Those aren't the conclusions of a fightin' fundie critic of All Things Emergent. They are the careful, sober conclusions of Professor Scot McKnight, who is very sympathetic to the movement and has done much to promote it. Here is the relevant extract from Scot's latest post:
I’d really like to know what you think of these ideas, and at one time I was going to end this series with your evaluations of Spencer’s ideas. But, I have a responsibility before God to be faithful to the gospel, so I have to say the following — and I don’t do so with anything but sadness.
The emerging movement is proud of creating a safe environment for people to think and to express their doubts. Partly because of what I do for a living (teach college students), I am sympathetic to the need for such safe environments. But, having said that, the emerging movement has also been criticized over and over for not having any boundaries. Frankly, some of the criticism is justified. I want to express my dismay today over what I think is crossing the boundaries. I will have to be frank; but I have to be fair. Here’s how I see this book’s theology as a Christian theologian. The more I ponder what Spencer does in this book, the more direct I have become — be glad I don’t have any more posts about this book.
Is Spencer a “heretic”? He says he is, and I see no reason to think he believes in the Trinity from reading this book. That’s what heresy means to me. Denial of God’s personhood flies in the face of everything orthodox. To say that you believe in the creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit and deny “person” is to deny the Trinitarian concept of God.
Is Spencer a “Christian”? He says he is. What is a Christian? Is it not one who finds redemption through faith in Christ, the one who died and who was raised? If so, I see nothing in this book that makes me think that God’s grace comes to us through the death and resurrection of Christ. Grace seems to be what each person is “born into” in Spencer’s theses in this book. That means that I see no reason in this book to think Spencer believes in the gospel as the NT defines gospel (grace as the gift of God through Christ by faith).
I must say this: Spencer told me on the phone that he thinks all are included in God’s grace from the start solely because of Jesus’ death and resurrection; why not write that in this book?
Spencer, you’re a good guy. But I have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian theology back into your guide to eternity.
It will be interesting to see if there are similiar reactions from other prominent Emergent proponents. When I had lunch last year with a couple of high-profile leaders within the movement, this very issue--Burke's questioning the personhood of God--came up in an offhand way. It was just cited as one of the things people in the emerging "conversation" are wrestling with. So the question must be asked of the Emergent Village leaders: what would someone have to deny in order to make them outside the bounds of legitimate conversation? Are there any boundaries at all?
