Generally speaking, I don't care for identity politics. However,

1. As a woman and mother, I dislike "rape" being tossed around as a metaphor. (Debate-wise, it's also a good indicator you're taking yourself too seriously.)

2. As a sort-of Asian American, I dislike "speaking Chinese" being used as an insult. (The mixed metaphor makes it impossible to know if I should be truly offended or not:))

3. As someone who came to saving faith out of an unbelieving family, I dislike witch hunting within the faith. So many heathens (like I was) are waiting to learn anything close to sound doctrine. Plenty of to keep us all amused (as Gimli said, "There's plenty of for the both of us!").

Why would you build your life on being a reaction?

[note from management: this comment got stuck for awhile due to its length. Sorry bout that.]

Hi Anthony Bradley. I just found out about this site (World Magazine) and read this article. First let me say I have been a Christian since the age of 6 and received the Lord Jesus into my life as my Redeemer. God gave me a passion for truth and apologetics in the early 90�s and I have been growing and learning over the years. I appreciate and respect people for who they are and believe, though if they do or state something that is not Biblical or potentially dangerous I will share a scriptural reasoning for my concern.

Anthony in reading this review of yours I believe you are not accurate in regards to this movement dying off. Each year since the early 90�s (this is the time frame when this movement was in process) there are new churches with new leaders and new perspectives on what it means to be a Christian and what to believe. This is not dying off but rather exploding all over the place, and with lots of new heresies. In the various people you mentioned (Brian Mclaren, Rob Bell, Tony Jones, etc.) you included Mark Driscoll, which is a bit disturbing. Mark is not like the others you listed, for Mark is a staunch Calvinist who takes the word of God seriously and preaches Jesus as the only way, crucified and raised for the forgiveness of sins.

However, Mark rejects women in pastoral positions of authority, homosexuality as a normal order of God�s creation, and rejects universalism. People like Brian Mclaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Phyllis Tickle, and others known within this movement don�t believe that Jesus is the only way for salvation, they accept women in pastoral positions, they accept homosexuality as a normal way of life and that they can operate in ministry positions.

A major difference of Emerging Church and Emergent Church is this. The Christian Church has been emerging for the last 2000 years to adjust to society and to be living examples of Jesus Christ and give the Gospel message without watering it down or twisting it. The Emergent Church is a movement that twists many Scriptures and doctrines to fit their lives and are changing what it means to be a Christian. There is nothing wrong with emerging in our culture as long as the truth of God�s Word is consistent and the gospel message is as what the Scriptures teach. The Emergent Church is dangerous because they are questioning and changing the Word of God and leading many people astray.

Anthony I would encourage you to do some more homework on this and anyone else for that matter in regards to these issues. Feel free to be in touch with me at http://www.rootedinchrist.org

For those interested in learning more about what the Emergent leaders are teaching check out:

The Great Emergence by Phyllis Tickle

Velvet Elvis Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell and check out this interview with Rob Bell views on afterlife and hell http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=1762

A New Kind of Christianity, Secret Message of Jesus, Everything Must Change, by Brian Mclaren

The New Christians by Tony Jones

You can also find out a lot from doing youtube searches with these people and seeing what they believe on certain issues. As I shared before feel free to be in touch with me if you have questions at http://www.rootedinchrist.org

P.S. you said: "Rev. Silva said my post on the death of the emerging church conversation "a prime example of how blind mainstream evangelicalism is becoming to its being raped by people who are not even in the faith. I'm afraid Anthony Bradley has buried his head so far into the sand that he's now actually speaking Chinese."

As one friend pointed out, Rev. Silva, needs the emerging church to be a conversation piece because he's built his reputation slandering a movement that is no longer relevant nor provocative. If the emerging church losses it's importance then so does Silva. So what's next for someone who's proffered himself as a theological magisterium for truth (sounds rather Pope-ish) to expose heresy (that no one cares about anymore): irrelevance. That's gotta be scary. As a Presbyterian these may be some new areas for Silva's magesterium website to address (1) the prosperity gospel and (2) un-orthodox Christians who deny the sacrament of Baptism to covenant children (you can't get more unorthodox than not baptism children on the covenant)." (from http://bradley.chattablogs.com/ )

I do not defend Ken, he has some good information and not just on the Emergent Church. However, you are wrong, the Emergent Church is growing and is not going anywhere. Why not look and see where people like Brian Mclaren and Phyllis Tickle are speaking nowadays? They are speaking at Christian and non Christian colleges saying this is a new reformation...We are living in extreme times of 2 Tim. 4:3-4

Kelly Powers

"As one friend pointed out, Rev. Silva, needs the emerging church to be a conversation piece..."

Hmm, your friend sounds a lot like Doug Pagitt, who has said the same foolish thing.

"So what's next for someone who's proffered himself as a theological magisterium for truth..."

That's nothing I've ever said; and, usually that kind of charge is leveled by those who hold to "big tent" progressive/liberal Christian theology. A theology, by the way, which is neither.

What I teach is right in line with what the late apologist Dr. Walter Martin, author of "The Kingdom of the Cults," would often call "the historic, orthodox, Christian faith."

"As a Presbyterian these may be some new areas for Silva's magesterium website to address..."

Well, since I'm not Presbyterian, I'll leave such matters as you mention to them; and if it's all the same to you, I think I'll just let Jesus lead me as to what areas I'll be addressing.

Silva is exactly right. This thing is not losing its power or relevance, rather it is shooting out its tentacles.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

Interesting debate. Since Anthony has linked to evidence to support his view, it would be great to see counter-evidence presented. (Although a certain post has been a useful example for my sixth grader's logic instruction, managing to combine ad hominem, associative fallacy and appeal to authority in relatively few words.)

Julia,

Your dig was quite loving.

That aside, there's more than enough evidence to support my view on my site.

And Emergent Village isn't a bad source either: http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/brinkdeathofemergence

Actually, Rev. Silva, it's not foolish. You seem to feed off of emerging church and whole conversation (which is now dead). You link most of your post to the "emerging church" somehow as "warning." You need the emerging church. It dies you loose your voice.

You actually function the exact same way as the Roman Catholic magisterium. Any theological views that don't fit with your own personal ones (coded as "classic, historic, orthodox Christian theology"). These are actually your personal views. It's very hard to claim such be a Southern Baptist with many of it's un-classic, kind'a historic, unorthodox Christian views on eschatology, the sacraments, church government, etc. If views don't fit your own personal tradition they are, then, dangerous.

Would it not be easier simply to summarize you work as: "the following people and movements do not fit my personal, individual views."

The Southern Baptist Convention is one of the biggest tents in America. Seriously? What kind of denomination has Calvinists and one seminary and old-school, dispensationalist at another? A big tent one, that's who.

Well, at least you're honest about being a follower of Martin. It's simply more intellectually honest to admit that what you claim as not biblical or orthodox is simply "not like Martin." Even though Martin was Baptist, with many Pentecostal and Charismatic leanings, he did phenomenal work and helped many, many Christians. Of course it seems that the major difference is that Dr. Martin actually addressed real cults whereas most of your work seems to be against other Christians you simply don't agree with.

Your site says, "AM is the vision of its president, Rev. Ken Silva, an ordained SBC minister who has been led of the Lord to move beyond the typical �plus-minus� type of apologetic so common today and to return to more of the aggressive polemic an Irenaeus might use. Although what is written at AM may often be quite blunt, considering the time of rampant apostasy in which we now live, this also is by design. It needs to be understood that in Special Ops often unconventional warfare techniques become the norm."

By what authority have you taken on this mission? At least Irenaneus submitted to the authority of the other Bishops. Is it just your congregation and friends?

You say that today is time of rampant apostasy? Compared to what century? Arguably, there are more Christians in the world today than ever before. Is the evidence of apostasy simply that people don't agree with your personal theological, Baptist views? Are you saying that because you have an (unorthodox) premillennial eschatology?

At any rate, I think Andrew's advice is good so'll stop (but if your not preparing for scientific realism and the sociology of knowledge) you may not be able to help Christians today deal with movements that are currently affecting the church and society in way far more extensively than post-modernism or the emerging church.

Actually Dr. Bradley, it is foolish. The Emergence Christianity coming from those within the Emerging Church is incorporating your own progessive Christian theology right along into their spiritually empty pseudo-Christian neo-Gnosticism.

If you had time to become more familiar with my work, and I certainly don't mean to imply you need to, you'd find out I do cover a lot more beside the neo-liberal cult that's developing within evangelicalism.

Which brings me again to Dr. Martin, whom you say, "Even though Martin was Baptist, with many Pentecostal and Charismatic leanings, he did phenomenal work and helped many, many Christians."

You do realize that he labeled modern theology aka liberal/progressive theology a cult, right. That'd be progressive "Christians" like Marcus Borg and his ilk who are part of the big tent version of "new Christianity" now being perpetrated by Brian McLaren.

The conference which took place last week, and which I cover in here, would make it appear McLaren would also differ with you; and he's in a better place to know than either of us: http://apprising.org/2010/03/30/richard-rohr-and-the-emerging-church-as-the-third-way/

Please know Dr. Bradley I'll not trouble you further here, we'll just have to agree to disagree; I'm not likely to change your mind, and you most certainly aren't going to change mine. By the way, be careful about presuming, k. You say: "you have an (unorthodox) premillennial eschatology?" No, actually I don't hold that view.

And finally, you ask: "By what authority have you taken on this mission?"

Jesus; He's a pretty good authority, no. :-)

Actually, I have seen much of your other attacks on Christians. Like your suggestion of monkey business because Tim Keller (who is not "orthodox" enough for you) recommends engagement with Scazzero. Thanks amazing.

Rev. Silva, claiming Christ as your authority seems a stretch at best given the fact both the tenor and the tone of your entire website with its "Special Ops often unconventional warfare techniques become the norm" has no normative precedence anywhere in the New Testament. You're an independent voice acting alone--which is fine because it fits with your Baptist doctrine of the church.

Your site is also a bit misleading because you claim to be aiding the church by helping to discern "sound Biblical doctrine." But in fact, the reality is that your sound doctrine is simply the doctrine according Rev. Silva. We would disagree on many things that I would consider "sound" and "biblical."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the emerging church conversation. You can publicly say that my head is in the sand however, based on what you've written, I'll refrain from making any comments about where I think your head resides and what you're probably speaking.

Get it boy!

Look at you Ant coming out of the woodwork! IS class in session for wanna be bloggers and psedo-theologians.

Silva= tool... "Jesus is my authority..." Really? ur kidding right? He sounds like a Mormon more than a Christian. Kenny, Jesus is my Authority too, and he told me to tell u to pipe down.

Get it boy!

Look at you Ant coming out of the woodwork! IS class in session for wanna be bloggers and psedo-theologians.

Silva= tool... "Jesus is my authority..." Really? ur kidding right? He sounds like a Mormon more than a Christian. Kenny, Jesus is my Authority too, and he told me to tell u to pipe down.

Dude--are you even a Christian? Cuz this kind of ridiculous speech sure doesn't sound like anything Jesus would ever say to another brother.