Emergent & Consistency

Justin Taylor believes he's located some inconsistency in Tony Jones' reaction to Driscoll vs. McLaren.  Follow the comments.

UPDATE: JT has added an email exchange with Tony to his post.  Good stuff.

Comments

[Tim Keller]

After several years of reading blogs I conclude that these sharp exchanges between people with different points of view almost always generate far, far more heat than light. Blogs seem to best for helping like-minded people to share information and to mildly revise one another's thinking. Alan Jacobs (in an article on weblogs in May/June 2006 Books and Culture) said that blogs are 'the friend of information, but the enemy of thought.' I absolutely love blogs for getting news and opinion of all kinds, but the 'dialogues' are generally unhelpful. I'm sure everyone can point to one or two exceptions. But most of these interactions toward the pro- and anti-emergent caucuses usually just polarize people.

[Brian W]

Along with Tim's comments, I think this current "debate" is an excellent example of how the blogosphere is not a replacement for Christian community. It may be a part of it, but it isn't sufficient for it alone. I have rarely, if ever, seen engagement, dialogue, critique and correction done lovingly and "Paulish" strictly over the internet. I'm beginning to wonder if even the attempt is a practice of unChristian dialogue, for without the face, so much is lost.

[Justin Taylor]

Tim,

I tend to think that you're right on this. In fact, I regret doing that post--not because I think what I said was wrong, but because I don't think it was wise or edifying. It violated two of my unwritten self-rules: (1) don't post when you have doubt about whether it's wise; (2) don't post if you're cranky!

JT

[Steve McCoy]

As anyone who has read my blog for the last 6 months has noticed, I don't discuss much of anything argumentative. I've found it nearly worthless in my life and ministry. I just found it noteworthy that Justin Taylor and Tony Jones were discussing something publicly.

[Nick P.]

Steve,

I bet you had more traffic when you posted about argumentative stuff. :-)

[Steve McCoy]

Nick, quite a bit more.

[Jeff T]

I agree with the group here about blogging. I try not to comment about issues anymore. I was even banned from one blogged last year. Ain't that right Steve? :) I found myself being a jerk too many times and decided it wasn't worth it. I would rather dialogue in person where I can see the face I am talking to, it tends to temper my words.

Jeff

[Steve McCoy]

You are correct Jeff T. :)

[Michael Foster]

BTW, I think your content has been selected well the last few months!

[Ted Gossard]

Steve and company,

I think much the same way. But I also think good, consistent blogging that does hit on issues, along the way, that we Christians do disagree on, can be helpful to change some. Only if done so well in a spirit and word of grace and truth.

But too often what I see is heat more than light. However I have noticed on some "Jesus Creed" threads that people seemed to have come to a better understanding and appreciation of each other's views, and even a few times acknowledging they learned something from it. So I wouldn't close the door to blogging and writing. (By the way, if writing is not a good way to communicate, than why is Scripture so central to our faith?)