Ken Silva has responded to my previous post on his blog sites. I guess they are not really dialogue blogs, because he leaves comments for people to read, but I can't find a place to respond. He simply says that I have responded in an "emergent kind-of-way." I am supposing he means that I am anticipating dialogue, and asking for more of a response, but he does not accurately, or accurately respond to my comments.
Here's your chance Ken. Defend your attacks on the Emergent Church, and show how I fit into those same heresies you identify.
I thought this may be a fun exercise. I will be leaving for home from London tomorrow, so this will give you a few days to respond sufficiently, and with more than one of those "if you don't know what [that] is in the first place, then how could you be sure you're not moving toward it?" remarks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Yeah, good luck with that Phil. You aren't really expecting dialog are you?
That was the first thing I noticed with Ken's "blog": no place to comment.
I would say his blog is kin to the Constantine era church in 300 AD - speakers were of the one-sided, Greek rhetoric influenced style of persuasive speech.
There was no dialogue...because what you have to say is uneducated, not from god, or unimportant...
Or perhaps Ken doesn't want to defend his own words. Only criticize others.
I think that having dialog means that you're NOT part of the "emergen-cy." Dialog is old fashioned, modernistic, like trying to find the truth by thinking clearly. I have the impression that emergence is all about people thinking what they want without being challenged.
i don't really understand this whole thing but i just wanted to say that this post was extremely entertaining to read.
Hey Jeff,
Of course I am expecting it. Responsible Christians are people who talk points of disagreement out, and do not jump to conclusions. Right? We'll see I suppose.
Hey B-man,
Well I knew I was unimportant. I guess that explains things.
Hey Bruce,
Actually Emergence is called a "Dialogue" not a church, and it usually consists of people who do want to talk things out. I have found most to be intersted in the process of dialogue and considering things together.
Hey Philip,
Nice name. Thanks. It has been entertaining to watch from this side of the posting as well.
Ken Silva, like us all(and especially me), needs love. That's a truth that can set us all free. Even if he doesn't dialogue in a mature manner it does not imply hopelessness.
Grace sees goodness in everything ~ Bono
Hey Carl,
Good word - good reminder.
Dialog? It was modernism that sought debate. In the eyes of modernism as incarnate in conservative evangelicalism and Christian fundamentalism (two catagories, not one) "discussion" and "dialog" looks like code for chatting about the non-negotiable truths. Coming from that perspective, it is practically a sin to "discuss" anything outside the realm of "orthodox" Christian doctrine.
BTW, though I don't describe myself as "emerging" or "emergent," I gladly accept "missional." If I am emerging, I don't know it. I'm certainly not a traditional evangelical, though!
Hey Adam,
Interesting observation about evangelical modernistic modes of communication. Dialogue as sin certainly makes anything remotely emergent, or anything based upon an anthropological missiology suspect to heresy.
Phil,
I was speaking from experience, as a post-fundamentalist. I despised being invited to "discuss" matters that I believed the other party "knew full well" were non-negotiable.
Adam - I'm confused (go figure, I practically have squatters rights in the land called confused). Are you saying that Evangelicals are modern or aren't you?
Moderns tend to come from the standpoint that everything is "knowable", so in that sense dialog and discussion is important as a method for disseminating ideas. However, a post-modern or emergent gives more weight to "experience", with the recognition that experience does not always give knowledge. However, experience lacking knowledge still has value - particularly when shared in dialog.
In light of that, I would say that a lack of willingness to discuss or dialog isn't a "modern" or "post-modern" thing. It is simply a characteristic of arrogance and self-righteousness.
I'm not saying that K.S. is those things, but the fruit is what it is....
Post a Comment