I was browsing a new blog today that made some very poignant points in short verse. Often stated as If-Then statements, he shows that you can say a lot in a few words. Many had me laughing out loud. This guy should fill in writing Dave's Top Ten during the writers' strike. Here are a few choice examples:
If the Good News is that you and a few others who make the cut will be saved from screaming in hell-fire for billions of years with the rest of us, when were you gonna drop the Bad News on us?
If we want to talk about true goodness, isn't beer a pertinent place to begin the discussion? Beer separates those of us who enjoy God's gift of alcohol from the people who make us want to drink it.
If Christianity is not a performance based religion, why aren't you allowed to get off the treadmill?
If Christ asked His Father to forgive those who crucified Him, aren't they all forgiven completely?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Walter Brueggemann's 19 Theses
This list is making its way to various blog sites. The talk that Brueggemann gave at the 2004 Emergent Theological conversation is responsible for a marked shift in my theology. If you have heard me talk about my faith in terms of "fidelity" rather than belief, this is where I developed that vocabulary. Listen to the audio here.
Walter Brueggemann's 19 Theses
1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.
1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.
2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.
3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.
4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.
5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.
6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.
7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.
8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.
9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.
10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.
11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.
12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.
13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”
15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.
16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.
17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.
18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.
19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Here's to Loopholes!!
One of the good and bad things about reading a great blog is that you get tuned in to other great blogs. By reading Coming out of the Prayer Closet, I got tuned into No Mechitza In My World and Losing my Religion. The bad part about this is that my blog reading list is starting to get pretty long. :)
Recently on No Mechitza, the author, Yael, was talking about loopholes. In her Jewish faith, she has found "loopholes" for family and friends who have turned to other faiths. Without these loopholes, she would probably have to think of them as idolaters. She has had evangelical friends who have told her about the loopholes they have come up with to accommodate her beliefs. Some of the other people in the conversation also chimed in with the loopholes they have to accommodate people with a sincere faith that differs from theirs.
I find that I look for loopholes too. I have many Mormon friends who passionately love God - they just work out the details differently than I do. Though many in my Christian circles are convinced that they are Hell-bound, I do not believe this to be true. I have heard many of my Mormon friends make similar accommodations for me.
I believe the desire for loopholes pleases the heart of God. I believe God to be, first and foremost, a Father. Being a father myself, I sometimes try to anticipate his reactions toward me based on what my feelings would be toward my own children.
It makes me proud when I see my children bend or change the rules to accommodate someone who has not been included. A game is made for four, but they change the rules to include a fifth child who is nearby. Relationship trumps rules.
I believe this makes God smile. Here's to loopholes!
Recently on No Mechitza, the author, Yael, was talking about loopholes. In her Jewish faith, she has found "loopholes" for family and friends who have turned to other faiths. Without these loopholes, she would probably have to think of them as idolaters. She has had evangelical friends who have told her about the loopholes they have come up with to accommodate her beliefs. Some of the other people in the conversation also chimed in with the loopholes they have to accommodate people with a sincere faith that differs from theirs.
I find that I look for loopholes too. I have many Mormon friends who passionately love God - they just work out the details differently than I do. Though many in my Christian circles are convinced that they are Hell-bound, I do not believe this to be true. I have heard many of my Mormon friends make similar accommodations for me.
I believe the desire for loopholes pleases the heart of God. I believe God to be, first and foremost, a Father. Being a father myself, I sometimes try to anticipate his reactions toward me based on what my feelings would be toward my own children.
It makes me proud when I see my children bend or change the rules to accommodate someone who has not been included. A game is made for four, but they change the rules to include a fifth child who is nearby. Relationship trumps rules.
I believe this makes God smile. Here's to loopholes!
Friday, October 26, 2007
Emergent Foundations
Half Light, Epoch, and Phase
from the album "Darn Floor - Big Bite"
Words and Music by Terry Taylor, Tim Chandler, and Greg Flesch©1987 Broken Songs (ASCAP)
These are the images I arrange
To fill in my report on you
Holiness, mystery, disturbing and strange
Obscuring the point of my view
Everyone seems to know just what you are
But I never seem to break through
Forgive me please if I can't see that far
Life's dulling the point of my view
Chorus:
Half light, coming through the dark glass darkly
Half light, where faith and doubt remain
Half light, tattoo scars where shadows mark me
Half light, I don't expect you to explain
This is the passage I undertake
Over the epoch and phase
The terror and sweetness of history and fate
The last word on the very last page
Everyone seems to think they've got it made
That you're on a rack by the door
It's true, I don't know much except I am saved
From falling through cracks in the floor
(Chorus)
Tomorrow I'm planning to write the great book
In which I will capture our time
Set forth the fury, the sound and the look
If I could just make up my mind
Everyone seems to think you're on their side
But I don't think you're that small
How could they see it when reason has died
We haven't a clue to it all
(Chorus)
The Unattainable Earth
from the album "Darn Floor - Big Bite"
Words and Music by Terry Taylor, Tim Chandler, and Greg Flesch©1987 Broken Songs (ASCAP)
Earth too huge to grasp
"Will" too wild to tame now
I'll be so bold to ask
Can I wear your name now?
Sign language is the best I can do
Learning to walk without gravity
And just when I think that I know you
Chorus:
In the unattainable earth
Amazed in these half-light days
In the unattainable earth
Language is weak, but I keep on speaking
Of the unattainable earth
Gestures freeze in the air
Filled by those born later
Dead men spoke words here
Heard before and after
My writing is just immense amazement
Should you really reveal anything
When I just misunderstand it?
(Chorus)
Down the twists and turns
Of a long, long story
I am here to learn
About the weight of glory
My questions right now don't need all the answers
Just, please don't ever let go of me
No, don't ever stop loving me
(Chorus)
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Why we need Unions and Government in the workplace
If you listen to conservative talk radio hosts, you will get a regular dose of union bashing and the bemoanings of government interfering in industry. Well it seems we have a great example here on planet earth of a place where unions and government do not pester big business. It seems Rush Limbaugh is right. With no union and government interference, everyone is prospering.
Um, not exactly. It seems the Right is wrong and, as many have indicated, - Big Business, left to its own devices, exploits workers.
Check out this article on the work conditions in China.
http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
Um, not exactly. It seems the Right is wrong and, as many have indicated, - Big Business, left to its own devices, exploits workers.
Check out this article on the work conditions in China.
http://extras.sltrib.com/china/
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Truth Project? Part 2
One of the foundational issues that I disagree with is the presenter's assertion that Jesus came to "bifurcate" the world. This is a pretty common view amongst western Christian fundamentalists- that the world is divided into "Us" and "Them". It tends to be a rather thin slice of "Us" because there are many Christians in this equation who do not measure up either. A wrong answer on the orthodoxy litmus test will quickly put you in the "Them" category.
Before any of us spend too much time "bifurcating" our relationships, I think we should consider Paul's advice in Romans 2:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
The presenter then continued to emphasize the "us/them" relationship by translating scripture into war metaphors. He believes the world is a battlefield and we must defend ourselves. I believe Jesus called his followers to a forward movement of love, rather than a defensive posture of fear. A war metaphor causes Christianity to resemble Islamic extremism, Mao atheism, or Rwanda warlords - submit or be conquered! How is this the good news of the Gospel? Do we submit to Christ because he is the most powerful? How is that different? Did Paul not declare "God's kindness leads us to repentance"?
My next contention would require you to watch the video to get the full effect, but basically, the presenter postulates a "What if?" concerning Satan. Personally, I love what if questions when it comes to theology. However, in the next step, he performs a quick slight of hand and begins referencing his "what if" as if it were now a given. He then uses it to buttress his argument that the entire cosmos is in a battle over these two worldviews (Satan's and God's). If there are only two worldviews, then everything can be neatly separated into "us/them".
I reject the "us/them" postulation. I believe there is only "us". Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15:
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
Paul does not make a distinction here. He puts himself into the same camp as his neighbor. There is no superiority. The only one superior in the equation is Christ.
Barbara Nicolsi sums up the problem with seeing people in an "us/them" mindset:
I think that, unfortunately, a lot of orthodox Catholics and Christians are either sitting in the cave hunkered down, or they're like Jonah sitting under a Gourd plant waiting for God to vent his wrath on the world—on the ungodly—and they're going to be disappointed if He doesn't. I don't see these people having sorrow for sin; I see them having indignation towards sin. And to me, that's an important difference. Sorrow for sin is "I am a part of this." Indignation for sin is "you are the ones messing up the world!"
They did a man-on-the-street style segment where they asked people about "Truth". People with the "wrong" answer tended to be women, European, progressive looking. People with the "right" answer tended to be old, white men in suits. At this point, I felt the video devolved into a bad caricature of itself.
Toward the end, the presenter stated that he hates the phrase "people of Faith". Unless you subscribe to his standard of Christianity, your searchings are pointless. You are either with us or against us. If you are with us, you are a child of the Father. If you are against us, he says, you are a child of the devil.
I believe Jesus showed a different attitude toward people "outside the faith". The woman at the well in John 4 might have had a different response to Christ if he had called her a child of the devil.
The final question he asked was, "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?'
My answer: What I believe about Him does not change who He is, it never has and it never will. What I believe about Him has changed over time. Many of the beliefs I felt were "unchangeable" have shifted as I learned more about Him. So I now hold many of my beliefs loosely. This does not grant me certainty or security. I have replaced those notions with fidelity. I believe this gives me opportunities to grow.
_____________________________________________
*UPDATE* For some reason, this article comes up very high in Google when searching The Truth Project. However, there are some great bloggers of Faith who have also weighed in with their concerns and observations. I have linked their pages based on a keyword search for The Truth Project.
The Hopper
God, Superman, and the Buckeyes
Recovering Sociopath
Below the Din
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Walsh: Conviction won't 'cure' polygamy
Rebecca Walsh had a good editorial piece in the Salt Lake Tribune about the Warren Jeffs conviction . In the article she compares polygamy to a weed that you cannot get rid of. She then explains:
"Part of the problem is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given up polygamy on earth, but not in heaven. Church faithful commonly are taught that plural marriage is possible in the hereafter. It's part of the eternal family model for the celestial kingdom. That might help "fundamentalist Mormons" justify their complicated families."
I stated something similar in a blog article last year. It generated some good discussion, and two of my LDS friends were able to weigh in with their perspective.
It is a complicated issue and the nuances run deeper than it initially appears.
"Part of the problem is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given up polygamy on earth, but not in heaven. Church faithful commonly are taught that plural marriage is possible in the hereafter. It's part of the eternal family model for the celestial kingdom. That might help "fundamentalist Mormons" justify their complicated families."
I stated something similar in a blog article last year. It generated some good discussion, and two of my LDS friends were able to weigh in with their perspective.
It is a complicated issue and the nuances run deeper than it initially appears.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
A Very Misused Scripture
Reading all of the blogs this week either defending or attacking Emergent folks, I heard a certain scripture quoted a lot. I am pretty sure most of the people using it as a sword to stab at others were unaware of its context, or even its reference.
"Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." They usually use the KJV, so it translates as "enmity". Using this scripture, certain folks would accuse Emergents of trying to be friends with the world, and therefore enemies of God.
It seems that they forget that Jesus was described by the Pharisees (the spokespeople for God in his day) as being a friend to the world. Jesus was described as "a friend of harlots, tax collectors, and sinners".
Did Jesus befriend the world but then later tell us not to? Were his behavior and attitude something he did not want us to emulate? Is there a contradiction here?
I don't believe so, and I think the way this scripture has been used is a textbook example of prooftexting (using a scripture to defend a point that contradicts its context).
The scripture that is referenced comes out of James 4:4. When you look at the rest of the chapter and, indeed, the entire book of James you get a different view. It becomes apparent that, to James, "the world" is a value system of self indulgence, judgment, pride, and grasping. Bigger, better, more, faster. These are all values that James refers to as "worldly", yet much of the Western church has embraced. James was never stating that this was an injunction to stay away from non-Christians; or worse, to use the dislike of someone from outside the faith as proof that you are on the right path. This attitude is in complete contradiction to the mission of Jesus.
Here is a little more context to that scripture:
1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
"Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." They usually use the KJV, so it translates as "enmity". Using this scripture, certain folks would accuse Emergents of trying to be friends with the world, and therefore enemies of God.
It seems that they forget that Jesus was described by the Pharisees (the spokespeople for God in his day) as being a friend to the world. Jesus was described as "a friend of harlots, tax collectors, and sinners".
Did Jesus befriend the world but then later tell us not to? Were his behavior and attitude something he did not want us to emulate? Is there a contradiction here?
I don't believe so, and I think the way this scripture has been used is a textbook example of prooftexting (using a scripture to defend a point that contradicts its context).
The scripture that is referenced comes out of James 4:4. When you look at the rest of the chapter and, indeed, the entire book of James you get a different view. It becomes apparent that, to James, "the world" is a value system of self indulgence, judgment, pride, and grasping. Bigger, better, more, faster. These are all values that James refers to as "worldly", yet much of the Western church has embraced. James was never stating that this was an injunction to stay away from non-Christians; or worse, to use the dislike of someone from outside the faith as proof that you are on the right path. This attitude is in complete contradiction to the mission of Jesus.
Here is a little more context to that scripture:
1What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
4You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?[a] 6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."[b]
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The "wink" discussion continues....
I have been reading a lot of comments about Driscoll's use of the word heretic and other adjectives. I commented a little here and there, but the discussion below was long enough that I wanted to give it some more air time. I don't know the person I was trading words with but, overall, I felt it was a civil discussion (compared to some of the other stuff going on out there, whew!)
ryan said:
Andrew said:
ryan said:
Andrew,
Good remarks and thanks for taking the time to engage, plus after your driscollisapoopeyhead.edu line how could I not enjoy your response. Truth is I think we just have a different view on the nature of what it is to confront teaching that we view to be harmful. It seems your approach is one of live and let live, while mine might be more proactive. Now I do not know for sure which is right, maybe neither is. But I do believe and I think you do to, that these are serious matters that deserve serious consideration.
And another way to look at Driscoll that I think is worth consideration is not as bully but as untactful spouse. Truth is as a married fellow, I often do dumb stuff that frustrates and exasperates my wife. When she comes to confront me, I can either find one little thing in her approach or tone as a justification to dismiss her valid complaints. Now even if a spouse lacks tact and does not say things as well as they would always like, we still are obliged to listen carefully to their comments. All I was saying is that this whole winking thing reminded me of the times I dismiss what someone has to say just because of their delivery, even though I knew they were trying hard and they had some points worth considering.
Just one last point. It was not my intent to equate Driscoll’s success with God’s blessing or signs of his rightness. I could not agree more with you that numbers are not the only or primary indicator of the working of God. I simply listed the profound impact his church planting organization was having because it is a clear indictment of what the guy is about. It shows fruit that is not related to simply being an antagonist, but actually being for something.
ryan said:
Maybe you all should start “winking” at Pagitt since he is doing the very thing you all are so up in arms about. How is it that no one has a problem with him calling Jonny Mac’s gospel “harmful” and “dangerous” but when Driscoll does it he is mean and a bully? Oh wait maybe I can answer my own question, because Pagitt right!
Andrew said:C’mon Ryan, don’t be so partisan. If Driscoll had said, “I believe their views are harmful and dangerous”, then so be it. I may disagree, but fine, we can do that. Driscoll went into personal digs. If you go to any site on “bullying”, one of the suggestions is to turn the bully’s comment into a joke. Perhaps the better response would have been to ignore Driscoll. He may be a Christian bully, but the man is still a bully. A bully needs someone to pick on. Half his audience would be lost if he quit picking on people. It’s like watching a wreck. Various emergent folks could go on just fine without the likes of a Driscoll. Could he say the same? Does he need someone to be against in order to have a platform?
ryan said:Andrew I think your comment is the one that is partisan. Truth is if you listen to the message Driscoll actually gave he did his best to muster up humility and grace. Was he perfect no. Did he use humor that could be interpreted as “personal digs” possibly. The point is Driscoll gave it an earnest attempt to address serious matters that he felt were important. Just because he is not as likable as McLaren does not mean he deserves to just be caricatured and turned into a joke. Funny thing is when Pagitt does something like this and you are content to make excuses for it, and not hold him to the same standard; it just shows that many in the EV have an attitude of we can dish it out but not take it. Conversation is fine but it involves more than a wink.
Andrew said:
Ryan,
Would any response other than “Gee, Driscoll is right and fair. How did we miss it this whole time?” be acceptable? Also, the dish it out but can’t take it doesn’t work. You are not dishing it out if you are responding. Without the initiator, there would be no response. The “truth” is that all of the anti-emergent people are running around the blogs complaining that they don’t like the way some emergents are responding to attacks. This sounds like some of my elementary students who smack someone and if that person has the audacity to smack them back, they run up and tell on them (conveniently leaving out the part of their instigation).
Driscoll’s likability has nothing to do with it. I know plenty of unlikable people who are civil.
Also, please address my point about Driscoll needing someone to attack. Again, I state that in these scenarios, anti-emergents are complaining about responses to attacks. How about finding a new target to kick and then responses will be immaterial.
Lewis says that evil cannot succeed in being evil the way good can being good. Evil is not original, it can only exist as a corruption of good. Evil needs good, but good does not need evil. In the Harry Potter series, Harry could go on fine in life without Crabbe and Goyle (Malfoy’s two thugs), but they could not go on without Harry (or someone like him). Their nature requires an enemy, someone to be against, or better yet - someone to beat down. Without someone to shove below them, Crabbe and Goyle would not know what to do with themselves.
I think emergent folks could go on fine without anti-emergents, but without emergents the antis would not know what to do with themselves.
ryan said:Andrew
Wow you just don’t get it. This is not about changing your mind or making you agree with everything that Driscoll says. I honestly do not care at the end of the day, and that is not meant to be snotty. My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.” Like Driscoll or not his talk was civil, and addressed concerns that he sincerely held about the theological errors of some prominent Christian leaders. And yes the dish it out but can’t take it does work, when Pagitt calls another prominent Christian leader out on his understanding of the gospel, it is strangely silent from the emergent crowd, and double standardish, that he is not being labeled a bully for doing so. And the conservative blogs I have read have chosen not to wink at Pagitt’s comments but instead engage them. Sooner or later Emergents will have to decide if conversation means more than agree with us or we will just mock you and say you are being mean.
As to your point about Driscoll only being an antagonist, I suggest you do a little more research. What the guy is about is clear, Jesus. The guy preaches Jesus every week at this church and points people toward Jesus. Thousands of people have been pointed to Jesus by him in Seattle and seem to be able to figure out what he is for. Or how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded. I think they know what he stands for; planting churches and seeing people’s lives changed by Jesus. Maybe it is really easy for you to cynically dismiss this, but the guy stands for a lot. You just have to read something else than Adam’s blog.
Last, to compare Driscoll and “anti-emergents” to evil is just absurd. First because I do not know what an “anti-emergent” is, and second because comparing people to evil is to miss that our enemies are not flesh and blood. I get that you are trying to say that Driscoll, just like Malfoy needs an antagonist to exist, but as I pointed out above that hardly seems to be the case. Because while many emergents continue to wink at one and other Driscoll just keeps planting churches, giving money to start churches in India, and point people toward Jesus. Andrew I truly hope that you would understand my intent here is not to say Driscoll has it all figured out, there is a lot you can critique him for. But to just dismiss and mock him is below any group who claim to be progressive and open minded. I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.
Andrew said:Ryan,
I can appreciate that, and I appreciate your attitude. My one contention would be “how about one of the fastest growing church planting networks in the country that he founded.” I really, really wish we could stop using that as a barometer either of success, or lack of it. If Driscoll is in the will of God… he is simply a servant in the will of God. No more or no less than the guy or gal who is stumbling through a church plant that can hardly get off the ground. Or better yet, let us remove the pastor as celebrity altogether. If numbers are the indicator, we should all be heading to the next Benny Hinn crusade.
“I suggest you do a little more research.” The thing is, I have heard him… and every time he has a rip for somebody. Even many of his supporters say he runs off at the mouth, but they balance it off with everything good he does. He has a reputation in this regard, and it is not a good one.
The thing teaching for 16 years has shown me is that the only difference between 10-12 year olds and adults is their height and weight. I have a bully in my class right now. There is this kid the bully does not like, and yet the bully cannot stay away from this kid. He sidles up next to him to pester him every chance he gets. I tell my students that they do not all have to be best friends, but that every student has a right to feel safe in our room.
Driscoll doesn’t have to like Mclaren and his crowd. No one is asking them to be buds. I think though that it is bullyish behavior to behave how Driscoll behaves. He reminds me of the bully in my class who cannot stay away from the kid he claims not to like.
I don’t care for Driscoll, but I am not registering a Driscollisapoopyhead.edu domain. I simply don’t buy his books or listen to his preaching. If he doesn’t like Emergent… QUIT LISTENING. By saying the things he says, he just prejudices people against Rob Bell who have never even heard of him. I think we should let people hear and make their own judgments. If you read a Bell book and you don’t care for it… great! Move on to something else that helps your walk with Jesus. But you are nothing more than a bully if you then choose to follow Bell around and through rocks at his head. And if an emergent pulls the same stunt, I would be calling him on it too. And if I do it, let me have it.
“I am simply asking you to live by your values of possibly believing that Jesus might, just might, be working through those you consider to be antagonists.” I don’t argue that point at all. I do not doubt that God works through clay vessels. I just believe that when he quit talking about Jesus and started attacking his brothers in Christ with heretic and deep shi*, it was time for him get off the podium and have a time out. And if he cannot get into a podium without using it as a bully pulpit, he needs to stay out until he can.
Andrew said:One last one, cause this was your main point but I got lost in my pontification. “My point simply remains that when critique comes it deserves more than a “wink.”
Agreed, but I think that was just the catalyst. This response page alone has generated tons of discussion. In total, the written discussion on this topic the past few days over the net has created volumes. Probably though, most folks have the same opinion they started with, but perhaps there was some movement. I am not nearly as attitudinal toward Mark as I was yesterday. ;)ryan said:
Andrew,
Good remarks and thanks for taking the time to engage, plus after your driscollisapoopeyhead.edu line how could I not enjoy your response. Truth is I think we just have a different view on the nature of what it is to confront teaching that we view to be harmful. It seems your approach is one of live and let live, while mine might be more proactive. Now I do not know for sure which is right, maybe neither is. But I do believe and I think you do to, that these are serious matters that deserve serious consideration.
And another way to look at Driscoll that I think is worth consideration is not as bully but as untactful spouse. Truth is as a married fellow, I often do dumb stuff that frustrates and exasperates my wife. When she comes to confront me, I can either find one little thing in her approach or tone as a justification to dismiss her valid complaints. Now even if a spouse lacks tact and does not say things as well as they would always like, we still are obliged to listen carefully to their comments. All I was saying is that this whole winking thing reminded me of the times I dismiss what someone has to say just because of their delivery, even though I knew they were trying hard and they had some points worth considering.
Just one last point. It was not my intent to equate Driscoll’s success with God’s blessing or signs of his rightness. I could not agree more with you that numbers are not the only or primary indicator of the working of God. I simply listed the profound impact his church planting organization was having because it is a clear indictment of what the guy is about. It shows fruit that is not related to simply being an antagonist, but actually being for something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
