In the first chapter of The Courage to Be Protestant you map out three constituencies that make up the current evangelical world: classical evangelicalism, church marketers (or seeker-sensitives), and emergents. To help familiarize our readers with your book, could you briefly explain each of these groups and the problems they pose for Christianity?

What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.  There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge, instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).  But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise is....hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling, confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, "It is important for us to remember that culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches. You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.  The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.

It's funny to me that while William Wilberforce needed to argue in his book, A Practical View of Christianity, that the religious affections--love, gratitude, joy, hope, trust, etc.--are a necessary a part of our relationship with and service to God, we have the very opposite problem only a couple of centuries later.  Today, knowledge about God, not emotion, is looked on with suspicion.  Many postmodern Christians prefer a fuzzy image of a God who is beyond our understandable categories, and they resist definitions that might "limit" Him.

But Wilberforce's words, though they were written to argue for emotion (i.e., the experience that postmoderns seek), also reveal the absolute necessity of knowledge as the foundation of true experience:

To ascertain [the genuineness and strength of the religious affections in a person] we must examine whether they appear to be grounded in knowledge, to have their root in strong and just conceptions of the great and manifold excellences of their object, or to be ignorant, unmeaning, or vague. . . .

Religious affections are only sustainable if they are attached to a real God who is known to be worthy of those affections; they simply can't carry themselves for very long.  But when knowledge is in its proper place, and the perfect and beautiful, solid and known truths about Him are meditated upon, desire for God inevitably follows; and that desire, in turn, fuels more intellectual pursuit of the truths of God.

Wilberforce charges that we all know this interplay between knowledge and affections exists, and it's the way any person would encourage another to continue on in a difficult task of any kind (not just religious): 

Weigh well (he would say) the value of the object for which you are about to contend, and contemplate and study its various excellences, till your whole soul be on fire for its acquisition. . . . Accustom yourself to look first to the dreadful consequences of failure; then fix your eye on the glorious prize which is before you; and when your strength begins to fail, and your spirits are well nigh exhausted, let the animating view rekindle your resolution, and call forth in renewed vigor the fainting energies of your soul.

Why, Wilberforce argues, should this be different only in the case of religion?  Knowledge is the root of love, passion, service, and perseverance.  With knowledge, you get all of these things.  Without knowledge, you'll have none of them.

On more than one occasion in the past year I've heard the sentiment (mostly from pastors) that we should have church on the grass and give all of what would otherwise be the "building fund" money to the poor.  People who say things like this generally tell glowing stories about members of their congregation who do "radical" things like sell most of their worldly possessions and move to the mission field.  In one such story, a young man sold most of his stuff and was now living in his car. 

Now, just so we're clear up front, I think that's pretty awesome.  I really admire that kid (the one living in his car because he took Jesus' command to care for the poor seriously), and there are times when I pray for that kind of courage.  But when I hear things like, "Let's give away the building money and have church on the grass", one of my first thoughts is, "So, should God live in his car?"

That may sound a tad bit cynical, but think about it.  All things considered, which is easier, selling your church building or selling your own house?  It seems to me that it's actually very easy to say, "Oh, we should give all the building money to the poor" because that won't affect you at all.  You were already giving that money to the building fund, and when your church is gone, you'll still have all of your worldly possessions, only now you'll feel really good about having taken part in giving millions of dollars (if you're a big church) to the poor. 

My bigger problem with this sentiment, however, is its attitude toward God.  Whenever it comes to things like dressing nice for church, we're very quick to throw out platitudes about how God is only concerned with our hearts and not our outward appearance.  "God doesn't care what I wear to church" they will say.  To which I respond, "No, but you should."

It's almost as if we're saying, "God doesn't need us to build a special place for us to meet Him and fellowship with Him.  He doesn't care where we have church."  Perhaps not, but we should. 

In 2 Samuel 7:1-2, we read:

Even though God would turn David down (and give the project to his son, Solomon), David's heart is in the right place.  He sees that his own palace is greater than the place where God's very presence on Earth was supposed to dwell, and he's upset by this. 

The church is meant to be the meeting place of God and His people.  What the church looks like, what kind of art decorates it, its size and shape; all these things communicate something to the people in the church.  The building itself is a theological statement.  What statement are we making if we have none at all?

When preparing for overseas mission trips, Christians often go through some sort of training to learn about the cultures, languages, and religions of the people to whom they’ll be evangelizing. They understand that these differences present barriers for these people to hear and understand the gospel message. Yet in America, Christians often assume that there are no such barriers. In They Like Jesus by Not the Church Dan Kimball examines the church through the eyes of non-Christians in today’s emerging generations. He attempts to show that there are barriers and misunderstandings we must address if we are to effectively present the gospel message today.

Through the first few chapters, Kimball sets up the situation by showing that our culture’s perceptions of Christianity have changed. For example, instead of being view as trusted spiritual leaders, pastors today are often referred to as “creepy.” Kimball argues that for many of us, we haven’t realized the changes because we’re trapped in Christian bubbles. The trend is that the longer we are Christians, the fewer non-Christian friends we have. What we fail to perceive is that while the church, and Christians in general, is not viewed favorable, most people do have a favorable impression of Jesus. Many of their impressions of Jesus’ life and teachings may be inaccurate, but they do provide a place ripe for fruitful conversation.

Much of the book takes a look at specific issues through the experiences of several non-Christian friends Dan interviewed for the book. According to Dan, their sentiments represent general misperceptions about Christians and the church that we must listen and respond to. The six misperceptions are: The church is an organized religion with a political agenda, the church is judgmental and negative, the church is dominated by males and oppresses females, the church is homophobic, the church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong, and the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally. In each topic Dan explains what his friends have said, what the Bible says about the issue, and how Christians should respond.

In the first of the concluding chapters, Dan explores what his friends wish the church were like. He then revises the old “gap” illustration where man is separated from God by a chasm called sin that can only be bridged by the cross. Dan argues that another chasm exits called Christianity and the Christian subculture that must be bridged by trust before we can effectively speak to the problem of sin and their need for a savior.

There are some things in this book that will make some Christians uncomfortable. For the most part, this is a good thing. While I don’t agree with every single point made, I still recommend the book without reservation. Christians must begin understand how we are perceived in our culture so we can seek to correct our missteps. Dan Kimball is an outstanding guide toward this task. They Like Jesus but Not the Church effectively shows significant problems Christians must address in evangelism and offers practical solutions along the way.

The comments from Al Mohler remind me of a big concern I have about Emergent Christians.  Because language is so central to being a Christian, we need to take special care to use words as precisely and meaningfully as possible.  Emergents recognize the key role of language, but many of them mistakenly believe that it's language itself that creates truth (rather than reflects it) for our community.  Their focus on using language to create a better world or influence theology rather than on striving to accurately represent truth through the proper use of language inevitably leads to two things.  First, it leads to a misuse of language as a means to manipulate the perspectives of the readers or listeners.  Second, not rooting your language in a reality that exists outside of yourself means your language will drift, and as it drifts, you will ultimately create barriers between yourself and other people (Christians and non-Christians) who use language differently, as you can hear in this interview.

As Christians for whom communication is absolutely central, we cannot afford to let either of these consequences come about.

An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is a large collection of essays by leaders and participants in the emerging church edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. This loose collection of writers is united generally by faith and friendship and brings to the table some diversity as to how their emerging faith and friendship should be practiced. Due to the nature of the book, each chapter will be individually summarized and reviewed below (my reflections begin after each *):

1. Growing Pains by Mark Scandrette: Friendships and communities are the foundation for what is being done in the emerging church and are vitally important for the “Kingdom of God” being lived out. *Mr. Scandrette speaks of the questions being asked within these communities (such as “What is the message of Jesus?”) but does not attempt to explain how these questions are answered.
2. Meeting Jesus at the Bar by Heather Kirk-Davidoff: According to Mrs. Kirk-Davidoff, the best way to evangelize is through relationships. It’s not about “recruiting” people to Christianity, but conversing with others about life. *While she tries to deny “recruitment” mentality, her motivation for evangelism is still the same.
3. What Would Huckleberry Do? By Nanette Sawyer: Ms. Sawyer contends that we should not be concerned with categories or boundaries but with loving people. Traditional interpretations don’t work and are broken by paradoxes, but love guides all things. *The result of this perspective is a biblically uninformed view of love. A love not directed by biblical boundaries can become less than loving and lead away from the God of the Bible.
4. The Postmodern Parent by Carla Barnhill: Parents are not to be “instructors” but are to share life with their children. Children should be valued members of the community because of imago dei. Spiritual maturity isn’t really about being well-behaved but being socially acclimated and experienced. *This seems to promote the “parents as friends” model that offers few boundaries and direction from experienced authorities (parents). Parents should guide by example, but must also instruct and discipline.
5. The Art of Emergence by Troy Bronsik: Emergent is an exploration of faith (or story) and practice. It is like art in that it creatively explores fresh expressions on the canvas of the world. *The reader is left wondering what motivates the creative expressions of Emergent.
6. An Ever-Renewed Adventure of Faith by Sherry and Geoff Maddock: According to the Maddocks, salvation isn’t so much about “saving souls” as it is about manifesting God’s love and justice in the world. We must expand our notion of salvation to include local communal living and caring for the poor. *While Jesus did “reconcile all things to Himself,” He also redeemed the elect, and the approach of this perspective neglects the elect.
7. Jailhouse Faith by Thomas Malcom Olson: This chapter makes the point that jailhouse conversion and rehabilitation are examples of Christian community at work through stories from a prison ministry. *This chapter bears great testimony to the power of God to change lives, but it’s unclear what this has to do with the emerging church specifically.
8. The Existing Church/Emerging Church Matrix by Tim Conder: Traditional and emerging churches often clash resulting in little to no productivity. We can begin to work together by focusing on three things: 1) common cultural criticism 2) openness to historical traditions/theologies 3) Allowing for diverse theological discussion. *Mr. Condor points out some good ways forward. “Traditional” and emerging churches should realize more often that we’re on the same page in criticizing modernity and some times post-modernity. But biblical boundaries for theological discussion must be emphasized.
9. The American Catholic Merger-Church by Brian Mitchell: The Roman Catholic practice of merging smaller parishes has unforeseen consequences for ministry. There is an urgent need to address questions of leadership and membership. *This chapter may be good and accurate, but I have no idea what it’s doing in this book.
10. Presbymergent by Adam Walker Cleaveland: Reflections are offered from Mr. Walker’s struggle to be PC(USA) and Emergent. He sees himself as a “loyal radical.” *It’s unclear whether he can be both well, especially considering how clashes occur as noted in Tim Condor’s chapter.
11. Following Jesus into Culture by Ryan Bolger: Dr. Bolger offers five aspects of godlike movements that the Emergent Church seeks to live out: communal, reconciliation, hospitality, freedom, and spirituality. *Most of the insights offered here are good and helpful. However, the goodness, truth, and beauty of God are absent. Without Him in the picture, there’s nothing necessarily Christian about the movement being described.
12. Church Emerging by Brian McLaren: It’s time to stop debating “postmodern epistemology” and shift to postcolonialism. We must make right the errors of the past through progressive faith and “proper confidence.” *Mr. McLaren makes some interesting points but never defines what his “proper confidence” looks like as opposed to the extremes he criticizes. Some of his controversial points are unsupported and he continues (as he has in the past) to say things about his critics and then refuses to defend what he says.
13. The End of Reinvention by Will Samson: How we join in God’s work is determined by our prior understanding of who God is and what He’s doing. The desire for certainty, doctrines such as Sola Scriptura, and creedal division have led us to misunderstand God and His work. Instead of seeking to be right, we should seek to understand God within our current context and community experience. *Though the chapter asks some good questions, the diagnosis of the problem offered here is misguided and results in a socially relativistic solution.
14. Converting Christianity by Barry Taylor: Traditional religion cannot sustain Christian faith into the future. We must seek an open faith lived out in real world contexts. *The chapter is vague (the “religion” it rails against is never defined) and borders on relativism. What is clear is that the Christianity it advocates lacks biblical boundaries.
15. Leadership in a Flattened World by Sally Morgenthaler: The mechanical CEO style of leadership has been damaging the church. A crucial part of flattening leadership is to promote more women into leadership. *We can agree about the problems with CEO style leadership, but the solution commanded by the Bible is to seek a plurality of male elders who serve their community.
16. The Sweet Problem on Inclusiveness by Samir Selmanovic: Western Christians have made an idol of Christianity. We must humble ourselves and accept that there are truths we can learn from other religions. *Christianity is the whipping boy never defined. Instead of looking to the Bible to explain the Gospel and its relation to the world, Mr. Selmanovic argues for unbiblical inclusivism.
17. Orthoparadoxy by Dwight J. Friesen: Christians should seek to practice orthoparadoxy- the right holding of tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions. Good conversations and relationships are more important than converting or debating. *There seems to be little value for knowledge and seeking truth in this perspective. It ends up affirming orthopraxy at the expense of orthodoxy.
18. Humble Theology by Dan Kimball: It should be okay to explore theology with humility. We must believe and discuss theology with humility, realizing that our methodology flows from it. *An excellent chapter with important correctives for those on both sides of the theological spectrum.
19. Leading From the Margins by Tim Keel: The world is changing and requires leaders who understand it. They must be able to shape environments where people can grow in diverse ways. *A good but brief chapter with an excellent emphasis on balancing the “left” and “right” brain in forms of leadership.
20. Digging Up the Past by Chris Erdman: We must realize that our future is connected with our past. Karl Barth provides some historical context for doing theology freely in urgent times. *Mr. Erdman offers a good perspective on the importance of history and helpful application of Barth’s methodology.
21. A Pound of Social Justice by Rodolpho Carrasco: God is very serious about social justice, so if we are concerned about doing God’s work, we must invest in long-lasting relationships in our local communities with a giving heart. *Mr. Carrasco offers the ministry of Harambee as an example of how this can be done well and the result is an excellent picture of how biblical social justice can happen today.
22. Emergent Kissing by Karen E. Sloan: Too often the church only offers superficial reflection on sexuality. We need to create environments where people are able to discuss sexual sin and think critically about it. *This is a good chapter that challenges the church to deal openly and aggressively with sexual sin.
23. Our Report Card in the Year 2057 by Deborah and Ken Loyd: We have opportunities to help women, the poor, and the oppressed. The church is called to recognize, seek out, and act in ways that bring justice to these people. *The emphasis on helping the poor and oppressed is an important reminder for the church today. Though some claims here lack support (particularly controversial ones regarding women), the general call for Christians to advance God’s Kingdom in these areas is necessary for the church to hear.
24. Practicing Pentecost by Anthony Smith: Racial division still infects the North American church because it’s still clinging to the teachings of modernity. We must repent and seek reconciliation. *The description of the problem is not well argued- it’s not clear what acts of racial injustice are being criticized. It is clear, though, that racial division is something that must be crushed by the advancement of God’s Kingdom.
25. Restoring Honor in the Land by Randy Woodley: Native Americans are still suffering the consequences from having their land stolen and identities broken. The Emergent Church has shares some core values with Native Americans and they may be able to help each toward a better future. *The plight of the Native Americans is often ignored or forgotten. There are at least some good suggestions offered here for moving forward that should be heeded by the church universal, not just the Emergent Church.

One thing that should become clear to readers of this book is that the Emergent Church is not, nor is it seeking to be, a monolithic movement. Voices in this book range in their views of theology and the role of the Bible in their ministries- some calling the church to fulfill its biblical mandates and some others straying from biblical teaching.

An Emergent Manifesto of Hope is valuable in that it presents a variety of Emergent practices and theologies in the words of its promoters. Those who are looking to participate or to better understand the movement will benefit from reading the volume.

Doug Pagitt and his emerging church on Christianity, including their view of you if you're conservative:

 

 

Now compare that to these.

I’ll warn you advance: this is one of those posts likely to get everyone upset. My intention, however, is to offer two helpful critiques in an effort to make certain discussions better for everyone. I think blogging too often degenerates into sniping, and I’ve tried not to do that lately, but occasionally sniping needs to be done (if I must call it that). To be generous to by Emergent brothers, I’ll critique my Reformed brothers first.

This year was the second year I’ve attended the ETS annual conference. As usual, it was a blast. Not just in buying 50 books (though such fun is not fiscally wise), but in learning from a such diverse group of scholars and getting opportunities to interact with them. Unfortunately, I must qualify diverse.

For some reason the bulk of distinctively Reformed scholars (men known primarily for defending Reformed theology) were not present this year, and frankly, this bugs me. I’m referring to people such as Michael Horton (though present briefly last year, was not there this year), W. Robert Godfrey, John Frame, David Wells, J. Ligon Duncan, R. Scott Clark, Meredith Kline, Robert Strimple, D.G. Hart, and K. Scott Oliphint (to name a few). Maybe because I’ve only gone to ETS for two years, I’ve missed some rationale for why these Reformed academics seem to have isolated themselves from evangelical scholarship.

This is symptomatic of what I perceive to be a practice of sectarianism in Reformed scholarship today. I respect, study, and agree with most of what these men teach, especially when it comes to critiquing contemporary evangelicalism. The problem is that much of the time they seem more interested in pointing out errors than working toward correcting them. At best, they just have a bad strategy. Each year, ETS is full of professors and graduate students who are engaged in the cutting edges of various theological discussions. Some of them will be pastors; most of them will influence important church ministers. And yet the only two men I saw consistently each year from this group were Peter Jones and Vern Poythress.  Maybe I missed some, but the point is that if the Reformed academics truly want to make a difference in evangelicalism, they need to get out of their Reformed bubbles and present their arguments before their critics. I say this because I think they’ll be successful if they actually do it and the world desperately needs them to be successful in every way possible. So with all due respect, Reformed academics, please stop acting like sectarian fundamentalists and start attempting to make a difference in the academy. (Since ETS is in San Diego next year, I see no good reason why most of the Westminster Seminary faculty shouldn’t be there.)

EDIT: My language in this criticism was harsh (eg- "sectarian fundamentalists"), and I apologize to any who may have been offended. Subsequent discussion has shown my analysis of these Reformed scholars to be largely uninformed- I refer the reader to Dr. R. Scott Clark's comment below and his link to Dr. Sean Lucas's comments.

There’s a similar problem with those who traverse the Emergent circle. At ETS, Brett Kunkle of Stand Reason presented an excellent paper describing his concerns with emerging churches (the paper is here, my summary is here). Brett was excruciatingly careful in making the appropriate distinctions, quoting people in context, and conversing with the men he cited in order to provide a fair and accurate analysis. As with R. Scott Smith’s excellent book Truth and the New Kind of Christian (our Book of the Year for 2005), those in the Emergent “conversation” have generally responded in two ways…

Response #1: Avoid criticisms by claiming to be misunderstood. Instead of dealing with any of the points raised by Scott or Brett, the points are typically written off as being straw men, without any explanation or evidence as to how the arguments are straw men. This is Tony Jones’ “public” response to Brett’s paper (see his blog and the Emergent Village blog). I don’t recall seeing many leading Emergent voices actually engage criticisms that have been made of their teaching* (please feel free point me to any you can find). Response #2: Ignore the criticisms. Scott’s book and Brett’s paper have for the most part been met with silence. D.A. Carson’s book caused quite a stir, but it was mostly a stir in the vein of the first response. Scott and Brett went beyond what should be necessary to be gracious in order avoid that first type of response. And for the most part they did avoid that response, but instead they are generally responded to with silence.

This leads me to believe that despite all the talk about “conversation,” most of those on the Emergent side of things (especially leaders such as Jones and McLaren) are really only interested in publicly conversing with people who believe exactly as they do. At best, they are just as sectarian as the fundamentalists they often criticize, and the Reformed academics I criticized above. Of course, I side with Carson, Scott, and Brett, and so I’d like the Emergent folk to engage their critics in hopes that they’d make certain changes. However, most of us critics are open to being wrong about where we stand and the best way to show us where we are wrong is to actually engage us instead of dismiss us.

*Caveat- I should note that Doug Pagitt did a public debate with one of his critics (Bob DeWaay), and I have a great deal of respect for him doing that.

UPDATE: Tony Jones has posted a response to Brett Kunkle's paper. I truly appreciate that he did this as it provides readers with a good opportunity to compare the thoughts of each author and the character with which they're offered.