When I use the word modern, I tend to mean a period in philosophy, criticism, design etc. that I think of as being in the past. In my mind, both liberal and evangelical theology belong within modernity. ‘Modern’ meaning ‘up to date’ brings a whole different perspective. I’d say emerging theology is by definition modern in that sense, although that in itself is an interesting concept…

I suppose the most interesting thing about this debate is that we are not arguing about the truth of emerging theology (a very ‘modern’ debate), but about the extent to which emerging theology is ‘true to’ our present time. This level of self awareness is something new I think. I thought I wouldn’t like Pete Rollins’s ‘How (Not) to Speak of God, but so far I’m doing OK. I don’t really know if it has much to say to the inner city neighbourhood where I live, but I do like his assertion that we are all what he calls a/theists: even as we formulate a description of God, it is our duty as Christians to deny that these words are ‘the truth’ about God. All this seems very different to me from arguments about whether or not certain miracles really happened, or the extent to which we can ignore the moral teaching of the Old Testament. These seem to be the kind of old chestnuts that evangelicals and liberals argue about, and don’t reflect the new postmodern critical awareness that Pete exemplifies.

It seems to me that postliberalism has a much more positive outlook than postevangelicalism, and perhaps evangelicals might find more love of God, scripture, discipleship and spirituality in those emerging from other parts of the church than those emerging from our own.

Maybe.