I agree with Andrew Jones that I AM JOSH BROWN is “the blog to watch this week.” Josh is dealing with the criticisms of Emergent.
Read:
Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Introduction
Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: A White Man’s World
Challenging the Critiques of Emergent: Trend/Denomination
If this opening paragraph won’t get you to read, then I don’t know what will.
Here’s the deal. It’s become sort of fashionable to bash Emergent. It used to just be the crazy, old school guys like Dobson, MacArthur, and Carson. I think of these guys like my crazy uncle sitting in the corner who babbles on about conspiracy theories and minorities and the evils of the world. His behavior borders on tourettes and I sort of expect it. But then some guys, who oddly enough have a following among younger people, like Driscoll, jumped in on the pile-on. And then all the Puma wearing, soul patch, mid-life crisis, youth pastor-esque guys decided Driscoll was god and agreed with him. The trickle down from there has been that now even those who like and affiliate with Emergent like to throw a few punches every now and then.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
thanks for the link dude. nice site design by the way.
thanks…i can’t take credit for site design…my friend Mike Trozzo gets the credit..
good posts
I dunno, after he rudely refers to D.A. Carson as a “crazy, old school guy” and so on, it’s difficult to take anything he says seriously.
I dunno, after he rudely refers to D.A. Carson as a “crazy, old school guy” and so on, it’s difficult to take anything he says seriously.
cool link. thanks.
Thanks for the post Rhett. I have been thinking about this since you posted it and have come to the conclusion that the emergent folks should bear some responsibility for the percieved weaknesses of criticisms. I know in philosophy, if you present a paper and someone dissagrees you at least are affirmed in knowing your argument made enough sense for them to follow and level a criticism. I think their are two kinds of people in the emergent criticism business. The first kind are modernists troubled at the very idea of asking questions or admitting doubts. I would put McArthur in this camp, although with great respect for him. The second kind are people who generally want to understand emergent ideas but find very little being put on the table, so to speak. Just being honest, I read voices in the emergent movement and was baffled. I have tried reading Mclaren and Bell and am unsure as to what argument is being made. Lots of questions but little assertion. It’s not that I necessarily dissagree with emergent, but that I havent found an argument for emergent ideas worth taking seriously in that I dont know what is being suggested. So I can’t criticize, because if I did everyone would probably say “ah, your criticisms are lame” but my point is that maybe this reflects on the coherence of the movement itself. So is there a good book or article on the key ideas set forh in the movement? I know, I know, its not a movement