means humbly embracing and proclaiming what is revealed to us in Scripture as true, count me in.