All I was trying to say is that good things came out of (even) Nazareth and in the case of the WCC, it was Brian McLaren who invoked the associations of Bosch and Newbigin (who was an Assistant General Secretary) which reminded me of the importance of not discounting what another branch of the church can offer- not matter how we might disagree on some points of theology. For example, after 1000 years of basically ignoring the Eastern Orthodox church we suddenly find them and realise the they have quite an advanced Trinitarian theology.

Andrew

Reminds me of a Woody Allen film where he’s arguing with a guy in a theatre queue about Marshall McLuhan’s views on the media.

Half way thru the argument Allen pulls McLuhan out of the line to support his position.

But what if Al is making up the story?

Again I find myself agreeing with most of your assessment except that both Newbigin and Bosch were definately committed to the WCC… and quite recently. Both of them since the 1980′s and forward until their respective deaths. I can’t see how they can be disconnected from the WCC. For some reason they wrote for and out of that institution.

Secondly, I think we need to have an accurate historical perspective on what really happened theologically and institutionally from the famous Edinburgh Missionary conference of 1910 and how that evolved and morphed into the present day WCC. That slide from what was probably the most promising missionary gathering of the century to the impotence of the present day WCC is a case study of a movement gone bad. Hence, Steve’s jaundised view about the WCC and missions has consderable historical legitimacy behind it.

I’m not sure linking the the theologizing emanating from emerging churches to WCC and Ecumenicalism is accurate. Unlike Andrew, I do not believe they are the same.

My sense is that in the emerging church milieu, the “rediscovery of the Gospel” through the lens of the gospels and person of Jesus is a needed corrective to the present-day evangelical overemphasis on the gospel being simply personal. This understanding of the “missio dei” is grounded, in in the New Testament, in a theology of the kingdom.

I think where that differs from the theological liberalism of several generations back is that such theology swirling around the emerging church has at its core a solid Christology and soteriology (even though the quotes you refer to above from Bolger and Gibbs give me pause and could certainly be stated better – but that comes with the turf in a messy renewal movement).

What I sense is the gospel that is being rediscovered is therefore “more than” what most evangelicals are accustomed to, not a “replacement of” which is the problem with 20th century ecumenicalism and its liberal theological underpinnings.

I have been looking forward to your post and people’s engagement with it out the the book. I too have read it and thought it to be a very useful diagnosis of what is emerging. Perhaps from my angle it’s greatest weakness as a book is that there is nothing critical in its nature about the emerging churches. It more or less says, ‘this is what’s happening… that’s the way it is. Period’.

However in regards to your comment about misison you are correct to link the emerging churches understanding of mission to the WCC. The emerging churches (and me too) and greatly infulenced by two of the WCC’s leading missiologists David Bosch and Leslie Newbigin. How can these two be ‘tried and found wanting’?