The debate over the emerging church is very frustrating for me. I continually feel that those attacking postmodernity fail to realize that simply pointing out the dangers of postmodernity will not dispell the changes we see in popular and academic culture. Just because there are changes does not mean we need to characterize or even demonize the changes, any more than we should blindly embrace every wind of change that blows across our landscape. I do get what is at stake epistemologically, however, I don't see much that really makes me want to return to even a moderate foundationalism as Scott R. Smith has suggested. I just don't think that truth is the issue here. (I also think that Smith fails to grasp the implications of the realization that we are a symbolic species, but his suspicion of evolution already reveals his bias. See Truth and the New Kind of Christian.)
What I am more and more convinced of is that we are in a liminal time, and likely will be for at least my generation. There will be and should be churches that are attractional, highly propositional, missional, incarnational and whatever-else-inal that our God given imaginations can concieve as long as these churches represent the important paradigms of thinking of people God desires to reach. Personally I think that the postmodern condition is the opportunity we need to shake up all that can be shaken in the church. At the end I expect that the Church will emerge stronger than ever, but I don't pretend to think it will necessarily look anything like it does today. It might be a small comfort to folks like Carson and Smith that they will only see rumblings of the future in their lives. Me, I'm just a bit more impatient, but I'm a realist. As a practitioner, leading a church into an emerging form, I know how deeply engrained modernist thinking is in people. This is the challenge of ministry in our day. For me I'd prefer to rise to the challenge.