Is It Really a Bad Thing?

There are many different voices in the emerging conversation, which I particularly believe is a good thing. The diversity of opinion within this movement makes it very difficult to define and label by its opponents. Often the only criticism that gets any traction is that the emergent is free-for-all theology. Consider the following quote:

"The great confusion that exists in the divergent positions of the Emergent Church results from their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. When you no longer have a final authority, then everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's, and it cannot help but end in total confusion and contradictions." Calvary Chapel's statement on the Emergent taken from Mark Driscoll's blog on theresurgence.com

If the byproduct of this conversation is that "everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's," isn't that a good thing? I disagree that the end result is "total confusion and contradiction." You only have total confusion and contradiction when a participant in the conversation believes his particular position is infallible and absolute. If you can engage in a conversation with respect for the viewpoints of others, humility, and an openness to the possibility that you may be wrong, amazing things can take place. We used to call that fellowship.

It occurred to me that when our forefathers in the faith sat down in these early church councils to hammer out the foundation stones of our theology, they didn't begin with consensus. While the end product of those councils was a unified statement of belief, that certainly did not mean that each person completely abandoned their own opinion but rather compromised and collaborated so that the finished product would represent the totality of the community.

I paused this morning to be thankful that I was born in a country and a particular time in history when it is not illegal to think for yourself and question everything, no matter how threatening that may be to the status quo.