I’m no expert on the emergent church, though I myself share in some (though not all) common emergent sensibilities. My chief complaint about your post is that it seems gernerally derisive without really giving concrete criticisms. I mean, being identified with Saruman is no consolation simply because you didn’t identify the person with Sauron.

As far as forging a new order, the emergents would say that they are rediscovering old truths. There is nothing wrong with that – every great movement of God in Church history did as much. The question is if this is in fact the case, but reacting to corruption isn’t always bad, even if reactors are prone to overreact.

One thing I do share with many emergent types is a fondness for N. T. Wright (if not Brian McLaren). One of the points he makes is that the criticisms that postmodernity makes of modernity are valid, and we must take the critique on board. However, we must not take what is simply a critique as something good and substantial in itself – it is good only as a corrective. Postmodernism as a comprehensive philosophy is vacuous. What we need to do is to go through the critique and out the other side. I think he strikes the right balence with this, over and against those who want to embrace postmodernism in and of itself.

I do think the cry that “you don’t understand us” has some validity, even if it can also be a cop out. We all have ready made schema that we fit arguments in, and they are normally quite polarized. Think of the double take the Western world had to do to figure out that our next Global Conflict is with Islamic terrorism and Western Culture, instead of Capitolism and Communism. We’re still trying to figure out how we fit in to the great battle of OUR time. The “liberal/conservative” battle lines in theology are well known, and it seems to me that the liberals have largely lost. The emergents object to being simply put into the “liberal” box and treated as such. There are new conflicts and new assesments need be made.

The main point I was trying to make is that the people in the Emergent Church, while perhaps misguided in some cases, nevertheless are not the Enemy. They may, as I wrote, unwittingly accomplish the Enemy’s purposes at times – but who hasn’t? Some in the EC are, without doubt, One-Eyed Jacks, but so too are many involved in other movements or denominations.

At the same time, the EC seems to have attained the status of the Emperor in the story we first heard as children (I do not regard it as a “children’s story”): no one dares to state the obvious due to the threat of impending condemnation. The conversation seems too one-sided to me: communication is the meeting of meanings, but many in the EC deny the ability of those outside to achieve such understanding.

Radagast, I believe, got caught – literally – chasing rabbit trails: I think Tolkien said something to that effect in one of his Letters – but I need to check. Tolkien thought that the other three wizards went East and began some of the mystic religions. He never seemed to be definite or dogmatic about that.

Thanks again for the comment and thoughts. And, of course, for reading.

I’m not sure whether Doug mis-spoke, but I imagine he meant that you might have mis-used the Tolkien analogy with comparing Saruman to the Emergent Church. I have issues with some in the emerging church more than others, although the grassroots nature of the ‘emerging church movement’ leaves it somewhat amorphous. i guess it means that – like with Saruman and the Order – there was really only one Istari who fulfilled the stewardship he was given (Gandalf), while the others lost heart (is that what happened with Radagast?) or got lost in rabbit trails and neglected the larger purpose (Alatar and Pallando). I think some in this emerging church thing are like Saruman, some are like Alatar and Pallando who seek their own by chasing down rabbit trails, some help a little while losing heart, like Radagast, and some are true servants of the secret fire, like Gandalf. anyway, just my thoughts…i still like your blog a lot.

Serious charges, if true.

In what way or ways do you believe I have misrepresented and insulted Tolkien and/or the Emergents? The Emergents I can perhaps understand (if a compelling argument can be adduced) but I have no idea how I may have misrepresented Tolkien or insulted him.

If you have time, I would be interested in knowing more.

- Mike