You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
November 03, 2005
Even more humor!
Read “Why I Am Not Emergent,” by Michael Lee, and see why it would serve us all well to leave that God-forsaken movement behind.
I don’t know why I didn’t see some of this sooner:
ECM people eat their young. I don’t want to gossip, so I won’t name any names here, but I have a friend who is part of an emerging church in Seattle, who heard this story about this other emerging church where, instead of taking communion in the normal way, they eat their own young!And to think, I was just as fooled as the rest of ‘em.
Read the rest here.
(Link via Darryl Dash.)
Posted at 12:47 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (14):
As an informal student of architecture history, I found point 4 hysterical. And the whole thing was fun. Thanks, Tim.
wheat () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 10:19 am
When I posted this entry, it was a toss-up between point #4 and the one I chose. 
Glad you liked it!
Glad you liked it!
timsamoff () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 10:29 am
This was so funny, no question about it. but aren’t there legitamte concerns about ECM at some level? Would it have been just as funny if it were a sarcasm of the ECM concerns about the “other side”? Maybe that would be a good post as well? Just a 75% modern enjoying your post at multiple levels.
DH () - November 04, 2005 at 11:10 am
I don’t know, DH. Why don’t you try writing one from that perspective. I’ll be happy to tell you if it’s funny or not. :)
wheat () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 11:17 am
Ha ha. Yeah.
I was going to respond with, “Nope. No concerns here. Move along.”
I was going to respond with, “Nope. No concerns here. Move along.”
timsamoff () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 11:18 am
Duh.. Tim does have “young” on the way… hello!!!! Someone stop him before its too late.
dennisthemenace () - November 04, 2005 at 1:04 pm
I guess I don’t understand the focus on the problems of “modern” or whatever when there are problematic stuff as well on the “other side” as well. While I do say there are concerns on the “modern” side to say there are NO concerns on the “other side” seems a little pretentious. We all need to move forward from our sides away from our mistakes and both have them.
dh () - November 04, 2005 at 1:19 pm
At least give me credit for being 25% EMC. :) Wheat great idea. Tim says I need to start a blog. :)
dh () - November 04, 2005 at 1:21 pm
> to say there are NO concerns
> on the “other side” seems a
> little pretentious
As this was a humorous and sarcastic post to begin with, so was my answer about “no concerns” — I shouldn’t have to explain this.
Today is Friday… Let’s keep it light!
> on the “other side” seems a
> little pretentious
As this was a humorous and sarcastic post to begin with, so was my answer about “no concerns” — I shouldn’t have to explain this.
Today is Friday… Let’s keep it light!
timsamoff () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 1:27 pm
What 25% would that be, DH? Where exactly do your beliefs and EMC coincide? The views I see you express here on Tim’s site seem fairly traditional. But perhaps this isn’t the proper forum for dueling manifestos. Maybe this can be the inaugural post to your new blog!
wheat () (URL) - November 04, 2005 at 1:45 pm
I’m fairly traditional? no Fundamental? No Foundational? yes SouthBaptiNazaConvenentReformedAssembliesofGodaCostal? absolutely but without the attitude and harshness by the traditional. I feel they are correct in what they say but overemphesize to their own detriment. Dueling manifestos? Maybe I need to have as part of my website music that can be listened to while reading my site, as part of the site – “dadada dada dada dada – DADADA DADA DADA DADA – DADADA DADA – dadada dada” (dueling banjos)
Tim- I was funny too (sometimes the writing can hide the emotion as in this case) You are great. I was having fun back. This response is more a pick at myself than anything. You and Wheat are great. :)
Tim- I was funny too (sometimes the writing can hide the emotion as in this case) You are great. I was having fun back. This response is more a pick at myself than anything. You and Wheat are great. :)
dh () - November 04, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Wheat, I was afraid when I wrote it that point 4 was just for me, and that nobody else would get it. I’m glad it found another ear!
One of my favorite things about ECM critics is how irrelevantly they raise the specter of Postmodernism. What sort of postmodernism are we really concerned about? Postmodern art? Postmodern architecture? Postmodern literary deconstruction? Just postmodernism in general, anything that happened after 1975 (or whatever date you like for the death of modernism; I happen to like the year I was born)?
It seems like most critics intend for the word ‘postmodern’ to stand for a kind of Foucaultian skepticism, where knowledge is impossible, language is always only self-referential, and truth is bracketed from perception. The problem is, the majority view in the ECM doesn’t really engender postmodernism in that sense.
The only reason to be scared of postmodernism is if you think that Cartesian foundational certainty is the highest expression of faith. But any of us who have lived through Kant, Barth, Bonhoeffer, even the venerable C.S. Lewis (see ‘Letters to Malcolm’ for a breathtaking, doubt-filled statement of faith) know that certainty of that kind is not only philosophically untenable, it is also completely foreign to the Christian experience.
One of my favorite things about ECM critics is how irrelevantly they raise the specter of Postmodernism. What sort of postmodernism are we really concerned about? Postmodern art? Postmodern architecture? Postmodern literary deconstruction? Just postmodernism in general, anything that happened after 1975 (or whatever date you like for the death of modernism; I happen to like the year I was born)?
It seems like most critics intend for the word ‘postmodern’ to stand for a kind of Foucaultian skepticism, where knowledge is impossible, language is always only self-referential, and truth is bracketed from perception. The problem is, the majority view in the ECM doesn’t really engender postmodernism in that sense.
The only reason to be scared of postmodernism is if you think that Cartesian foundational certainty is the highest expression of faith. But any of us who have lived through Kant, Barth, Bonhoeffer, even the venerable C.S. Lewis (see ‘Letters to Malcolm’ for a breathtaking, doubt-filled statement of faith) know that certainty of that kind is not only philosophically untenable, it is also completely foreign to the Christian experience.
michael lee () (URL) - November 07, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for joining in, Michael… I’m glad you found me.
Great comment, too… I agree.
Great comment, too… I agree.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 07, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Michael,
It seems like most critics intend for the word ‘postmodern’ to stand for a kind of Foucaultian skepticism, where knowledge is impossible, language is always only self-referential, and truth is bracketed from perception.
Very true. I’ve always suspected critics of this sort either get their knowledge of postmodernism at second (or third) hand or that they’ve just not read enough of the various postmodernists to realize that there are many varieties of postmodernism (just as there were, of course, varieties of modernism).
The problem is, the majority view in the ECM doesn’t really engender postmodernism in that sense.
In that, they’re only borrowing from postmodern in general. The bogey man the foundationalists fear is a fringe among postmodernists (in fact, almost a straw man encountered only in anti-postmodernist polemics). Their real enemy is nihilism. Postmodernism isn’t nihilism. It is just a radical skepticism that takes into account the difficulties of language and meaning.
[. . .] certainty of that kind is not only philosophically untenable, it is also completely foreign to the Christian experience.
Beautifully said and very true.
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.It seems like most critics intend for the word ‘postmodern’ to stand for a kind of Foucaultian skepticism, where knowledge is impossible, language is always only self-referential, and truth is bracketed from perception.
Very true. I’ve always suspected critics of this sort either get their knowledge of postmodernism at second (or third) hand or that they’ve just not read enough of the various postmodernists to realize that there are many varieties of postmodernism (just as there were, of course, varieties of modernism).
The problem is, the majority view in the ECM doesn’t really engender postmodernism in that sense.
In that, they’re only borrowing from postmodern in general. The bogey man the foundationalists fear is a fringe among postmodernists (in fact, almost a straw man encountered only in anti-postmodernist polemics). Their real enemy is nihilism. Postmodernism isn’t nihilism. It is just a radical skepticism that takes into account the difficulties of language and meaning.
[. . .] certainty of that kind is not only philosophically untenable, it is also completely foreign to the Christian experience.
Beautifully said and very true.
wheat () (URL) - November 07, 2005 at 4:02 pm
