Been reading my copy of Carson's book mentioned here.  There is a lot in there that leaders in the emerging church would agree with.  Carson says that SOME of the leaders falsely dichotomize between affective and propositional ways of knowing truth.  Of course, he is careful NOT to say that ALL of them do this.  And of course, SOME DO do this.  But if, as he says, in EVERY movement there are strenghts and weaknesses and that the emerging church was bringing helpful correctives to the church (i.e. as is the health and wealth gospel), then the emerging church was/is something NEEDED for a time in which the affective part was lacking.  So far, though, I agree with his assessment of some of the weaknesses of the movement.  Postmodernism (a "bastard child" of modernism as Carson calls it) has crept into the church in some unfortunate ways i.e. absolutely no one should make absolutist claims.   Even Grenz recognizes the Christian metanarrative that has authority over our lives and bemoans the fact that this is an aspect of postmodernism that is unhealthy and dangerous.  Does this mean he is being negatively absolutist?  I think it was in one of the blogs that I read in memorial to Grenz in which he told someone to continue to, "Read your Bible" as an example that he still held to authority.  It may be that the problem with much epistomology and apologetics (as these are the most OBVIOUS instances reflected in the emerging church), that the issue is not one of certainty, but of humility.  In other words, it is our ATTITUDES in DOING these things which makes all the difference.

 

So far, I highly recommend it as contributing a need corrective to this branch of evangelicalism.