I was always impressed with his grace under circumstances like that. If anything his responses always made me more attracted to this his theological worldview than anything his opponents wrote.

Of course, him becoming more Wesleyan/Arminian helped a bit as well.

Your comment about Barth, Bultmann, et al made me think a bit. I think that’s an interesting example of men with rather different theological approaches maintaining collegiality.

I do wonder, though, if that’s the best model. Germany was already in almost total ecclesial collapse. These were men who were not necessarily writing out of contrasting traditions, but were moving different directions during and immediately after some of the most shocking societal atrocities. They were all theological liberals who contributed to rebuilding theology, a task that has been carried on in the work of Pannenberg and Moltmann. They were university men, forged in the context of academic collegiality.

The emerging church, however, is not a product of either the academy or theological liberalism. Just the opposite on both accounts. Yet, because of the core elements it was not limited to either being a step-child of evangelicalism or a church growth tactic. It’s a movement whose elements provide common ground for many different threads, many of which are in other circles rather hardened foes.

I don’t think we’ve seen collegiality among divergent theological traditions for a very long while. Maybe going back to the Ecumenical councils of the first centuries of the church.

In the meantime, we’ve had a tradition of battle after battle. Recently, the early 20th century battle between Libs and Fundies, the late 20th century “battle of the Bible” between Evangelicals and Evangelicals. Where the academy meets the church, there are always significant lines being drawn, as pastors see the application for the theology in their preaching and ministry.

What’s going on in the emerging church is all too understandable and expected. Which makes those of us who want to make a stand in the middle, refusing to choose sides all that much more important. If we lean towards one side or another, church tradition for so long encourages us to make a supposed martyriffic stand against the enemies within. But, church history shows exactly what you said–our image to the world of sniping, backbiting, hatred, is not the image of Christ.

We have to make a turn from that, making a stand in the middle, even as in the present there are some being crushed and turned along both flanks. That’s something our generation can contribute in ways that so many previous generations utterly failed at. Even as Barth and the others show an example, they did not reach quite as far or across as many lines as we’re being asked to do. This is the moment, I think, where the core of emerging proves itself as either yet another field of battle for an age-old war, or a new expression of church both in practice and thought that is not seduced by either right or left.

That latter position is where I stand, and where I’m going to fight to keep standing.