Well, it was just Wednesday (Very Cool! Scot McKnight is Blogging!) that I re-hooked up with one of my seminary profs from Trinity, Scot McKnight.
Then on Friday Andrew Jones wrote his excellent blog on DA Carson's critique of the Emerging Church.
And on Friday, I commented on Andrew's blog and reiterated here (Conversant with Carson on Emergent) that “somebody has to argue Carson’s points (and NOT half-heartedly)…It is the language that Carson understands—a point-by-point refutation of his arguments. Who will do this?”
Then, on Saturday, Scot posts on Andrew’s blog that Scot was indeed preparing to do JUST THAT! Later on Saturday, Scot posted on my blog “I've got a first installment about Carson and the Emergent stuff on my website.”
Now it’s Monday, and Scot has already written Five installments, one for each of the first five chapters of Carson's book (Scot has an advance copy). This is not just a "refutation" (an unfortunate word choice by me), but a sincere dialogue and critique, affirming what Scot sees as positive contributions from Carson and also asking critical questions of Carson where he needs to be challenged.
Thank you, Lord, for using Scot McKnight to answer my prayer (And, man, that was FAST!)
Of course, I suspect that God was moving WAY AHEAD of my blog...He has a way of doing that... ;)
a web resource . exploring missional horizons . navigating spiritual formation . journeying into vocational-incarnational living
I think Scott is a doing us all a great service :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd Bob, can you tell me how to make my separate blogs only a few lines and then a click to a link instead of having long, long blogs each time?
ReplyDeleteSorry, Bob, I don't have your e-mail.
And, to be honest, I'm very honored to have you and yoru friends say these things. I'm just trying to sort things out myself and, truth be told, enjoying having an audience to do it with!
I saw Scot's series as being as much a way to rephrase Carson's points in a way the emergent types would understand as it is a way to frame emergents' criticisms of Carson in a way Carson would understand. Both purposes are admirable, but I think it's the former that's much more crucial.
ReplyDeleteJeremy,
ReplyDeleteI'd say that the way you "saw Scot's series" is right.
I think, though, that both sides equally need to break down some walls of communication.
Can't we all be FRIENDS?!