Comments on: What Can We Expect From Emergent in 2006?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:54:00 +0000

Bolger's response to Carson was blogged here. The only reference Gibbs and Bolger's book makes to Carson's book is McLaren's reactive "If you want to be truly conversant" remark on the back.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 19:14:00 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:39:00 +0000

“About the only in-depth critique I've seen has been David Mills' response to Carson's original lectures.”
Mills' is the only academic response I've seen, and that of course to the original lectures. Not to mention that his response was almost “breathtakingly bad.” AJones was more of a personal response, but I think that's appropriate for him. He doesn't tend to associate himself as strongly with “Emergent” (though he did sign the “official response”). I don't think I've seen Bolger's, is that in the new book?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:40:00 +0000

Tony, thanks for commenting. When I say that Emergent has been (or has seemed to be) dismissive of Carson, I in no way mean to imply that there's an element of fear involved. What I do mean to say, though, is that statements are often made that Carson's book is “breathtakingly bad” or “reactive” are usually followed by statements that Carson didn't do a lot of research, that, as you've said here, it's unfair and unacademic, etc. Yet these kinds of statements fare no better. To borrow from U2, “would you deny for others what you demand for yourself?” In other words, where is there a substantive, academic critique of Carson's book? About the only in-depth critique I've seen has been David Mills' response to Carson's original lectures. In the book Carson responds to some of Mills' points. So, when I say that Emergent has been (or has seemed to be) dismissive, it is the overall lack of academic engagement to which I refer (imo, Jones and Bolger offer more personal responses than academic rebuttals).
I think it would be helpful for me to clarify what I would like to see (small beans in the emergent conversation, though I am). Using Spetzer's three categories (Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists), I think Carson does fail to notice this kind of divergence within the emerging church. Thus, in critiquing the Revisionists within the EC (e.g., McLaren), he mischaracterizes the Relevants and Reconstructionists within the EC. But it does not follow from this that Carson's criticism of the Revisionsts is wrong or misguided! In other words, that Carson's critique of Revisionists is misapplied to Relevants and Reconstructionists does not invalidate Carson's critique as applied to Revisionists. To suggest that it does is to come across as being dismissive of his critique rather than engaging it. McLaren's comment on the back of Gibbs and Bolger's book does not count as engagement: a more direct, linear, and thorough response would be far more constructive.
One more thing, Tony, if you're ever in Pasadena on a Friday or Saturday, stop in the Archives bookshop and ask for Tim.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:05:00 +0000

Tony,
While I may be a “new kid on the blog” here, I would also welcome getting together. Let me know if you are ever in the Louisville area.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:04:00 +0000

“I would like to see more interaction from the emerging folk with this work.”
I may feel differently if I read the book, but I think there's been plenty of interaction over it. Maybe I put too much weight on Andrew Jones, but he is popular and he did spend a lot of time on it. While I wouldn't mind emerging folk being more open to what Carson has to say, I don't think it's fair to say they (generally) haven't engaged him much. However, I've yet to see anyone engage Scott Smith's book. Hopefully we'll bring some attention to it in a few weeks.
What's interesting about Carson's book is that the first printing practically sold out before it shipped. Now the remainder of the second printing is collecting dust in distribution warehouses. It went from something bookstores couldn't keep in stock to something they can't move.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:56:00 +0000

Tony,
Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your willingness to engage us on “our turf.” I've yet to read Carson's book, but I'd be interested in any critique or review youv'e written of it. My guess is that you have specific things in mind when you say “it's a really bad, unfair, and unacademic.” I found the lectures the book was based on to be fairly good, but for all I know the book could be different…
I've known Scott Smith for a few years and I've always been impressed by how careful and fair he is in his critiques. His book is no exception. I'll be interviewing him in a couple of weeks about it. If you're ever in the L.A. area please let me know, it'd be great to break bread together. I don't travel much, so it's more likely you'll end up around here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:48:00 +0000

A couple things, guys. First of all, I really appreciate that you're keeping a (somewhat) open mind about Emergent. I think that your criticism has been helpful, and I'm sure it will continue to be. “Our critics are our friends,” Bill Clinton said, “for they do show us our faults.”
Secondly, I'm not dismissing Carson's book because I'm afraid of his critique. I honestly think that it's a really bad, unfair, and unacademic book. It's based on a very shallow reading of a very few books — it is in no way “conversant.” (I say this as a fellow academic.) I find that it's little more than a repackaging of The Gagging of God. I find the criticisms of others (you, Challies, Scott Smith) to be much more “conversant” and thus more helpful.
Thirdly, I hope you know that I'd love to meet with any of you face-to-face anytime. I travel a lot, and if I'm ever in your neck of the woods, let's break bread together.
Peace and Happy New Year.
Tony Jones

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:33:00 +0000

Timbo,
I know exactly what you mean! I don't believe Carson was trying to summarize the movement as much as critique and warn people about the most troublesome aspect of many in the emerging movement: their epistemology.
And let's face it–epistemology is important. We cannot just commit to be missional. We have to know Who it is that sends us and what His message is. This brings truth and boundaries into the mix.
I still think the Carson book is worthwhile. It may not be the definitive treatment on the emerging movement, but I would like to see more interaction from the emerging folk with this work.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 06:20:00 +0000

I think it's unfortunate that Emergent has been so dismissive of Carson's book. Though not perfect, it is far from “breathtakingly bad” as Jones states. At least he recognizes the value of Smith's critique (which imo is similar to Carson's yet in a more productive tone).