the debate

I'm interested in reading a book called, Why We're Not Emergent. After my friend Brad mentioned it, I looked it up on Amazon.  I started reading the heated debate between different groups who embrace the Emerging movement or who reject it entirely.  

It got me thinking about my own favorite spiritual authors.  If orthodoxy were a spectrum, I have some on the far side of unorthodox and others on the side of ultra-orthodoxy.  What I've realized, though, is that both sides usually have something important to say and often people build a straw model of the "bad guys" (whether it's Don Miller making fun of the formulas or R.C. Sproul knocking down any non-Calvanists).  

I've learned from the post-modernists how art, creativity, passion, community and narrative are something we lost in the modernist framework.  I am reminded by C.S. Lewis of the profound basic truths and the importance of loving God with my mind.  I see in Gustavo Gutierrez that there is a valid and biblical theology of liberation and that taking care of the poor is a big deal.  Yet, I am reminded by Ron Sider that empowering the poor can come from an evangelical perspective as well.  

My point is this: I'm not against the intense dialogue from both sides.  Often what seems like partisan ranckoring is a sincere desire to find and express truth.  Yet, I wonder how often the concepts of paradox and mystery are missing from the debate.  I wonder how often people build up a community and a following of people who think like them and miss out on the relevancy of anther's perspective. 

It also makes me wonder how often I do this, not so much in spiritual terms, but in education.  How often have I made a fake monument of the bad guys (standardized education) and try and knock it down without seeing the relevance of what they have to offer.