Comments on: I Reject Your Reality and Insert My Own

By: D.R. Randle

D.R. Randle — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:50:05 +0000

I just wrote a post about how Emergent guys can’t handle criticism well, despite the fact that their organization (ur…conversation) is based upon a critique of contemporary Christianity. I find that quite ironic that they can dish out the criticism, but can’t take it well, choosing instead to avoid and deflect. Anyway, Brent, check it out and see if you agree with my assessment.

By: Zach

Zach — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:35:26 +0000

Yeah, I agree Brent. How could we stoop so low as to compare this Kingdom of God we seek to human relationships? Jesus was never that wreckless, right? He never dared to compare this Kingdom to the relationship between a father and son, or a worker and the owner of the field, etc….

By: Brent

Brent — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:44:40 +0000

Let’s be real here. I can hardly lower this to the level of asking girls out. This is the truth of Jesus Christ and His Body that we are talking about and if it’s “disagreeable” to point out misuse of language “yes, we have lesbians, but we’re not liberal…” then so be it. If it’s “disagreeable” to say that a man like Steve Chalke who likens the doctrine of substitionary atonement to “divine child abuse” needs to be reigned in, then so be it. If it’s “disagreeable” to believe that every “conversation” leads somewhere and this “emergent” one is headed in a dangerous direction, then so be it.

If these things concerns are “tired and worn out,” they are viable nonetheless because they have not been addressed (at all, not just in a way I don’t like…). Sooner or later the argument “we’re not anything, just a bunch of people talking” is what’s really “tired and worn out.”

Thank you guys for all of the dialogue and I apologize for my short tone.

By: Zach

Zach — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 05:41:28 +0000

Not to be disagreeable, but let me disagree. I doubt your friends use the same condescending devices that can be found in Brent’s post and others just like it. Who knows? Maybe that kind of tactless approach actually works. Maybe your friends told the girls that they were simply wreckless and naive to think other guys would actually like them. Or, on the other hand, maybe these girls simply ran out other “agreeable” options.

In any case, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed that the rest of us can wise up in order for our doctrine to be agreeable with you.

By: D.R. Randle

D.R. Randle — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 04:26:54 +0000

Not to be disagreeable, Zach, but I have two friends who got married to girls who they kept asking out until each gave in. One couple has been married for 12 years and the other for 6. I guess we can hold out the same hope for Emergent folks.

By: Jim I

Jim I — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:17:15 +0000

The picture is not from Mythbusters. Brent keeps a couple crash test dummies around so that he can demo new beards before carving up his own.

Great blog, Brent!

By: Brendt

Brendt — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:51:47 +0000

A few random thoughts:

* Cool Mythbusters picture! That’s a great show!
* I have to disagree with you that “this ‘movement’ is on a dangerous trajectory” — here’s why. ;-)
* If you insert the word “only” after each “not” in Jones’ first quote, it might be more accurate.

By: Zach

Zach — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 04:47:51 +0000

I think many in the Emergent camp have heard loud and clear these same criticizms you’ve shared here and they have responded, but not with a response that is agreable for you. Just because they disagree with your criticisms doesn’t mean they’ve not taken them into account. When a criticizm seems to resurface over and over in the same tired fashion, it doesn’t mean that that criticism is somehow more valid. It reminds me of a guy who keeps asking a girl out on a date while being told by her repeatedly that he’s simply not her type. It’s not that his love is not real, it’s just unreturned.

By: Brent

Brent — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:57:31 +0000

Call me old-fashioned, but it would seem to me that if people kept approaching the same critiques of my theology that sooner or later, I ought to consider whether they had any merit. Here’s a situation in which not only do I (obviously) think some of these concerns have merit, I think they have been blatatnly and irresponsibly ignored. Sooner or later, every “conversation” must say something…

I’ve never claimed to not be “unoriginal and worn out,” and I’ve also repeatedly said that I appreciate much of what is coming out of this “conversation,” but with that comes huge red flags for me (and apparently I’m not the only one?) which I think must be addressed if true progress is to be made.

And thanks for the kind word on the music reviews! That’s becoming one of my favorite aspects of doing this!

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:47:09 +0000

i’m referring to every “critique of emergent” that i’ve ever read. just google “critique of emergent” and i think you’ll be well on your way. in those you will find the contrast between “truth” and “absolute truth”. you’ll usually find the idea of emergent conversation belittled. you’ll find the criticism of emergents regarding their approach to belief statements. there will be a suggestion of the lack of “boundries” or a “slippery slope” of relatavism.

some of your critique may be well founded, but it’s simply unoriginal and very worn out. you’re music reviews, on the other hand, are fantastic. :-)