While wandering the blogosphere
August 9, 2007 by scochenour
I not quite sure if this is the place to bring this up. I had thought about using my personal blog to post this, but I think that this is a question for the church. Here we go.
At the end of July a website called PyroManiacs created these “motivational posters” for the Emerging Church (EC). You can check them out here. The Pyro crew is pretty openly anti-EC, and these posters seem to show how they feel about the EC. TallSkinnyKiwi, who is a recognizable figure within the EC, commented on the posters with a post on his blog. I really like his comment:
I see them as an invitation to respond with something similar. Maybe this is a new way of debating using images and media . . . and i like it.
I, too, like the idea of using images and media to debate. It makes me think of an MC battle where rappers battle back and forth. A few people have responded to the posters with their own creations. Emerging Grace was one that responded, and her posters have gotten a lot of recognition. Check them out.
There was an article written over at the Christian Post about the “debate.” Here’s the link to the article.
Here’s my two cents on it all:
My first reaction to the Pyro’s posters was not good. I felt offended, not necessarily because I felt like I was one of the emerging people they were aiming at, but because I felt like they were meant as an attack not just a start to a debate. This has been my concern with the modern/post-modern debate with in the church for years now. (And for the record it’s not just limited to modern/post-moderns. Look at some of the was we refer to those within different denominations.) I realize that our faith is vital to our lives, but Jesus didn’t say that the world will know that God sent Jesus by our spiteful arguing. I know that I’ve found myself falling very short here, too. As I spent more time looking at and thinking about the posters, I realized that the basis for creating the posters was not without justification. There are some within the EC who might fit every stereotype shown. This is one of the problems with using the term Emerging Church. It is more of an umbrella covering than a doctrinal statement. When these sorts of debates start it’s often the extremes of both sides that get used as examples.
I really like Emerging Grace’s posters. As many other people have state, her posters seem to describe what she is standing for rather than what she is against. She commented on her site that she wasn’t trying to become a poster woman (no pun intended, maybe) for the EC, she just wanted to express herself.
What do you think? Do you think that this type of debate is healthy or is it just another way of dividing the body of believers? Cuyler- Since you’re my only commenter, I’m counting on you.
Cuyler, may I go first?
I take your silence as a yes…
I can see how the posters smell a bit of attack media, and that part is something I strongly disagree with. I can see how conversation through media could be groundbreaking in a way, and maybe even a little post-modern for the moderns, but it could be positive.
Positive.
That’s what I really think, I think that whatever happens, wherever it goes, it should be positive, and uplifting, and unifying.
There may be some who struggle presenting their thoughts in a positive way, but if they just hold them in, then they really do turn sour and become bitter outbursts. So I would understand some negative expression, within the context of “I don’t know how to say it any other way, but this is what’s bothering me…” Then, working together, it can be brought through discussion and taken towards the positive.
I know I went a bit of a different direction, maybe, but it’s what was there.
Posters are just a start, imagine an Art Debate. Two artists would participate. One would start by producing a work in one hour. The second would follow with a response piece in the next hour, and so on and so forth. Shoot, this could even be done in a secular environment. As some sort of community involvement project.
and i won’t let you down.
the ec’s posters are way better. they’re funny. grace’s posters are all… touching… and stuff… i guess. i read the first three and thought, “i don’t get it. that’s a dumb joke. this is why girls make terrible comedians.” then i realized they weren’t jokes and lost interest. probably a symptom of just finishing a podcast whose nature is to be pretty irreverent. no. that’s not it. i just think her posters are lame. and the ec one’s are funny. and whatever i am, it’s not really either of those. either set of posters don’t accurately portray the “movement,” or whatever. the first set (noted as “good set”
are funny and clever. granted, they’re harsh and really demeaning, but that’s because the second set (noted as “bad set” 
seem to portray us all as doe eyed androgynous innately emo do gooder cry babies. and that ain’t the case. i wanna kick in some doors and bust some skulls. metaphorically or otherwise. i think maybe the ec guy is challenging us to grow some stones, if you will, and the commentator is failing the test. grace is rising to the challenge, but she needs to crank this piece up to 11 if she wants to compete.
i will say that even though i think i’m classified as “emergent” now, when i hear a lot of emergent terminology (i put off reading velvet elvis for a long time because someone, quoting the book, described christianity as a “conversation.” that sounded gay on ice. when i read the book, i had to run everything through my “gay on ice” filter and hold onto the good stuff), i imagine stuff like what the good set portrays. when i think about what the “emergent” folk look like, i often imagine the bad set. things done in poor taste really appeal to me i think.
the picture of the girl wanging her head on the diving board cracks me all up.
oh. and i forgot. “down with metanarratives” has to be the best protest sign i’ve seen in my entire life. it’s so incredibly post-modern that it’s entirely meaningless. chuck norris loves irony more than animal rights.
and the “generous orthodoxy” book made it two pages into my “gay on ice” filter and i experienced total meltdown, went into catatonic shock in which i experienced many violent spazms resulting in the book being flung across a room.
and i definitely ain’t in no “bush is teh devilz lol” march. nor will i be. because those are, you guessed it, “gay on ice.”
i thought there was a poster about never being firm in what you believe. there isn’t. if there were, i’d semi-identify with it in that most of what i believed to be a “cornerstone” of the faith has been yanked out from underneath me. that and i’m going crazy. or something.
sorry about the trainwreck of comments that i’ve left.
Gabe- It’s good to see you around. It’s been a while. Maybe one of these days we can bridge the mile gap that spans us and hang out in person. I agree with your thoughts about desiring this sort of thing to have a positive end result. I could, however, see a place for some straight-forward criticism if it was put in the right context. For instance, if a group of people decided to pursue something like this together, I could be alright with a bit of “attacking.” But that wasn’t the case here. The Pyro crew have even made some more recent posters that are without a doubt attacking.
I really like the idea of a Art Debate. Establish a topic, assign a viewpoint, have at it. I dig it.
Cuyler- At first I was confused with your comment. I was thrown off with your use of “EC.” Then I reread my post and think it may have been my fault. I’m guessing that when you referred to EC you were talking about the Pyro’s website. What threw me off is that the Pyro crew would not consider themselves part of the Emerging Church or EC. With that cleared up, I read through your post again and it made sense.
With that in mind: I can understand you thinking that Grace’s posters are a bit namby-pamby. There’s not even a picture of a car flipped over and lit on fire. However, I was trying to think of whether or not you would identify with the words of the Pyro’s posters or with that if Grace’s?
I did get a bit confused with your second post. If you have the time could you expound a bit?
Cheers.
“down with metanarratives” is a protest sign someone’s holding in one of the posters, and it’s gotta be the best anti-protest sign i’ve ever seen, mainly because it’s meaningless, and protesters like to think what they’re doing is meaningful. and then i threw in a reference to a chuck norris joke.
i assumed the “generous orthodoxy” was a reference to a book of the same title. it was a dumb book by my standard (as in, i made it through the intro and thought, “this is a dumb book. i refuse to read the rest of you, book”).
and then one of the pyro posters (you’re right, i did misuse the names) implies something about all EC’s being liberal, which is probably a fair and perhaps understandable implication, but i’m definitely not liberal (or rather, “i’m not leftist.”). of course, he illustrates our innate sense of liberalness with a pic of an anti-bush rally. i would never be in something. i don’t know that i can think of anything more post-modern (meaningless) than that.
and then the last comment is too convoluted for me to want to explain. we can pretend it didn’t happen.
i identify with what grace’s posters said, but naturally balk at the way it was said. too many things try to pull on your heart strings, and it irritates me. for example. in the “divine nobodies” book, jim talks about going undercover in a thai child sex trafficking sting operation, and how those guys would be kicking doors down, guns in hand, to rescue these little girls and how he quoted one of the officers as saying, “if Jesus were here, he’d be the first one kicking down the door.” perhaps this is what the EC church is too guilty of, but we promote change through realationship, which is true, but change can also be exacted through punishment and pain. if these people are doing such unspeakable things unto “the least of these” (children), then we don’t need heart touching posters of rescuers holding these children in the safety of a coffee house (well, maybe we do. it doesn’t hurt), but what we need are people willing to break down that door and get the kid out at the risk of their own life, and at the risk of violence to others. and of course this is only one scenario.
i think that’s what i mean. we’ve become really soft and taught to eschew all violence at all costs when this isn’t the case at all, and not the portrayal of God or Jesus that i read. force and violence are merely tools in a box, and the wise craftsman will use the right tool at the right moment.
my idea on this extends further than this as well, but might be too much for this comment box. to sum it up: after you’ve gone in there, busted some skulls and rescued some kids, you have to take those that committed the greatest atrocities and learn with them and grow with them until they come to know God themselves. you don’t neglect the relationship part of it, but you also don’t neglect the part where you forcefully interrupt the sin.
Cuyler- Thanks for the clarification. A few thoughts in return.
- I love the “Down with Metanarritives” sign. If those came in sticker form I would have to put one on my car, so I could snicker every time I saw it.
- I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on “A Generous Othodoxy.” I enjoyed the book. Of course that doesn’t mean that I agree with everything, but I really did like the idea that he presents of understanding more about God by looking at different denominations/ beliefs. But if you only made it a few pages in, it might be a short discussion.
- thanks for clearing up the “‘bush is teh devilz lol’ march” comment. It seems that part of the rhetoric for arguing over theological issues is to add a political bent to your statement. I’m not a big fan of this. I understand that our politics often come out of an expression of our faith/belief, but there is no concrete paralell between what you believe and how you vote. I get pissed anytime someone asks me if I’m “liberal,” because it is usually said with such a demeaning tone that I mind as well be kicking babies, too.
-”to sum it up: after you’ve gone in there, busted some skulls and rescued some kids, you have to take those that committed the greatest atrocities and learn with them and grow with them until they come to know God themselves. you don’t neglect the relationship part of it, but you also don’t neglect the part where you forcefully interrupt the sin.” How do we judge what sin needs to be forcefully interrupted? If I lie to you should you slap my mouth every time? And if I murder someone what means of forceful interruption is needed there? And how do you reconcile the actions and words of Jesus with this “bust some skulls” method. Jesus stopped Peter from the violence on the Mount of Olives, and when he was talking to the group who was about to stone the woman caught in adultry he said that whoever was without sin should start the stoning. I agree that the idea of a faith as a conversation can give a soft impression, and that it has the potential for not leading people to a place of repentance before a God who demands repentance, but I would argue that I don’t think traditional churches do this very well either. My experience has been that the traditional churches approach is “come back when your not sturggeling with the sin anymore.” I think the EC folks would say that the best way to do this is to walk alongside them and help guide them to the path of righteousness rather than shouting at them about how aweful thier sin is and jabbing them with a 10ft. pole.
Ok. I’m done for now.
i agree with you on the politics thing. it’s the weak sauce.
the biggest thing i was going to address is the idea of “busting skulls.” it’s hard to reconcile. the biggest of Jesus being “unmild” is that he drove people out of a temple with a whip (after throwing tables end over end). and seeing as how it says he “drove them out of the temple with a whip,” i don’t think it means that he picked up the whip, and limp wristedly brandished it and said, “could you guys please leave?” not to say that you’re implying anything like that, but it seems to imply a lot of force, and a lot of anger. the woman caught in adultery is sort of a mysterious circumstance too. Jesus writes in the ground, but we don’t know what he wrote. there’s also the implication that the reason these guys knew she was an adulteress is because they had been taking rides themselves. even those aside, it seems to be the idea of blind accusation, or tattle tailing. these guys brought her to Jesus for no other reason than wanting to see her get stoned, not because they wanted good to be accomplished.
and i say “bust some skulls” as a metaphor. i’m not saying to literally go out of your way to hurt people. i guess the best argument i could come up with (in regards to performing a raid on a brothel engaged in minor sex trafficking) would be that God gives some very specific direction in not harming children or widows. as in, God gets very pissed when you screw with them. if God gets pissed, and i have the same spirit of God (the same spirit that dwelt in Jesus), then i have no good reason to not get pissed, and no good reason to not want to see justice be done. we never saw Jesus encountering child prostitution. the only thing we saw as an example of Jesus’ ire is when God’s temple was whored out, and if Jesus got that angry over money changers and dove sellers, than i can only imagine his anger at exploiting the most innocent of innocent.
i’ll admit that this is a moderately infantile idea that i’m developing, but i feel quite strongly that it resonates with truth. i also don’t advocate leaving those that ran the brothel high and dry. after you bring them to justice, you’d have to bring them to light. know what i mean? again, it’s pretty underdeveloped at this point, but if we are God’s agent for change, and we don’t do it, what good are we doing?
i’m here now.
unfortunatly, however, i slept in my contacts (story on sunday) so i can see–much less read or respond. but i caught some fun stuff that i’m looking forward to really “getting” later.