Comments on: Hammett Gone Wild

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:34:00 +0000

thanks, timbo, for the clarification. i appreciate it. i'm good at missing the point the first time around…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:02:00 +0000

Alan and Mark, I was speaking against the notion of attributing positions to people based on need. If you note, I merely asked the question “Could we not say that [the alternate position(s)] is due to some need to [insert infinite potential responses here]?” and then answered that in the affirmative: I think we could do that, but I don't think it would be productive to focus on needs, and hypothetically stating a potential objection based on need does not constitute unfair criticism. To put it differently, it was not my intention to attribute your position to some need but to merely question the productivity of your attributing criticism of the emerging church to “the need to define and exclude.” Why discuss “needs” at all?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:26:00 +0000

Amy –
Thanks for the info. I think that a “reader” account didn't compute for me. I should've been able to figure it out, though.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:16:00 +0000

Alan (and everyone!), there should be a link on the bottom of the left-hand column that says "Create Reader Account." It's right underneath the login.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:51:00 +0000

Chad –
Excellent way of putting it.
I think when there are widespread characteristics within the emerging church, those can be criticized individually. For example, if a church uses a Labyrinth and someone has a problem with it, talk about why that may be bad (or may be good). We can discuss it without saying, “The emerging church uses labyrinths, they're all bad.”
Of course, you could also criticize the philosophy that allows for differing forms of worship. That would include much more, if not all, of the emerging church. It's not that I want to see less criticism, I want to see better and profitable criticism.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:44:00 +0000

Timbo –
You asked, “Could we not say that your resistance to a narrow definition is due to some need to evade criticism and avoid being held accountable for the failings of the trend?”
I think that's an unfair question. I feel I've clearly stated that I'm not anti-criticism, I just want the criticism pointed in the right direction and in a manner which will facilitate discussion. If you criticize something McLaren says, and I agree with it, then I haven't evaded criticism just because you didn't attack the emerging church for something McLaren said.
That's my point. Why not direct the criticism where it should go, directly to people who have acted or said something, rather than to a larger group which do not identify each other based on a theological system?
Why is there this need to paint the emerging church with one brush?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 19:34:00 +0000

Okay, I figured out how to create an account 😀 Click on someone's name who has an account, and you'll be able to get to a link to create your own.
I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I'm going to respond directly to some of the comments.
I kind of like the “reply” to each comment feature. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:39:00 +0000

i'm sorry, i meant to reference my name so it wouldn't seem like i'm hiding behind the "anonymous" tag. it's mark and i couldn't log in.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:34:00 +0000

“Could we not say that your resistance to a narrow definition is due to some need to evade criticism and avoid being held accountable for the failings of the trend? I think so, but that move would not be really productive, in my opinion.”
if not productive, why was that comment included in your post? don't get me wrong; i love the discussion taking place. it's just that the referenced phrase seemed uncharitable to me.
i know that i, although a regular attendee of a large mainline church, resist being defined narrowly as a person. there are many facets to who i am and what i do, just as there are many different bodies within the “emerging church” community. i'm doctrinally minded but don't fit in boxes (i.e. reformed, calvinist, covenantal, charismatic, etc.), and retain elements of many of them in my theological convictions. it's not a matter of avoiding doctrinal accountability, but a matter of believing that each doctrinal system is flawed in some way and accepting that i can't wave a banner for any of them.
i think it's the same with the emerging church as far as definitions go.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:01:00 +0000

Roger,
Think of it this way – equating the emerging church with McLaren would be like equating evangelicalism with Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. My point is to say there is much more to it than any of these single individuals can represent (and may often misrepresent). So to equate it with one individual can be misleading. BTW, I think this conversation has been a very helpful one. I'm so relieved to see the cool-headed responses and lack of vitriol on both sides (for the most part).