Comments on: My Response to the Official Emergent Response

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:18:06 +0000

anonymous – thank you for you thoughts
…this is all very interesting…I am reminded of the Jesus People movement in the late 60's and early 70s…the vanguards focussed their fears (couched as criticism) at the movement while those in the movement initially lacked the needed maturity to address the vanguard…and God still effected a radical change in worship in spite of it all. I see very positive signs that the fears are dissapating and the e movement is maturing…however, in the end, the questions will never be about being 'relevant' or being 'right' – in the end, the questions will be about love and did we or did we not beg God to make us lovers of each other and of the world…and as far as who is IN and who is OUT…try Matt 25:31-46…it is very clear.
Steve Mader

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:25:13 +0000

My experiance on emergent, ec, or emerging websites has been that this concept of conversation “with” us as opposed to “at” us is used to control the discussion to avoid honest inquiry by labeling disagreement as negative and “at” someone!
Why can't the truth and benefit of E or e or ec be readily acertained by their responses to critics rather than their attempt to control “tone” of the conversation.
It seems that “poor” communication and mean-spiritedness on the part of critics would work in E, e and ec's favor and there wouldn't be a need to be so PC. basically it a polite way of telling critics to shut-up and mind their own business.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:18:21 +0000

Sorry. I didn't clarify that the quote was from Dan above.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:14:17 +0000

“From the outside I sometimes wonder what non-Christians think of reading some of the things written and the attiuds expressed and time spent on all this. I wonder what Jesus thinks of this.”
If there are any real bad attitudes floating around, that is not good and I am in agreement with you. However, is any criticism bad?? Many of the criticisms I've read have tried to be fair in their judgment.
You said you wonder what Jesus thinks about all this. I on the otherhand I am wondering what Jesus thinks about the non-christians who are being exposed to the “fuzzy” truth/discipleship in some of the ec. I have done way too much of my share of reading (not just blogs – but many books by yourself and other ec authors), blogging, etc. And I agree with the other critics who site the lack of clarity in many issues and other problems with things written by authors within the ec. At the end of all of my research I ask – What kind of Christianity are people getting in the ec? As much as I have tried to be open to this my “gut” keeps telling me that I don't want to go there (the direction of the ec) and that there is too much error. My current church has changed and has embraced some of the ec and thus I have done all of this evaluation. It makes me want to go to another church. If you think I have a “bad attitude” then there's nothing more for me to say. This is my honest response and what I see.
As far as the non-christians go, after seeing what my pastor's have embraced and promote, I now don't even wish to bring my (unsaved) neighbors to my church because I couldn't in my right conscience expose or pass on books like Yaconelli's “Messy Spirituality” or McLaren's books (for example) to them. I think they would be better off going to some other churches in the area that are more grounded in Scripture and proper discipleship and thus have much better books to offer. (after being a Christian for over 20 years there IS better stuff – even for the postmoderns) Maybe the non-christians on the web who read all the critical dialogue, that you think is a poor choice of time spent, will be listening and have some discernment that there's something not right with certain things in the ec.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:30:54 +0000

It did indeed (make sense), and I hope you're right! Here's to solidifying those doctrines …

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:32:45 +0000

Hehe. My take. Conversation includes those who choose to discuss with (not “at”) others about EC issues. Emergent is a US organization, but some are using “emergent” meaning some in the EC conversation. Lines are blurry. EC movements are when a group of like minded people in the EC conversation begin to solidify a set of doctrines or platform or whatever.
So is Emergent the US organization a movement? Maybe starting to be. You can organize, after all, to talk and not to (yet) do something as a group. That might be a discussional movement, but not an doctrinal or practical one.
I think Emergent will become a movement with a platform and change their name, and then some will get on board and some others won't because they don't buy the platform.
I think the above made sense.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:10:34 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Steve. So maybe we can say this: “conversation” includes everyone emergent, “organization” includes everyone Emergent, and “movement” includes … some more specific set of individuals or churches or publishing imprints?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 14:10:45 +0000

B.A. used a link to my post, so I think I should speak for myself lest my “reluctance” not actually be reluctance.
I don't have any problem calling Emergent an organization, in that there is an official organization that goes by the name “Emergent.” There are Emergent YS books too. But as Doug said, there's much of the conversation that doesn't fall under the Emergent organization (Emergent Village) but is still emergent (small “e” or ec). I think it's fair to say that most in the conversation are not officially recognized with Emergent, but that it is the most public face of the conversation in the U.S.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:31:38 +0000

While I'm more inclined to believe "most" non-blogging critics have dialogued, it would still be nice if the official response actually stated that instead of making all of us critics look bad. Did you read what I said? I said I agree that emergent is organized. I've made the same points you have against someone who said it was unorganized. We're not in disagreement here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:09:33 +0000

Not to sound snippy, but, I can assure you that when we were referring to critics, it really was not people who are part of the blog community. I am a blogger and understand that it is a personal and open medium, so when I was thinking on that point I was not thinking bloggers.
And, I was not thinking of you specifically because as I mentioned I had not heard of your blog before yesterday.
On the organization part, I really do think it is a matter of not doing your homework. Have you read the EmergentVillage site and seen the events and coordinating group. This is why some of us feel that the critic is coming from those who spend more time critiquing and less time listening – but you may not fully qualify for that “status”.