Kettle: "Hey Pot, you're black!"

As some have graciously pointed out, I have allowed concerns to become personal at times; attacking the person, rather than just examining their doctrine. I've been trying to work on that. In my zeal for truth, I can sometimes appear unloving. (Though I am a strong proponent of the Biblical concept that love without truth is not love.)

A "movement" I have found concerning at times, can be the emergent movement and those who lead it. Here's the progression of my comments about the movement: First, I spoke of the movement as a whole (which was far too general and quite useless). From there, I spoke of specific concerns within the movement (but those concerns are not true for all who say they are part of the conversation, so it was still not very beneficial). Next I began to speak of individuals within the movement that concern me (but that was far too personal). Finally, I looked at specific statements made by specific individuals regarding specific doctrines (but some still were hornked by it).

Yet, if there is going to be a "conversation," doesn't there need to be feedback?

In the July/August edition of Relevant magazine, there is an article about the emerging church movement (Emergent, specifically). One man offered critiques of Emergent (that it has incorporated and is now fundraising, and it's more political tone). This man was very quick to say he is not trying to be hostile, he wants to be seen as a friend. Then, at the end, he makes this statement:

I'll be anxious to see how this all comes out. This is a lover's quarrel, not a Carson critique [reference to D.A. Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church]. In fact, I would rather be wrong with Brian McLaren than right with D.A. Carson.

Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding his quote. But it seems to me that he is stating that D.A. Carson is not a guy he would want to associate with. He'd rather stand shoulder to shoulder with McLaren even if he is wrong (because he likes him), than he would like to stand shoulder to shoulder with D.A. Carson, even if Carson is right (because he doesn't like him).

I'm not even that concerned with his flippancy toward that which is right. (I don't think that was his point and it could be blown out of proportion.) I'm more concerned that he saw fit to draw a dividing line between he and Carson (when dividing lines are supposedly what they are trying to diminish), assume Carson's motive (by juxtaposing it with love, he makes it seem that Carson's was a heartless critique), and then make it personal (in essence, saying he doesn't like Carson). Aren't these the very attacks those of us who are cautious about emerging church face? Shouldn't the rules work both ways?

[Furthermore, this is an article, not even a blog. Not excusing it, but a blog can very quickly be published. Something can upset you, you're emotionally involved, you blog about it, and it's out there to be read. This was an interview, followed by the article being written, followed by the article being edited, then being published. He had more than enough time to consider his statement and consider whether he found it appropriate.]

I've faced significant criticism for questioning some tenents taught by those who are considered emerging. Guys I do compliment in those circles are quickly discounted as fringe guys that don't really count (Kimball, Driscoll). I admit that some of the criticism was justified, for I assumed motives and made it ad hominem, and I have tried to correct it. But if we're going to have a "conversation" that needs to work both ways.

I admit that my concerns have not always been expressed with the love which generated those concerns. But I think it is important that both sides admit that critiques can feel personal, but are necessary for all of us, and start being willing to work together. Telling me I'm wrong is one of the most loving things someone can do. I pray that works both ways.

Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.