winking.
Yeah- just not going to do it.
Also, not going to spend a lot of time on this, but...
I loved Doug Pagitt's original call to graciousness in the face of critique- particularly the ridiculous kind.
Wink all you want at that...
But when it comes to serious critiques or even reasonably well-presented broadsides from someone you expect to simply lay into you, but who clearly put a huge amount of effort into self-restraint?
Well...
I think "winking" at that shows, not graciousness... but a smart-assed inability to hear critique- something we consistently say we can do when it's presented in a credible, gracious way. I think Dricoll got most of the way there and I'm willing to spot him the difference... and I think you should too, even if you disagree with some (as I did) or all (as others did) of his conclusions.
You can lose a lot of things... but lose teachability? Then you're really up a creek. If our collective response of the emerging church becomes to wink at any and all critique, then
1. we're lost
2. I'm out.
So, that's why I'm not winking.
I've been really bothered by the winking and you put into words much better than I could exactly why it bugs me.
The responses to criticism over the last couple of years have made me become more critical myself and I am on board with you on being "out" if this will be the normal response to critics.
Posted by: Rich | October 02, 2007 at 04:53 PM
well said.
Posted by: david | October 02, 2007 at 06:03 PM
I concur. I didn't like the winking thing either.
Posted by: Matt | October 02, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Why does winking preclude listening and being teachable?
I thought it mostly meant "I have a sense of humor and I have enough emotional restraint not to get really angry at you".
It's possible to have those things AND be teachable isn't it?
I definitely agree with you on the importance of being teachable, so, if a choice has to be made, I'd vote for teachable not winking. However, I thought both were possible.
Posted by: Helen | October 02, 2007 at 07:56 PM
the point of winking is to not take ourselves so seriously. something way too many bloggers and pastors do.
relax. lighten up. wink. or don't wink.
just quit debating the validity of winks.
if you choose to wink, it doesn't mean you're casually dismissing critique. it just means you don't have a stick up your ass. and have learned the art of play.
Posted by: josh | October 02, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Unless, that is, all you ever choose to do is wink. In that case, I submit that a wink becomes the equivalent of the finger.
Posted by: ScottB | October 02, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Sorry, I'm not with you on this one Bob. Wink or not, I find it a stretch to call this "critique" credible or gracious. People shouldn't have to listen to dirt to prove they are teachable.
Before you write me off as cranky ;) let me add that I went out of my way to give Mark the benefit of the doubt in this case. My conclusion is that as far as delivering a fair critique, he failed miserably and made a huge mess in the process.
Posted by: grace | October 02, 2007 at 09:40 PM
exactly... And so far the winks I have seen have the flavor and sense not of "thank you" or "bless you" but a bit more of the "screw you" about them.
Posted by: bob | October 02, 2007 at 09:43 PM
sorry- my "exactly" was for the post before grace's... More on this tomorrow morning...
Posted by: bob | October 02, 2007 at 09:46 PM
Grace- I don't think Mark's critique was exactly "gracious", at least by any normal standards of the word.
But I don't think our graciousness need depend on his.
Word on the street is we SAY we welcome critique... but fail to prove it again and again.
This little winking game serves not to thank or bless Mark (the original intent of Doug's article, yes?) but to say "Screw you, man... not listening!" AND to validate the criticism we get from many quarters.
And Josh... it's not about taking myself or anyone seriously... But it IS about serious matters. Find other things to demonstrate your non-stick-up-assness.
But bring a putz in the face of this particular critique will bring nothing good.
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 03, 2007 at 06:16 AM
I think this highlights the problem with a wink - it's ambiguous.
I'm sure not everyone winking means "Screw you" but since a wink is sometimes used that way, who knows?
That's why I think a) it's important to see the post about the wink to see it in context b) I might have gone with a different friendly playful gesture off the list because of the ambiguity of winking.
Hey what if Christians gave fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt on winking and didn't assume it meant "Screw you" - isn't 'benefit of the doubt' what we're advocating for in general, so shouldn't it be role-modelled by proponents of it...?
Just wondering...here I am again on neither side since I don't think the wink is ideal but I do think we shouldn't tell people what it means when they wink but ask them what it means - and give them the benefit of the doubt until they answer.
Posted by: | October 03, 2007 at 08:20 AM
Maybe EV should try and learn from Driscoll by emulating his model of handling criticism. Like him or not the guy has grown in that area, he is not perfect of course, he still has a number of snide remarks that are unfounded. But he has learned that often your critics can become your coaches. I could only imagine if when the EV crowd lambasted Driscoll throughout the last year his response was a wink, or some other condescending gesture. Many Emergents would have called foul! Why? Because to them, and I agree, the issues they were addressing were serious matters, that deserved consideration.
So I wonder now that Mark has some critique shouldn't EV be just as quick to graciously listen and converse? Or will you act like Mark did early on when faced with criticism and be an ass.
Posted by: tom | October 03, 2007 at 08:50 AM
"Hey what if Christians gave fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt on winking and didn't assume it meant "Screw you" - isn't 'benefit of the doubt' what we're advocating for in general, so shouldn't it be role-modelled by proponents of it...?"
Well, you tell me...
Does this fall into the "thanks for the criticism, I'll consider it" or the "screw you" camp?
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 03, 2007 at 09:05 AM
so...
does an unwillingness to accept Bob's critique about not accepting critique validate Bob's point? or is it different?
wink-wink.
Posted by: david | October 03, 2007 at 09:56 AM
so...
i read adam's post. makes me wonder if a wink is just a step toward closing one's eyes?
Posted by: david | October 03, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Half-way there!
;)
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 03, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Does this fall into the "thanks for the criticism, I'll consider it" or the "screw you" camp?
Neither. (Heh. I really must be postmodern!)
I think Helen nailed it above, in identifying the wink as a choice to restrain the angry feelings and to move on. To not respond with hostility when hostility has been shown*.
There are others who have attempted to defend "the emerging church" and Brian, Doug and Rob in the face of such attacks. Mark has shown that he is not interested in hearing the other side, let alone in talking face-to-face with those he is lambasting.
Tom (above) says we should "emulat[e] his model of handling criticism" - I don't see it. I've never seen a good apology from him. He has said that he values his critics and he's learned to see critics as coaches, but all I've ever seen offered have been non-apologies and half-apologies and outright justifications.
I do see how the winking could be considered rude, but I don't think that can be avoided. Even if people had chosen one of the other battle positions that Doug suggested - smiles, or hospitable, friendly emails, or invitations to friendships - it can be taken as tongue-in-cheek, or "an inability to take critique".
Turning the other cheek is actually supposed to offend. But it's offensive in a subversive manner, by not responding in kind.
*Yeah, I'm with Grace here: it's not a "reasonably well-presented broadside" when you call people out as heretics.
Posted by: daniel | October 03, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Like I said... it was a broadside, no doubt. But for Mark? An amazing show of self-restraint.
Again, read this (that started the whole thing off) and you tell me- "restrain[ing] the angry feelings"? Or simply putting a pastiche of "who cares" over them.
Again- the whole thing comes off as casually dismissive at best, and not in the spirit of Doug's original thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 03, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Again, read this [link to Adam's blog] (that started the whole thing off)
I'm confused...I thought Doug Pagitt's post started it off? And I thought Doug listed the wink as one of a series of responses indicating "Can we be friends and can we lighten up?" not "screw you".
I thought it was clever of Doug to say "Let's take up battle positions" and then define those the way he did. Since when Christians say "let's take up battle positions" the last thing they usually mean is "can we be friends and lighten up a little?" I'm so used to Christians saying "Battle positions" and really meaning "We are in a war and those other people are our enemies and we are going to FIGHT until we WIN" - or, it seems like that's what they mean, anyway.
Posted by: | October 03, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I think that's what Doug originally said and meant. That was written back in 2005.
This whole "wink" campaign started off at the link above at pomomusings. You tell me if it captures the original irenic spirit Doug was going for (Doug's posted his own wink, too!)
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | October 03, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Rob Bell's response has been great...
Posted by: chris Leonardo | October 03, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Daniel I am sorry but what your saying just sounds like excuses. If you would have listened to the audio itself that all of this is referring to you would hear apologies, and regrets on Driscoll's part. I might suggest that you have heard what you want to hear or have not tried hard enough to listen. But then again that comment could be said for all of us. The truth is the guy did the best he probably could in addressing some serious concerns and the response was less than generous or fair.
Posted by: tom | October 03, 2007 at 11:56 AM
You know, I read Doug's original post, and it was talking about a bit more than a wink. Here's the exact quote:
I'm not getting the vibe of "invitation to friendship" or "offers of hospitality" from either Adam's post or from Josh's post here. I actually like Doug's post - he seems to be advocating more than just a dismissive wink, but rather an offer of engagement. So where's the follow up along that vein from those who are winking? I'm interested in seeing the offers of hospitality that will demonstrate that a wink isn't functionally just another way of giving the finger.Seriously - are we so far off here that we can't even take our own folks in context? Maybe this whole emerging thing is starting to get a bit tired, if we can't even muster up the courage to demonstrate Christlikeness in the face of criticism that nobody should find surprising.
Posted by: ScottB | October 03, 2007 at 04:26 PM
So Bob, when has Driscoll who refuses face-to-face conversation exhibited teachability and the desire to truly hear the framework from which Brian, Doug, and Rob speak?
Driscoll is an overbaked crusading bi polar dude who thinks orthodoxy begins with John Calvin! He needs to have is library and church history line expanded. I use to really enjoy the challenge of Mark's preaching. I have great friends who are committed to Mars Hill (Seattle) and I visit at least once a year. I even didnt have too much of a problem with the whole headship covenant deal in marriage. Because I saw the narrative framework in which it is being lived out at Mars Hill in Seattle.
I do have a deep problem with Driscoll just saying THIS IT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS--i said so end of discussion.
That is the height of ignorance and deserves a resounding WINK!
Posted by: Sam Andress | October 04, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Reading all of the comments show that on both sides people tend to get out what they put in. The partisan-ness on both sides is evident. I for one winked, but unlike some accusations state, I didnt just "wink", I wrote about what I thought of the whole thing. And it wasn't a screw you.... Mark was effectively punching me in the nose (since I would subscribe to the groups he calls heretics). I winked, smiled, and wished him well. I really do wish him well. I think he has something inside that he really struggles with, and this causes him to lash out at others with theology as a hammer rather than a net. I used to do the same thing (as I indicated in the wink entry). Now everyone else can critique various responses to being kicked in the head, and that is their prerogative. I just think at the end of the day, most are just rallying the troops and preaching to the choir. Somehow, Somehow, Somehow I hope that we can start to view each other as being on the same team and part of a larger family. A family with issues perhaps... but still a family. Mark is my older brother who likes to tweek the nose of our cousin and looks to irritate our uncle and always wants to start arguments over Thanksgiving dinner - and he thinks I'm a leftcommiesympathisingpinko ... but we are still brothers.
Posted by: Andrew | October 04, 2007 at 07:01 PM