Scott McKnight. Widely regarded as a calm, moderate voice amongst ECMmers. He’s a theologian who’s conversed with conversational conversationalisticalists in the Emerging/Emergent conversationicalition…ish. Thing.


Capt. McKnight of the good ship Friend of Emergent has identified himself as an ECMmer and has become something of an apologist for the movme–er, converstaion.

And I tell you… when I read things from ECM-types, I must say I’m not remarkably thrilled with what I read.

For instance, in this article, Dr. McKnight repeats a statement I’ve read a few times now from his very… pen. Keyboard. Whatever.

In a very telling apologetic for the Emerging/Emergent Church Movement, he winds up laying out the soft doctrinal underbelly of the “conversation.” I’m sure that any analysis of his “from the inside” analysis of the ECM will meet with similar response (see three paragraphs up), but anyway…

In explaining the political aspect of the ECM, McKnight says:

I also lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don’t think the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don’t support abortion—in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s design.

…did you catch that? In this statement, McKnight winds up demonstrating the very epistemological squirreliness that drives theological (and otherwise) conservatives up a wall.

Let’s break it down.

I don’t support abortion—in fact, I think it is immoral.

Oh, goodie. I’m sure the aborted babies are all a-twitter with happiness and joy that the slaughter of their trimester-mates is “immoral.” It’s reassuring to read that an ECM luminary considers abortion morally repugnant. Whew! And I was worried about the “conversation…!”

…aaaaaahhhh… abortion isn’t “immoral.” It is categorically infanticide. Yes, that’s an absolute statement. And not very epistemologically chastened. Terribly sorry.

I believe in civil rights, but I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s design.


But it’s a bit more intense than that.

Let’s substitute “pedophilia” for “homosexuality” in McKnight’s statement, to see the problem.

I believe in civil rights, but I don’t believe pedophilia is God’s design.

…yeah, it’s a bit more than just “not God’s design.”

I won’t even get into the statement about how centralizing government is what governments should do. Good night, McKnight; smacks more than just a wee tad of Marxism, comrade.

…and I’m sure that the dudes over at the Chalcedon Foundation might have a thing or two to say in response to that patently insane statement of the good doctor’s. …and the Chalcedon dudes can hardly be accused of being evangelicals.


There is much that can be gleaned from the ECM. Again I state I am appreciating guys like Driscoll more and more.

Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I realize that McKnight represents the major center of the “conversation.”

And that’s very disturbing.