Team Pyro's Frank Turk lays down the smack...

From Team Pyro:

Bob Hyatt Calls Phil/TeamPyro "the smartest, most eloquent" ... but the smartest, most eloquent source of "waay off base slams" against the Emergent church. Open challenge to Bob: At TeamPyro, we offer critiques to everyone -- evangelical, emergent, reformed, arminian, smart, stupid ... we give everyone something to chew on. Can you personally name anything wrong with the Emergent church which anyone ought to be concerned about, or is Emergent free of any riff-raff? Think about that, bub, before you start with the "way off base" smears.

1st- It's "Bob" not "bub", but I guess the keys are kind of close together? Anyway, no offense taken.

2nd- as for your challenge... Can I personally name anything wrong with the "Emergent" church which anyone ought to be concerned about?
Well, as for the Emerging Church, yes. And as for Emergent Village the organization yes.
I have named various things that concern me about both...
here,
here,
here,
here,
I opened up a monster can of Driscoll on Spencer Burke's book here,
and took issue with Emergent Village specifically here.
I also recently published this mixed review of the Emergent Manifesto of Hope...

And the list goes on... I'm both a critic and a defender of the emerging Church. What I find myself doing most often, however, is defending it against ill-informed, uncharitable and frankly waaayy off base slams... like the new ironically titled book by John MacArthur, "The Truth War"
... or even the silly broadside by TeamPyro against Dan Kimball.

Why do I bother? Because honestly, honesty matters to me. There are genuine heterdoxies present within the emerging church, just as there are in most movements and denominations. There are some who are off base and need some and encouragement to watch their "life and doctrine"  (as Paul wrote to Timothy) closely.
But...

Overall, what I sense in the best of the emerging church (which the critics almost NEVER bother to even look at/mention/commend) is a true Gospel-shaped missionality that sees Jesus and His invitation to life in the Kingdom as a passion worth living and dying for- and that's what attracted me and keeps me in this church that is emerging. I see in  the emerging church a challenge to church  consumerism I see in few other places and  a missionary passion to contextualize the Gospel that is absolutely needed in this time and place.

The Good News of the Gospel is too important to play church games with. There are vast numbers of churches dotting the American landscape who are wondering where all the 20-30s are. And I never got the sense that they wanted to hear the real reasons why. They just wanted to be told what to adjust to get the young people to care about what they were doing again. And frankly, the issues are much deeper. So that's why I made "the jump." There are those who have the temperment to hang around for a decade and maybe, just maybe, turn the ship. But not me.

Do I have concerns? Of course. But I also have hope. And I'm much more likely to hang around something new and try to shape it rather than hang around something old and try to change it. I see much better returns on my efforts this way.

So, sorry Frank/Team Pyro. I know it will come as a disappointment that someone who considers himself very much a part of the emerging church movement might also critique it. I know it doesn't fit the silly stereotype of whiny "Can't we just all get along?" latte-sipper you like to imagine as being the majority of those of us in this movement. But the truth is, some of us are in this thing precisely because we love Jesus, love the Gospel and want to see as many people as possible give their lives to Christ and become followers of Jesus.

I just wish that side of the emerging church would get some play on blogs like yours...

Comments

[starla]

More evidence of your hope against odds: that team/pyro would actually consider your reply. I'm continually amazed that you bother to respond to those to skew without knowledge.

[bob]

Hey, I'm an idealist! Hope springs eternal :)

[Helen]

Speaking of emerging church latte sippers, are you going to blog about Chuck Colson's speech, Bob?

I did :-)

[Rick]

Bub, err ... I mean Bob - you are 150% right but personally, I think you waste valuable breath on these guys. Your voice would be better spent glorifying Christ or at least staying with the balanced analysis you've personally offered on ECM.

Spending energy on Pyro, Slice, Johnny Mac, etc. is wasted ... but that's my opinion.

[david]

Bob, well done. fantastic response. did you cross post it to the comments of frank's post?

the picture takes the cake. even though i am a great spurgeon fan and a little offended that you would replace his "sacred" head with that one...

[Frank Turk]

Reply considered. Response forthcoming.

I almost liked your book review, btw. In fact, I'd say that it was almost as good as it could have been.

Think about what kind of statement that is and I'll get back to you sometime in the next 2 days.

[Frank Turk]

Here's why your book review was almost as good as it could have been, Bob: it fails to look past Spenser. It fails to see what he does here as part of anything.

See -- when TeamPyro places (to borrow from Spurgeon) the hammer of pain on someone like Pat Robertson, we understand that we own this guy in the sense that's he's a Christian evangelical. He belongs to us; he is part of us. So when we criticize him we are criticizing a large part of what passes for evangelical Christianity.

When you criticize Spenser, you do not make this connection. Spenser has written a book, and he's one guy, and you don't like the book. Fine.

But does he represent something wrong with the EC, or is he just a random kook? You never say.

Listen: when the Ted Haggard thing broke, that represented something wrong with American Evangelicalism. When Pat Robertson makes phony prophecies which will never come true, that's something wrong with American Evangelicalism. When the SBC puts outlawing beer on the same moral plain as the Great Commission, that's something wrong with American Evangelicalism. These are not isolated bulbs out on the string of lights:they are part of a larger problem.

You say here that your criticism of Spenser's book was a criticism of the EC -- but it wasn't. It was a criticism of Spenser. he's just one lone light that needs to be fixed, not a part of a trend which clearly exists in the EC.

This is uncritical thinking -- not in the sense that it doesn't have complaints or criticisms, but in the sense that it doesn't put all the pieces together.

And this is the question I raised in my link from TeamPyro: at what point do you take a breather from your conversation and mentally recap all the things which this Emergence (it's not a movement, right? it doesn't have spokesmen or leaders, they say) is doing to see if it's got one or two broken bulbs, a section which is shorted out, or if the whole thing is would do better to be replaced with something else that actually has the ability to light up the tree.

Nearly-critical statement like "I feel as though this is beginning to cross a line" is hardly critical -- it's just conjectural. Put the pieces together.

I stand by my original challenge to you: saying that this person or that person connected with the EC has made an "oops" is not the same thing as recognizing that they are either part of a minority or part of a majority in the EC. It's time for guys like you -- who are plainly serious about being the church -- to realize that the church telescopes out from localities to something bigger, and that it is only as good as the sum of the parts.

If the EC has a "better breed", you are probably part of it. I concede that here. But being part of what's good about some faction doesn't make the faction any good.

Thanks for thinking about this with me, as they say at the coffee shop.

[bob]

And thanks for not being snarky. And I mean that. Every other time I can think of that you have responded to me, for some reason it's been over the top sarcastic, which I haven't exactly gotten...

But that aside, you are criticizing me for something I'm NOT saying. Fine. But here is how I see this...

You challenged me to say one critical thing about the emerging church and I pointed you to numerous places where I had done just that.
But now you want to tell me that how I'm doing it just isn't right.

Here's the deal. I don't need to comment on whether I think Spencer is in the "majority" or the "minority" when it comes to the emerging church. The fact that I disagree so vehemently with guys like Spencer and yet continue to identify with the emerging church should tell you all you need to know as to whether I think he represents a majority opinion.

Yes, it's a movement. And yes, it's a loose one. I simply will not go in for the broadstroke critiques of "the EC" because by and large they are ridiculous caricatures. I choose to do what I am doing now- participating in the parts I like, ignoring the parts I don't, calling out the bits that seem dangerous or unbiblical, and trying to serve Jesus in the context of pastoring my community and loving Portland.

I have a feeling that won't be good enough for some, but so be it. I'm doing what I can to keep the conversation moving in a Jesus/Gospel-centered direction... a job best done from the inside.

[Nathan C.]

An epitaph for TeamPyro...or is it sadly some folks mission statement?

It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace.