Christians have a tough row to hoe in "moderate" Syria

Recently, Ricky Warren kicked up a storm during a visit to Islamic Syria by meeting with the president and speaking favorably about conditions there for Jews and Christians. Even before his return to the States, his and his church's PR corps jumped into high gear to spin everything as a "why is evaboddy always pikkin' auhn maaeeeee?" thing. Much like many Emerging/Emergent types, when his statements were analyzed, he cried foul and claimed he was "taken out of context" and that those who took umbrage at what was stated and left unstated are big mean meanies who are meanly being mean. The bullies.

Anybody who has a heart for the persecuted church knows that while Syria isn't exactly Saudi Arabia or Turkmenistan or Indonesia, it's not precisely Club Med for Christians and Jews, either.

WorldNetDaily (one of the big meanly mean meanie bullies who are just mean) just published a great article that helps put it all into perspective.

Some specially salient specifics:

While Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Middle East nations are well-known for persecuting Christians, Syria's actions are of a lower profile. But it is listed among those nations around the world that persecute Christians by everyone from Jacobson's organization to the U.S. government.

In Syria, the constitution requires the president to be a Muslim and specifies that Islamic jurisprudence is a principal source of legislation. And sharing your Christian faith with someone – anyone – is discouraged as "posing a threat to the relations among religious groups" and carries a penalty of up to life in prison, he said.

"For Christians, one of the core tenets is the ability to share your faith, but in Syria that can lead to arrest (and) persecution," Jacobson said. "We list Syria as one of the top … countries where Christians are facing real persecution."

"Syria isn't Saudi Arabia, but it's one of the big untold stories out there," he said. For those who want to convert from Islam to Christianity, "you're disowned by your family, if the local mosque issues a death threat, no one is going to do anything about it, you'll just end up dead. Nothing is done, no police action, that's just understood.

For those who already are Christian, the government allows them to practice their religion – but within harsh and restrictive guidelines. A Christian is not allowed to proselytize – ever. And churches who want to hold an extra service must get a government permit. Sermons are routinely monitored, as is church fundraising.

WORLD Magazine cited the case of Samer, a Jordanian Christian, who was jailed in Syria for 50 days with no notification of the nature of his "crimes." He later was released from the Syrian court system and moved to the United States.

"I want [people] to understand that there is a false image of Islam as a religion of peace and compassion. Many countries of the Middle East have a good image here in the U.S., but their rules are not what Americans think … When [Islamic countries] talk about human rights and freedom, it's not true – unless you remain in Islam," he said.

Christian Solidarity International-USA also noted that "the historical process of Islamization has transformed Syria's once thriving Christian majority into a small frightened community. Its existence is under threat. Syrian's Baath Party dictatorship is not as violent in its persecution of Christians as some other regimes and extremist Islamist movements in the region. Yet, the odds are stacked against the country's intimidated Christians."

CSI spokesman Father Keith Roderick said Syria is a totalitarian state, and the Christian freedoms, or lack thereof, reflect that. "There are restrictions. It's not a free society, therefore religious express is not as free at it should be," he said.

He said one particular concern was Christian schools, which are required by law to have a Muslim principal. "It's a police state. Of course there are problems," he told WND.

Darn those nasty, mean meany facts! Oh, the meanly mean bullying bullyness of it all! Darn them! Darn them to heck!

I'm sorry, but the more I dig into this, the more I have to agree with my esteemed pastor friend from Bangor...

Geek Tools

Here at the end of the year, though completely unrelated to that auspicious occasion, I give you for whatever inscrutable reason a list of helpful online geek tools I use frequently.

Just in case you might find something helpful which herein you... ah... find. Here.

Anyway:

• Folder Share
  
  • I use this to keep different folders in synch between my home computer, my "tentmaking" computer, and my laptop. Namely, My Documents, and a folder which I use to drop files into that I want to transfer betwixt them - without the hassle of FTP'ing the files up to a web server... open FTP on my computer to transfer to... downloading the file via FTP... deleting the file(s) from the web server... closing FTP... kicking self because I actually didn't want to delete the file yet... re-open FTP... re-upload... you get the picture.
  
  
  • I also use this to keep Outlook synched between my three 'puters. I created a hidden subfolder ("_outlook_xfer_") and put my .PST files that I want synched into it. Obviously, Outlook should only be open on one 'puter at a time with this method; but it works real well. Also, so that you don't have huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge .PST files and the consequently looooooooong synch times, embrace the practice of breaking out your archives/inbox into several subfolders (and attendant .PST files).


• Log Me In
  
  • Free, secure, browser-based remote access service. I use this to access my home 'puter when away from it, and my work 'puter from home. Or either from the road. Works very well.
  
  
  • The free service does not permit file transfer - but when you combine Folder Share with Log Me In, you get the same thing in effect - all for free. Bu-wah. Bu-wah-ha-ha. Bu-wah-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa...


• Xdrive
  
  • Free, easy-to-use online file storage - for stuff I not only want synched, but completely backed up somewhere other than my sundry assortment of 'puters. And with a 5GB limit with the free service this is a NICE supplement to the previous two...


• Flickr
  
  • Online photosharing. The free service offers you 200 photos. I got the premium service - all of $25/year, which has unlimited bandwidth, uploads, or stored photos. Plus, I can put a Flash badge on my blog (see pane to the immediate right) which shows a spiffy slide-show-ish whatever of random recently uploaded photos.
  
  
  • I like this better than Photobucket only because I saw it first.
  
  
  • Which brings up a trick if you're super-duper cheap: When you run out of space on one, sign up for an account on the other. Tee hee hee.


• Backpack
  
  • Great free online collaboration tool.


• And believe it or not, YAHOO! Groups
  
  • Another great free online collaboration/community tool. We use this on the Lakeshore here to keep our Servanthood and Children's Ministry volunteers in the loop. Has online file storage (limited, but still useful), online database, contacts, calendar, list-o'-links, and listserv-ish functions. We use it primarily to set and send reminders for events and stuff. I've sort of moved away from using it more in recent months since my "tentmaking" work hours have vastly ramped up ... but I think I need to get back into using it more.
  
  
  • I stole this idea from CC Sunset Coast, which used to host one for their youth group.


• Bloglines
  
  • Web-based (and free) RSS aggregator - allows me to track all the blogs and podcasts whose feeds I subscribe to in one interface.
  
  
  • Even has a system tray icon which notifies you at a preset interval of changes/updates to any of your blogs.


• Dictionary-dot-com and Thesaurus-dot-com
  
  • Not exactly geek tools per se, but I make heavy use of both.


• DEL.ICIO.US
  
  • Online bookmarking service. I never bookmark to my browser anymore; I always "tag with del.icio.us" when I want to keep a page for further reference. Why? Because when it's on del.icio.us, I can access my bookmarks from any browser on any machine. Plus, with the use of tags, I can use it for (and this is a huge one for me) research; say I find a great article that I know is going to be useful during our yearly prophecy update; I can del.icio.us it, with a (for instance) prophecy-update tag, perhaps add a quick bit of text into the description to remind me of why I found it so interesting (or highlight a part of the text of the webpage in question prior to clicking "add to del.icio.us") and viola! it is saved, and I can pull it up again anywhere. Sweeeeeet...


• The Blue Letter Bible Project
  
  • Even though I have Logos on my 'puter (and e*sword), I find sometimes that it's quicker just to jump up onto www.blueletterbible.org and do searching/word studies there - especially when I'm not at my home computer or laptop. Very convenient, and actually quite powerful.


• GMail Space extension for Mozilla Firefox (link to Firefox here.)
  
  • ...what? You're still using Internet Exploder? ...and you call yourself "culturally relevant..."
  
  
  • This Firefox extension allows you to use your GMail space as online file storage.

There's more, which I'll likely add to this list in the coming days, but this is a good start.

Orange County Choppers

Looks like today's going to be a blogposting day.

Yes, I know, "blogposting" probably isn't a word. My blog. My rules. Neener.

Anyway, a brother in the church just sent me a link to the OC Choppers website with a comment to the effect, "looks like they have a Red Wings bike..."

Oooooooh... preeeeetty...

So, here's the plan:

• Flip our small yet tiny house for an unholy-huge profit.


• Buy the Joe Louis Arena and make one of the suites our new apartment.


• Buy the Red Wings extended wheelbase four-door Jeep Wrangler/Scrambler.


• Buy one of these OC Choppers Red Wings bikes.


• Solve the problems of world hunger, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Green-versus-Orange-Irish spat, and figure out how many licks it does take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

...kinda figure that last one is about as likely as the first four.

doh.

Anway, nice bike...

MacArthur Shoots Himself in the Doctrinal Foot

Tee hee hee.

I love John MacArthur. Few expositors today exhibit a comparable commitment to Biblical fidelity, few are his equal in mastery of the Text. He is an adept of doctrine. I have used his commentaries, am currently reading his book Pastoral Ministry, and love reading his blog.

But he has two problems that make me giggle at him some times.

1. He's a stark-raving pinko-Commie Calvinist


2. He's a stark-raving pinko-Commie cessationist

On the subject of his deeply ingrained cessationism, he's written several books, delivered a number of talks, and written a plethora of articles all describing how the Holy Spirit took an extended Sabbatical way back at near the close of the first century A.D.

So it's highly amusing to watch him in effect negate his own argument on this point.

On his blog, he is posting a series of exceptionally good articles on the Fundamentals, titled "What Doctrines Are Fundamental?". Very good series, since a lot of "fundamentalism" ...well, isn't Fundamentalist. Much of modern "fundamentalism" has accreted an impressive mass of secondary doctrines and declared them to be Fundamental, as well (i.e., rock music is of the devil, long-haired guys are of the devil, short-haired chicks are of the devil, the NIV is of the devil, Billy Graham is of the devil, most if not all of the rest of Christianity today is of the devil, etc.), so it's good to take a step back and re-examine what the Fundamentals really are.

Technically, I am a fundie.

In the sense that I am a Biblically conservative inerrantist who unequivocally stands on the actual Fundamentals of the Biblical Christian faith.

Anyway, back to MacArthur.

In his latest blogpost, he makes the fatal (to cessationism) point that, "Every Doctrine We Are Forbidden to Deny Is Fundamental".

I agree with this statement a billion percent.

Now, combine that with the following verse:

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. [I Corinthians 14:39]

...oooops...

Koinonia House's Year-in-Review

Chuck Missler and Koinonia House have issued their Strategic Trends: Year in Review for 2006. You can read it here.

Nineteen

I'm watching the Wings play the Wild again at home, awesome game - scored just sixteen seconds into the game. Since I am, after all, über-geek, I pull up www.detroitredwings.com, and see a great tribute for Stevie "Y"... actually choked me up. There are few athletes today with comparable class. Loyal to the team, a born leader, and a great player. The era of his wearing the "C" was, in my opinion, one of the greatest of this storied team; he unquestionably presided over the modern renaissance of the franchise, ending nearly a half-century Cup drought and putting the Wings back on the top of the league.

He will be missed.

Bootdisk Dot Com

So I'm at "tentmaking" and I need to GHOST a drive from an oooooooooooooooooooooooold CNC machine since impending failure of the hard drive is... well, impending. And since it's an Italian machine, "tech support" is more the punchline to a painfully bad joke than an "expectable" reality.

Bad news: The poor thing runs Windows 95. Worse news: For whatever reason, its Win95 support of USB can only be described as "flaky" if I'm being reeeeeeeeeeeeal charitable. Even with Microsoft's dribbleware USB drivers, if you bring a USB device (like oh, say, a flash drive or CD-R drive) within a ten kilometer radius of the thing, she locks up real pretty-like, Captain.

Enter Bootdisk-dot-com.

These guys have boot disks for every flavor of Windows, some for DOS, and even some Linux boot images. So I found a few options to boot into DOS on our piece of fine Italian machinery, load USB drivers, and then GHOST to a USB flash drive.

Hooray for the internet!

This geek moment has been brought to you by Blammo, makers of fine LOG products. LOG - it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.

Thank you.

At the Joe with Maggie

My lovely and gracious wife, for CHRISTmas this year, got me tickets to see the Red Wings play the Minnesota Wild at the Joe Louis Arena last night. Anybody who knows me knows I am a Wingnut.

Maggie got the tickets at StubHubDotCom, where season ticket holders sell unused game tickets, so we got to sit up in the season ticket holder section (right pocket, right side of the ice).

It was an awesome game! The Wings scored early, the Wild answered back, but then it was all Wings all the time.

Though Hasek kept coming out of net, giving us all consecutive heart attacks...

Some pics of the game from www.detroitredwings.com

Some pics of the game from my camera phone...

The Wings are up
2-1 at this point, well into the second period...

...the game is over at this point...

...closer to the ice, after the game - go, Zambonis, go!!!

You can barely see it - the final score, 3-1 Wings.

...and some pics from our digital camera.

...and the Wings
celebrate their victory

She's sooooo hot...

Us, overlooking the ice

Yes, that's a Jeep. A Red Wings 4-door extended wheelbase Jeep. Oh,
I like, I like...

That's a Lego Stevie "Y"...

The Wings're on a roll...

Outside the Joe, after the game

Maggie shot this of me - the Wings just SCOOOOOOOORED!!!

...ah, the Joe...

And two quick, no-audio videos taken on our camera phone there at the end of the game...

ECMmers and the Rapture

'nuther quick thought on the ECM.

More and more in my reading, I'm running across a... well, I suppose you could call it a general attitude amongst ECMmers that's decidedly derisive of dispensational eschatology.

In other words, where an eschatology is expressed more clearly than a vague "well, Jesus'll come back some fine day..." it generall tends toward Laddian or outright postmillennialism (albeit not as clearly expressed as such as, for instance, Christian Reconstructionists). And where eschatology isn't directly referenced, I've noticed more and more side-swipes against us "fundie dispies."

Very, very instructive.

Kimball Cries Foul

Dan Kimball, a pastor at Vintage Church and a leader in the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement, has blown a fuse over MacArthur's critique of the ECM. The title of his blogpost is Please Don't Stereotype The Emerging Church, and is very fascinating to read - especially the comments that follow the post proper.

Kimball cries "foul!" regarding MacArthur's analysis of the movement, and in so doing fulfills John's predictions almost uncannily to the letter, almost. Almostly almost almost. How many times can I misunderetsimatingly use the word "almost."

Anyway.

When I read Kimball's several-paragraph-long complaint, I was struck by how prescient MacArthur's (and Koukl before him) caveat concerning his analysis has proven to be:

With that as background, let me attempt to give you something that approximates a definition of this movement—this thing—that we all agree resists any kind of precise definition.

Some important disclaimers. I hope you won’t be surprised or dismayed when people who are devoted to the emergent subculture point out that my description of their movement is an oversimplification. They are also going to complain that some of the things I criticize don’t apply in every exhaustive detail to every person or every congregation in their movement.

Remember: I know that, and I have already acknowledged it. But I still think there’s great value in giving you a description of the broad contours of the movement, and that is what I am going to try to do.

Some in the movement will complain that I haven’t read enough of their literature; I haven’t interacted enough with the right emergent bloggers; or I haven’t visited enough of their gatherings to be a competent critic of their ideas.

All I can say in response is that I have read as much literature from the movement’s key writers as I can get my hands on; I have interacted directly with people in the emerging movement as much as my time and schedule will permit; I have already put many of my criticisms of the movement in the public arena repeatedly, and I have invited (and received) lots of feedback from people who are devoted to the movement. I have done my best to be fair and complete. And I assure you that I will continue to study the movement.

But I don’t agree with the notion that in order to be a reasonable and credible analyst of a movement like this, you have to remain neutral indefinitely and never become a critic. There is simply too much in the movement that warrants criticism.

As I said, I just want to be candid and clear for you. I wish time allowed me to be as nuanced as I would normally like to be. On the other hand, I think a tendency to over-nuance and over-qualify everything has already spoiled some otherwise potentially helpful critiques of this movement.

Admitting that I'm sure not happy with MacArthur whenever he starts to plunk out critiques of those of us who don't actually think the Spirit went MIA at the close of the "Apostolic Age", or that God created the majority of the human race specifically for the purpose of stoking the fires of hell, so I'm quite certain it's not pleasant for an ECM-type to read his critique of the ECM, I note with fascination that it sure seems to me at least that Kimball pretty much missed John's point and launched into a "nuh-uh! nuh-uh!" session which ultimately fails to deal with MacArthur's central premise (that the ECM on aggregate sets aside or outright jettisons the doctrine of the perspicacity of Scripture) and ironically proved MacArthur's point in his disclaimer cited above.

One of the most stunningly irritating thing about the ECM that I've found - again, in aggregate - is the "moving target" nature of the debate; any time anyone attempts an analysis, they're answered with the increasingly untenable line that "you really don't understand, you're painting with a broad brush, yadda yadda yadda..."

Okie-dokie.

Sounds a lot like the univerally tired Calvinist objections to non-Calvinists critiquing their soteriology (e.g., White's classic oh-so-close-to-ad-hominem dodge of Bryson's critiques).

Let's just say, the more I read, the less impressed I am with the majority of the ECM...

Anyway, Kimball's post is worthwhile to get an ECM dude's view of things.

The Dudes at The Sign of Jonah

The dudes over at ..the sign of jonah.., an apologetics blog, have posted an excellent article which demonstrates absurdity by being absurd. They are continually criticized for examining the doctrine of the current "prophetic movement" and comparing their doctrines with Scripture; in this article, they demolish the arguments of their critics by substituting "prophetic movement" with "Mormonism" and thus showing how it all boils down to doctrine.

Well worth the read.

MacArthur on "Engaging Culture"

MacArthur's latest post, Engaging Culture is well worth a read.

The opening quote for the blogpost:

One of the favorite topics on the evangelical agenda these days is how the church should “engage the culture.” Do Christians need to imitate the boorish aspects of a quickly-decaying civilization in order to remain “relevant”? Some evidently think so.

Selfishness = Selflessness...?

Scientific American recently published an article in their science news section that I found really instructive and very, very amusing.

Evolution postulates "the survival of the fittest," and that species improve over time largely due to the violent competition of life which tends to favor traits that give individuals or groups an advantage over others (and by extension, mutations which convey evolutionary advantages - leaving aside, of course, the discussion on "advantageous mutations" for another time, since such a thing does not exist...). In fact, many believe that selfishness is an evolutionarily ingrained trait that's really good for the individual and species.

It is a bloody, brutal enterprise.

So why do humans on a whole demonstrate compassion?

True, selfishness defines our race. However, in aggregate, and mostly in the individual, there is at least an echo of compassion which sure would at least seem to be contra-evolutionary.

And so, evolutionary biologists and sociologists have long been perplexed by this one (of very, very many) observable facts which sure do seem to militate against evolutionary presuppositions.

Enter Economist Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute. He's suggesting that selfishness actually equals altruism in evolutionary terms; that it's our very selfishness, ingrained in our very DNA by evolution, which produces selflessness.

...huh?

I'm selfless because I'm selfish?

Yet another example of the desperation of the evolutionist to explain away actual facts so that he doesn't have to examine his presuppositions too closely and be forced to conclude that his philosophy really has little to do with actual science.

The Bible tells us that we are created in the image and likeness of God Himself. Now, that's a shattered image since the Fall, but it still holds even in its degraded state; we love because our God loves. We sacrifice for the greater good because that's His character. And we look very much down on those who are selfish or possess other similar character flaws because these things are ingrained in us - by design, not by [start: Carl Sagan voice] billions and billions [end: Carl Sagan voice] of years of freak accidental random mutations.

Reeeeeal instructive, the lengths to which men will go to avoid dealing with the obvious...

Anyway, an interesting, amusing read...

Spook86 on the ISG's report

Spook86 comments on an analyzes the ISG's report on the situation in Iraq, comparing our current national intestinal fortitude and stick-to-it-iveness with that of the Greatest Generation which fought (and won) the Second World War in spite of astronomical losses and terrible setbacks.

Good stuff, well worth the read...

Also, heterodyne this with Koinonia House's The Decline of America strategic trend...

Kierkegaard, ECM Luminary Extraordinaire

In thinking more on the resonance between the ECM and Kierkegaard's existentialism, I ran across this quote in Søren's Wikipedia entry:

Whereas his first authorship focused on Hegel, this authorship focused on the hypocrisy of Christendom. It is important to realise that by 'Christendom' Kierkegaard meant not Christianity itself, but rather the church and the applied religion of his society. After the Corsair incident, Kierkegaard became interested in "the public" and the individual's interaction with it. His first work in this period of his life was Two Ages: A Literary Review which was a critique of the novel Two Ages (in some translations Two Generations) written by Thomasine Christine Gyllembourg-Ehrensvärd. After giving his critique of the story, Kierkegaard made several insightful observations on the nature of the present age and its passionless attitude towards life. One of his complaints about modernity is its passionless view of the world. Kierkegaard writes that "the present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion ... The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual". In this, Kierkegaard attacks the conformity and assimilation of individuals into an indifferent public, "the crowd".^[12] Although Kierkegaard attacks the public, he is supportive of communities where individuals keep their diversity and uniqueness.

And also note this quote regarding his concept of the "leap of faith":

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God, or how a person would act in love. It is not so much a rational decision, as it is transcending rationality in favour of something more uncanny, that is, faith. As such he thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt that God exists; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought, without which the faith would have no real substance. Doubt is an essential element of faith, an underpinning. In plain words, to believe or have faith that God exists, without ever having doubted God's existence or goodness, would not be a faith worth having. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.

Note especially that Kierkegaard's existentialism was a reaction against the modernism of the 1800s, and connect the dots with the ECM's emphases... Much of Kierkegaard's thinking reads like something from Bell or MacLaren or other ECM-types...

...truly, there is nothing new under the sun...

ECM = "Modernism 2.0" = Kierkegaardian Existentialism Badly Repackaged...?

Let's start off the month of December with a bang, shall we?

As you know, John MacArthur has been posting on his blog a series of articles on the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. These have in my opinion proven to be a very important contribution to the ongoing "conversation" regarding the ECM and the ECM's underlying philosophical premise: Postmodernism.

John's analysis so far has, in my opinion, been absolutely, utterly, an unqualified masterpiece. Keeping in mind that he is no friend of the ECM, his critique of the movement and its epistemological underpinnings is very, incredibly incisive.

He posted the 4th installment today, and it just rocks. Some highlights:

Incidentally, Postmodernism itself is not easy to define, but in general it refers to a tendency to discount values like dogmatism, authority, absolutism, assurance, certainty, and large, commanding, exclusive worldviews—which postmodernists like to label metanarratives. Postmodern values would include things like diversity, inclusiveness, relativism, subjectivity, tolerance, ambiguity, pragmatism, and above all, a view of “humility” that is characterized by lots of qualms and reservations and uncertainties and disclaimers about whether anything we hold in our belief system is really true or not. Those are the very same values that are usually held in high esteem in the “emerging church movement.”

By the way, the suggestion that we try to deal with truth in non-propositional form is not anything new with the “emerging church movement.” It’s an idea that was floated as one of the key tenets of neo-orthodoxy at least 65 years ago or more. I would argue that the assault on propositional truth ultimately entails the abandonment of logic completely. It is an irrational idea. Francis Schaeffer said the same thing. He regarded neo-orthodoxy’s attack on propositional truth as the theological equivalent of suicide. He said when we abandon rationality in that way, we have crossed “the line of despair.” We might as well abandon the quest for truth itself. And in effect, that is the result of the postmodernist perspective.

Some actually believe the “emerging church movement” is so much the polar opposite of modernism that when you criticize their movement, they will accuse you of blithely and unthinkingly buying into the errors of “modern” thinking. They will often label you a “modernist.” And among other things, they will accuse you of parroting a brand of philosophical foundationalism that owes more to Rene Descartes and Cartesian foundationalism than it owes to the Scriptures. Lots of naive people have been drawn into the movement by sophisticated-sounding philosophical arguments like those. That claim is based on the assumption that postmodernism itself represents a correction of the philosophical errors of modernism, rather than just a further step in a wrong direction.

So my assessment of the “emerging church movement” is that far from being the antithesis of modernism, this sort of “evangelical postmodernism” is really ultimately nothing more than Modernism 2.0.

Far from being antithetical, the two movements are ultimately just one and the same. The “emerging church movement” is this generation’s version of what our grandparents knew as modernism—updated in some ways, but ultimately, it’s essentially the same. Postmodernists today are using the same arguments and the same strategies that the modernists of the Victorian era employed. The results will be exactly the same, too.

Absolutely, utterly, 1000% correct.

One thing, in fact, that I have noticed about the leftward-leaning majority of the ECM (like McKnight, MacLaren, Bell, Jones, et. al.) is that their worldview has troubling echoes of Kierkegaard's existentialism. Specifically, the emphasis on a "chastised" epistemology resonates powerfully with Søren's concept of the "leap of faith".

And again - the more I read about the ECM, the more I'm convinced that after it's blown around a bit, stirring things up and such, it will ultimately blow back out again. It has no staying power. It exists to accommodate a perception of current culture and so it will pass when the current cultural climate inevitably shifts as the pendulum swings back again.

The Word remains.