Tolerating Truth in America - The Bible, Jesus & Judging Others in a Plural Society

In this day when it's almost impossible to make a definitive statement about any topic without upsetting a significant demographic, tolerance is the operative word. Any and all statements which tend to draw conclusions not arrived at by cultural consensus is deemed to be worthy of nothing more than being discarded to the trash heap of distasteful dialogue, hate speech and verbal abortion.

Ken Ham - Answers in Genesis

 Into this societal fray steps Ken Ham, Founder of the apologetics ministry, Answers In Genesis. His article about the Bible and Judging others is a fitting tribute to the veracity of the Word of God for our lives as well as a balanced view of the Bible and it's apparent contradictions.

Increasingly, professing Christians that are dedicated to the notion that the Written Word of God is the standard for man to live by are becoming a target for intolerant attitudes and words. Politically speaking, some have even made the lists of those considered by Government as "Terrorists." American Culture is headed forward with the idea that such parameters are, indeed, not needed or wanted by a society whose truth is determined by the individual, as long as it agrees with a predetermined cultural consensus by the powers that be. As a part of this pre-arranged societal standard, the Bible and its clear statements about life are not to be a candidate for inclusion. It has been rejected. And increasingly, so are those who believe it.

Christian Worldview - Contemplative Spirituality for the World

In this age of instant everything, any process that promises anything other than instantaneous delivery is looked on with an ample amount of negativity. Waiting is undesirable and, essentially, not an option in the lives of most.

Looking inward and beyond

This fact is becoming more evident in the spiritual activities and desires of many. In the quest to become one with the cosmos and self (considered by many to be one and the same), all things that promise instant spiritual transformation, experiences and and altered reality are considered legitimate prospects for incorporating into daily life.

Contemplative spirituality and it's related practices have become the spirituality of choice for many. The adherents to these disciplines cross denominational, religious, cultural and national barriers, and even include those who have previously warned about them. The proponents specifically point out their applicability to all religious faiths and mindsets.

While many of the tenets sound great, especially to the uninitiated, the true seeker of Truth will find the Bible lacking in its agreement with many, probably most, of its teachings and practices. Of course, to know this requires a certain amount of time in study of the Bible in order to arrive at some basic conclusions, which is a negative for the instant guru at heart.

God's Ways for Man are different than man's way for man.

Rather than seek the mind of God on any subject, many tend to find the mind that agrees with their own mind and ideas. So tenets, practices and teachings that make sense to the common man are chosen to pursue.

So, instead of pursuing and adopting God's Ways and Thoughts for our life, many are putting into practice ways and thoughts that God doesn't agree with. They are, many times, those of their own heart or the Enemy of God, Satan. They usually are in agreement with each other in their opposition to God and his thoughts and ways. Unfortunately, as popular as they are, they ultimately lead to spiritual death. Many are headed down this path.

The Commandments of Men & Human Divinity

I've recently been involved in a blog discussion on Commandments of Men moderated by Lewis . Unfortunately, I was kicked off. And even more unfortunate are the reasons for ending my welcome on his site.

While presenting himself and his actions as being biblical and loving, his manner of responding to, what he terms "religious addiction," is rather extreme in itself. Essentially, only those who can agree with the statements, conclusions and positions regarding, what they consider extreme religious indoctrination, are allowed to participate. Like me, anyone can begin to offer comments that don't necessarily agree with the premise of a particular post, but to begin to examine and critique their statements, conclusions and positions is a completely different matter. You will be allowed to proceed only so far. Then you will be shown the exit.

This whole blog seems to stem from the unfortunate experience of Lewis with a women he came to love and was on the verge of marrying. Then, the antics of her father began to interfere with their relationship and ultimately, destroyed it. So, the bliss that was theirs, was not allowed to come to marital fruition. You can read his 16 part account here.

While the story is sad and unfortunate, the response of Lewis and others on his blog may be even more unfortunate. While seemingly rejecting the extremes he encountered in his ex future father-in-law and his attitudes and actions regarding his daughter, Lewis ends up rejecting far more. While vehemently deriding and rejecting his supposedly ungodly and unbiblical actions, he ends up rejecting many things that are truly godly and biblical. Of course, he has specifically denied this "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Admittedly, his own life has changed drastically in the last few years. This episode with the destruction of a valuable relationship was simply apart of the entire equation of change.

Part of the result of this change is the conclusion that God has not preserved His message to mankind in what has become known as "The Bible." The 66 books, because they are the product of man and his thoughts, are rejected as being infallible and inerrant. To trust in the works of man in the compilation of the works of various authors over several centuries is considered to be Imbibling, the over partaking of and, ultimately, worship of the written word.

So, instead of an objective standard to live his life by, he elevates Love as the ultimate standard to seek in living his life. And for this concept, the words of Jesus have merit and are to be trusted. But please don't ask him to rely too heavily on the written words of Jesus when discussing Jesus' teachings on love or any other topic for that matter. That's going a bit too far. One might find himself Imbibling again if too much is made of the words of Jesus.

So, ultimately, it comes down to following the Holy Spirit within. He's never wrong and can always be trusted to lead you to do the right thing. But, of course, there's no standard to resort to to determine whether our actions are right or wrong. That is simply a matter between you and God. So, you can't tell Lewis that he's wrong.

If, on the other hand, you are engaged in an activity that Lewis considers extreme and religiously addictive, then he has every right to point this out to you and condemn you for it as well as all the other religious addicts that may be engaged in the same thing.

What this proves is one thing that many in this Post Christian American culture have succumbed to. They have elevated themselves and their thoughts as the ultimate standard. They have become their own God. Such is the plight of Lewis and all like him.

The Mark Of Cain!

With his admitted non-traditional campaign, Herman Cain has promised to challenge Texas Governor Rick Perry for the evangelical vote to secure his quest of the GOP Presidential nomination.

With Governor Perry and Mitt Romney thought to hold the key to the Republican primaries, the emergence of Herman Cain has caught many by surprise. What has proven to be a rather dull group has taken on a surprising political sheen of interest as the straight talking Cain has proven so far that he can handle the rough and tumble of politics. A political novice, this highly successful businessman has seen his rivals wilt under the heat of pointed questions about particular policy while Cain forcefully answers all questions.

Therein lies his attractiveness. He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to articulate it as well as respond confidently to all enquiries. He's proving to be far more adept at Public Relations than any of his public counterparts, including Governor Perry.

Can you say Grass Roots? Tea, anyone?

Christians & Political Hypocrisy

Over the last several years, I've found a serious problem among Christians when it comes to the subject of Politics. While it seems that many are serious about political issues, most aren't very serious about discussing the biblical merits of being politically involved. In other words, does the Bible mandate or even allow political involvement for Believers?

That problem in discussing this issue? Hypocrisy!

The hypocrisy lies in one simple fact that I'm seeing more and more in this day and age. No one wants to contemplate anything that might cause them to change their present lifestyle. They simply want to maintain the status quo. And if that status quo happens to be the current popular thought about Christians and politics, so be it.

The end result? For me, alot of short and / or shallow conversations.

The Bible and Politics - Are You Serious?

With the plethora of Christians interested in poitics over the last 4-5 decades, I can't help but wonder just how serious most Christians are when it comes to considering what God and His Word have to say about the subject. I have had numerous opportunities to discuss politics with other Believers, especially over the last several years. Conversational progress, however, has been slow to occur

When certain political points are mentioned or made from a truly Biblical perspective (in other words, a verse or passage of Scripture), it's amazing how many conversations are almost immediately changed or ended.

It's also very interesting that some of these points are not something completely new to those I am conversing with. They are familiar with the verse or verses that I mention and their implications. They just don't want to talk about it.

So, as I said, I have to wonder just how serious are professed Believers in Christ when it comes to truly living out the Word of God, even in the realm of politics.

The Final Authority

When it comes to life, we all have a final authority. When it comes to Christians or those professing a right relationship with God through His Son, Jesus the Messiah, nothing changes.

The only difference may be in the consistency of someone's professed Final Authority. While many proclaim God and/or His Word to be their Final Authority, the reality is sometimes painfully evident. It usually ends up being the thoughts of men regarding various areas of life which are exalted and practiced. The true Word of God is, somehow, explained away to the point where it negates Truth. All is left is a plethora of conversation and discussion concerning the exalted nature of their pursuit of that which mimics Truth.

Who is Your Final Authorrity? How Truthful are you when it comes to this issue?

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

The following is a post from more than a year ago. I returned to the Jesus Creed site again just to have another look around and found that nothing has changed. My conversations with other emerging types has revealed the same. How about you?

I've been visiting the well known and popular Emerging Blog named Jesus Creed, moderated by Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Other emerging Leaders are Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, D. A. Carson, Leonard Sweet, Doug Pagitt, Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Scott A. Bessenecker, and Dennis M. Doyle.

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it.

As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence. One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?

American Politics & Catholic Policy

Time Magazine contains an article by Nancy Gibbs entitled "The Catholic Conundrum: The Lessons of JFK." Here is the opening paragraph.

• John F. Kennedy's victory over Richard Nixon in 1960 came soaked in symbols and lessons. It was the triumph of vision over experience, rich over poor, East over West, the playboy over the prig. And because a Catholic, for the first time ever, defeated a Protestant, the outcome was said to mark the burial of religious bigotry. Kennedy provided the case study for candidates ever since who have faced some version of the Religion Test. But his was an advanced course in strategy, judgment and rhetoric, and it may be harder for future candidates to pass than they realize.

Though not a lengthy read, this article is, nevertheless, interesting. It provides a glimpse into the modern political realities of Religion in America, especially the overt emergence of Roman Catholics, the latest prototype of which was JFK. His use of modern communications and the Press provided him the platform to present Himself and his views to the Nation in a way which allowed him to overcome his huge Catholic handicap. This "way" of presenting Himself provides us the "interesting" aspect.

I'll state it simply. JFK accomplished the Presidency of the United States by exploiting the ignorance of the American People. The above article partially bears this out by providing some details of his struggle to overcome deep seated Anti-Catholic bias within the religious circles of certain segments of the American populace. And how did he overcome such insurmountable religious bigotry? He used the same tactic any good policitican uses. He spoke in terms that his audience understood without meaning what his audience thought he meant. He used religious terms that His Protestant audience could identify with. This same audience didn't understand that the Catholic meanings of these terms was inherently different. Nor did they understand the Catholic system which governed actions surrounding these different terms.

Nancy Gibbs details a few of the particulars of this message and strategy to woo these Protestant bigots. Surprisingly, it was the same type of message and strategy which had been employed by him since his first run for Congress in 1946. The only difference was in the immensity of the bias to be overcome on a national scale, whereas his Congressional task was to attract fellow Catholics, which he easily did. But both entailed wooing the Religious minded voter. Here's how he did it.

Instead of avoiding the issue in silence, he met it head on and personally determied the issue and language of the dialogue. Instead of the issue being Catholic vs. Protestant, he framed the dilaogue using "tolerance" as the operative word, thereby easing the inherent enmity of the two groups. He took the high middle ground. This strategy came about slowly but two occasions served to provide the impetus, opportunity and necessity to continue.

The first was just prior to the West Virginia primary. "On the Sunday night just before the vote, he paid for a half-hour TV special. The candidate reminded viewers of what a bold break with history it had been when the founders knit religious pluralism into the fabric of the state. And then he looked straight at the camera and observed that when Presidents place their hand on the Bible to swear their oath of office, they are swearing to support the constitutional separation of church and state. Kennedy raised his hand as if from an imaginary Bible. If a President breaks his oath, Kennedy declared, "he is not only committing a crime against the Constitution, for which the Congress can impeach him—and should impeach him—but he is committing a sin against God."

The second occasion was in response to a conservative Protestant Leadership conference held in Washington DC which was basically an anti Kennedy rally. He chose to address the Houston Ministerial Alliance.

• "Kennedy told them he had come to talk about "not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in... I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President—should he be Catholic—how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." And then he made the prescient point, relevant to any member of a religious minority then or in years to come: "While this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed," he warned, "in other years it has been—and may someday be again—a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist... Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you—until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart."
• The speech was clean and raw and rational: he made the dispassionate arguments, but he also noted that his vision of a fair-minded America was the one he had fought for in the South Pacific and for which his brother had died in the war in Europe. He reaffirmed his complete independence from any Vatican agenda. But in the most dramatic flourish, he went further, in an extraordinary testimony to just how important that private faith was to him: "If the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office." "

The average Protestant hearing these words couldn't help but hold JFK in high regard because they were the words of a man fulfilling his oath, which was sacred. According to Protestant tradition and Scripture interpretation, a person swearing an oath, even if that oath was in violation of a direct command of God, was still held accountable by God to fulfill the terms of the oath. JKF was telling them that he was just such a man of his word.

Not many Protestants, though, are aware of the various ways the Roman Catholic Church allows sin to be committed without being imputed to the account of a person before God. Under these various rules, the end justifies the means. This allows a person to pursue a course which, ultimately, is double minded and ambiguous. Any conclusions drawn by others is subject to which side of the ambiguity they happen to be on. Regardless of the thoughts of others, actions of this type can and are officially absolved by Leaders, with the approval of God. Those who may view these actions as sinful or dishonorable are deemed to be intolerant.

If you don't agree with this view of JFK, especially his supposedly serious attitude regarding his personal oath, I ask you to simply consider the state of his oath of Marriage towards the First Lady while he was in office. Enough said.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last four decades. Leaders continue to exploit the ignorance of the populace, especially among the religious ranks. And its not a Democrat - Republican issue. It's across the political spectrum. A wink, a nod, a smile..........and a smooth lie.......all in the name of keeping an oath. All of this from the honorable world of Politics!

Emerging Direction: Which Way Do We Go?

After 15 seconds of meditative meandering, I have decided that the definition of up needs to be modified. No, I'm not going to redefine it, just adjust it to the point where other people can legitimately question the reality of up and feel good about themselves in the process. That way, no one has to feel guilty about not understanding the true nature of up.

Is up really up? Or is there more to Up than we first thought? Maybe up is really made simple by understanding that up is simply not down. Or, it could be not as down as directly down. It is less down. It could be sideways or sorta sideways. Or it could be East, presuming East is not as down as any other direction. But we are not to exclude any other direction. Let's not let our lack of exactness lead us toward inexactness, regardless of our direction. We must be sure, even in our doubt. As long as we doubt not our doubt and are sure of our lack of direction. If there's anyone I hate, it's the person who is sure he's lost.

Maybe up is best defined by the person is is consistently living life on an arc. So, while he's currently in a state of down, he's headed toward up, which means he's headed toward down. Of course, our new definition, I mean modification, of up must be taken into consideration when dealing with such pinpoint accuracy, seeing that such pinpoint accuracy is constantly in a state of flux, which means that the arc possesses flexibility not unknown to the life of meandering reality.

Welcone to Emerging, where everthing is open to question and conversation, but bound to get lost in the pursuit, seeing that the pursuit of Truth is the reason for conversation and dialogue. For if we actually arrive at and grasp Truth in any shape, manner or form, the conversation and dialogue are, then, ended. So................we keep talking........and pursuing the multitudinous facets of non graspable Truth..........or, at least someone's perception of it.

Do I detect the odor of Brimstone? Let's converse!

Emerging Conversation: Rifles Not Allowed

I mentioned on an earlier post that I had been involved in the conversation on Jesus Creed, an Emerging Church website moderated by Scot McKnight. I also mentioned that


Emerging is publicly against much of, what they consider to be, the negative aspects of Traditional Christianity. If you listen for awhile, you begin to realize that what they are really upset about is not being allowed to participate in Traditional Christianity. They have been marginalized. Why? Because they are new, innovative, hip, tolerant and outside the Evangelical Box. In other words, they are modern hippies (not always in looks) who don't fit in and don't really want to fit in. They don't want to conform to the standards of worship and ministry tradition handed down within their respective faith families because, many times, those standards require one to look, be and act different from the world.

So, in the spirit of the age, they have rebelled and launched out into the deep on their own in order to create their own autonomous bodies, usually in the most unexpected places. That way they can be close to the ones they are attempting to minister to, which means that they get to create an atmosphere which makes them feel comfortable as well as those they are attempting to reach with the good news of Jesus. And did I mention they get to have fun at the same time? That may not be the most important aspect, but is surely mentioned alot.

As stated before, one of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. By encouraging participation in conversation by as many as possible, all are included to the best extent possible. Inclusiveness within Community is also another major hallmark of Emerging.

One problem with this conversation emerges, though. Addressing particulars within a conversation tends to exclude a certain number of participants because of the various levels of expertise and experience within the body of available conversants. Another problem emerges when there are so many opinions and thoughts about a given particular that the only conclusion among the conversants is that there are many opinions among the various conversants. That's because arriving at objective truth is not the aim of conversation, conversation is the aim of conversation.

So when somone attempts to focus on a particular and refuses to let it go, this is not considered a positive within the immediate conversant community. After all, a person who refuses to let go of a particular point is considered to view himself as right about that point. That is not a positive either, especially if it conflicts with the consensus of the conversant community.

It's rather amusing to watch members of Emerging react to people in the same manner with which they have been treated in the past. You would think that they would be a little more sensitive to someone in a similar plight as their own, that of not being accepted by the group.

But when you bring a rifle to an outing when everyone else has brought shotguns, the disparity is obvious. And so is the discomfort.

President Bush - Emerging in Latin America

Is it time for a little Latin American Public Relations? A little Backyard Foreign Policy? Is it time to get out of the kitchen?

With the conviction of former Bush aide Scooter Libby, the timing of this trip is convenient. I know, I know!!! It probably has been planned for weeks or months, buuuuuuut................it makes for good conspiratorial conversation, which makes for interesting conversation! You must admit, though, that the thought does come to the forefront of your thinking, since Libby's conviction is not a positive for the Bush Administration.

So, instead of dealing with the devilish details of the Libby the Convicted Criminal, we head off to the warm and charming atmosphere of Hugo Chavez and the myriad of protests planned for Bush while in Latin America. At least there, all they only refer to Bush as an "assasin," which is akin to being Chavez's "devil." But at least Bush knows that he'll not face this type of protest every day at home, so a temporary change of scenery must be welcome.

You never know, though! Maybe he'll meet His Vatican counterpart, the Pope! After all, Latin America is ancient stomping grounds for all things Pontiff!

A Flag To Follow

There's an old hymn which starts with the following words, "I sought a flag to follow, a cause for which to stand..."

This describes many people in the world today. Looking, searching, groping, hoping, longing for that which provides what they so desparately need, unaware that they really are in need. But the need is palpable and ever present even if undefinable and seemingly elusive.

It is no wonder that men always find something or someone to commit themselves to, a devotion which provides a reason to build something beyond themselves, a lasting legacy.

In the United States, this devotion has increasingly been manifested within the realm of Secular politics. It takes its form in the agenda of making the world a better place, leaving a legacy for our children and ultimately, taking America back. Interestingly enough, this devotion even crosses party lines and causes Republicans and Democrats to put aside partisan differences in a show of devoted unity. The object of their devotion? Old Glory, the American Flag. The Red White & Blue can emote the deepest feelings of patriotism seen only in the most religious.

How significant is it when we learn that Jesus our Messiah has revealed Himself to us as..........................our Flag!.........our Banner! That's right! He's our Flag, the visible emblem of identity for His own Kingdom. In Him we have our cause, our devotion, our legacy, our unity, our patriotism, our allegiance, our worship, yes, our very political life.

Didn't Jesus also say something about the impossibility of serving two masters?

Christianity, Politics & The Global Gospel

The following link is to an editorial opinion from the Dallas Morning News entitled A Global Gospel. It deals with the subject of the power of Religion in Politics, especially the growing power of Christianity around the world. It specifically warns of the potential pitfalls American politicians might face if they ignore the growing political force of the Christian Church, specifically Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. This excerpt from the final paragraph is telling.

"Politicians, policymakers and other elites sometimes see religion as a hobby for believers. For the devout, though, it's not a garnish to life; it is life. If the candidates prepping for the White House miss how the new Christianity is fundamentally changing the Third World, they could get blindsided on the global stage. So could we all."

Interesting indeed, is the specific mention of the Anglican Church and its current upheaval over the issue of the ordination of Women and Homosexual Priests in light of the recent proposed return of the Anglican Church to the Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Leo XVI. This is indeed "new Christianity."

Didn't Solomon say that there's nothing new under the sun?

Emerging Direction & The Broad Way

In the Emerging Church, a religious movement of no mean proportion, much is made of identifying with the mission of Jesus.

Which Jesus?

Whose Jesus?

Are we talking about the Jesus of the Bible? Or is this Jesus a construct of the genuis of man? Or does the image and idea of this Jesus have more sinister origins? Or is this Jesus simply left up to the mind of the individual to construct according to personal whim?

If it seems easy to become confused in such an atmosphere, consider your assessment as accurate. The forward march of Emerging is based on the broadly consistent and shadowy search for absolute Truth, a search never quite consumated with anything definitive except the search itself. Therein lies the sacredness of Emerging, the absolute, ever learning journey.

Meanwhile the Absolute Jesus of Holy Writ remains accessible on His narrow path.

Emerging Conversation: The Limits of Friendly Dialogue

I've been visiting the well known and popular Emerging Blog named Jesus Creed, moderated by Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, Illinois. Other emerging Leaders are Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll, D. A. Carson, Leonard Sweet, Doug Pagitt, Ed Stetzer, John Burke, Scott A. Bessenecker, and Dennis M. Doyle.

Actually, I've been participating in the conversation for awhile. I've found it interesting, thought provoking, frustrating, enlightening and most of all, revealing. Emerging or The Emerging Church Movement is a major religious movement which has made a major impact in many parts of the world, not the least of which is the United States. The American Evangelical Church, otherwise know as Protestants and other non Roman Catholic churches have been impacted greatly by this movement over the last 10-15 years. In fact the impact has been so great that most have not known exactly how to respond to the Emerging refusal to go along with the traditional religious life of Evangelicals. They have increasingly put pressure on leadership to, not only listen to their complaints and suggestions, but to agree with their complaints and implement their suggestions. Otherwise, they will leave to start their own ministries. And they have. And Evangelicals are suffering because of it. As I said, Evangelicals don't know how to respond to prevent or counteract their influence.

One of the hallmarks of Emerging is Conversation. They will talk about anything, anywhere at anytime. Open and honest dialogue is encouraged among all. No question is considered taboo. Answers are provided in high quantity. If you disagree, that's OK! Simply verbalize your disagreement. You are accepted in spite of any disagreement you or anyone else may have. But conversing about that disagreement is guaranteed which means your participation in the conversation is also guaranteed. This is one area where Emerging frustrates Evangelicals. Emerging provides a forum as well as acceptance for the religiously downtrodden, marginalized and rejected. In other words, those not traditionally accepted by Evangelicals for various reasons, legitimate and not so legitimate.

But I found out today that their friendly dialogue has its limits. Yes, their are certain things they will not talk about.

I wonder if others have encountered this outer limit of Emerging Dialogue. If you have, tell me about it.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what the subject matter could possibly be to so suddenly send Emerging types into a blatantly silent refusal to acknowledge reality?