Wikipedia is right again. Conservapedia? You be the Judge.

I'm continually amazed at Wikipedia's ability to get things right. Their article on the Emerging Church is great, in my estimation, and sums up concisely the themes of what I see as the mainstream of the Emerging Christian movement. I love it, and I think it does a decent job of summarizing the distinction between this movement and classical liberalism or evangelicalism.

The article ends with a quote that basically calls all us emergent post-modern types chicken:

"Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in his army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claim to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood." -- J. P Moreland

I hear your criticism, J.P., and I understand your concern. The question is though, what if the basic tenets of postmodernism are correct?

On that note, for a thoroughly un-postmodern perspective on just about everything, visit Conservapedia. So Conservative, I can hardly believe it's real!

Featured quotes:

From the article on global warming: "As we learn more about climate, the "settled" conclusions of global warming alarmists, appear more and more ridiculous."

From the article on Jesus Christ: "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death."

From the article on the theory of evolution: "biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter. Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter. In addition, 19th century European naturalists were wrong concerning a matter regarding ant behavior and the Bible was correct."

Thank you Blaire for awakening me to this fount of knowledge.