comments not accepted

Well it happened, TeamPyro stopped taking my comments. After continued non-listening (something they blame Emergents for), Phil Johnson has decided to make it official.

For lack of Scriptural support, they turned to Spurgeon for help in their error. I simply asked if they were ever going to stop and return to their former ways (which while I took issue with some of their points, most of it I agreed and benefitted from)? I accused them of getting off track and on 31 August they said as much themselves - although they defended it as being ok to do.

And the reason for all of that is this—after our concurrent 3-ish years of blogging, we have come to realize that blogging cannot be serious business. Investing a lot of time in posts which say things like God's provision is usually exactly what we need, or that the sufficiency of God's word far exceeds any experience we could hope to encounter, or that we often discount what God has already done never seems to work out for us. People don't remember them. They're not what people come here to see.

And that, frankly, is a shame.

So no sense in wrecking the rest of our week with prayer, reflection and the real meat of God's word. This is what the people want—verbal meat-chubbery—and frankly, from what we understand, giving people what they really want is called missional these days.

So today I simply asked again if they were going to return to their former ways. Myself and one other was critical in our comment. Dan Phillips called us dogs (nice Dan). Then he upgraded us to silly. David (no other reference available) concluded that "some emergents have no understanding of the word love." I'm not sure how that came out of the interaction. Centuri0n then said we are not allowed to interact unless we can define the difference between insult and satire. Of course he hasn't bothered to read the number of times when I tried to do that on their blog, on mine, and referencing others - or is it simply he doesn't agree? He then said I am being "pseudo-spiritual" by invoking the name of Satan in reference to their deception. He adds, "People who invoke superstitious language to make someone stop arguing are exactly -- the identical type and disposition -- like witchdoctors and jungle shaman who want to scare people into submission." I thought I was simply saying that the deception they have fallen into is from Satan. Let's see, I'm like a witchdoctor while they are like defenders of the faith when they say others are deceived. I wonder how they choose?

Steve (no other reference available) thinks he helps the conversation by stating, "The pomo posters have revealed the spirit of the age: Stone those who are so bold as to expose error, and extend the right hand of fellowship to those who teach error." Which of course most don't really say. They say a lot of other untrue things but not this and even if they all did, I'm not sure how a poster created by Johnson is revealing truth about someone else? I think Steve is implying that we are stoning TeamPyro and offering support to heretics but I and the other commenter have both been critical of EC'ers and in fact have encouraged TeamPyro to do the same - just not in the manner they are currently choosing. That's interesting that Steve sees things as he does.

So I ask the same question again.

Now Connie decides it time to say she is tired of the whining. What whining? Dan then repeats Steve.

My comment is deleted and Phil Johnson claims that their is no need to return to defending the truth since they never left (contrary to the examples I provide and their own statement on 31 August). Johnson also demonstrates that he is incapable of listening.

Rick, as we've said repeatedly. We're convinced that an essential aspect of "promoting Scripture and lifting up Christ" involves defending the truth of Scripture and standing up for Christ by challenging those who want to redefine Him in their own terms.

Your whole dispute with us seems to stem from your naive belief that whatever errors or false teachers may be driving the EC agenda are not worth fighting about.

I keep encouraging them to fight error and that EC'ers are worth fighting for. But with his ever present slight of hand, when I critique the method, he decides I don't like the motive and bundles all objectors into one easy to discount pile.


He then cuts me off saying further comments are only allowed in reference to Spurgeon so my next comment also didn't make it. Cent the cleverly concludes "case closed".

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church