In one corner, Andrew Jones posts a salvo against emerging movement critics in "what i would say to the young american emerging churches."
In the other corner, Roger Overton replies with "Adventures in Missing the Point: Andrew Jones." He points out:
Most of the criticism, good or bad, of Emergent and the broader emerging movement is not against specific churches. Rather, we’ve been concerned with specific ideas and the people who promote those ideas. For example, we’re concerned that postmodern conceptions of truth are becoming popular and are being promoted by popular emerging leaders, like Tony Jones and Brian McLaren. We believe such ideas are contrary to the Bible and harmful to the proclamation of the Gospel, so we feel a responsibility to warn the church.
Are there emerging churches that are not guilty of our criticisms? There are, but if they’re not guilty, then we’re not talking about them (we rarely are talking about specific churches). Part of the problem, of course, is defining what churches are “emerging.” If “emerging” simply refers to churches that are seeking to better communicate the Gospel in their respective contexts, then I’m all for them. In fact, most critics I’ve read have made it a point to affirm that position. It’s when people are talking about changing the content of the message that we become concerned, and this is what we see “Emergent” doing.
Way to go Roger! Now we'll see how this match-up plays out...