Hmm . . . I agree that these two are funny, but some of the others on the site are pretty ham-handed and mean. IMHO. (And the jibe at generous orthodoxy links to a pretty decent summary of the fascinating work of Sarah Coakley. What's up with that?)

Things are more funny the more true they are. Mocking what is already a caricature leaves the humor wanting. The emergent movement certainly is a target for critique and a sharp zinger (pastors with great hair), but to me these cross the line into labeling a movement with mischaracterizations.

I agree, Andy. Several are misfires (and the "Community" poster seems derivative of your own cover story). But such is often the case with satire, no? And even if these two had been the only funny ones out of the 20 (they aren't), ten percent is still a better laugh ratio than The Door has seen in years.

I'll admit, these made me laugh.

However, they're more a version of the outsider's impression. Sort of the DA Carson of emerging inspiration posters.

Much more accurate are these.

Though, it's much easier to knock down a straw man so my guess is accuracy sadly isn't the goal for many.

Good post. I must say that I laughed at the Spurgeon.org posters...particularly some like "Generous Orthodoxy" more than any other one. I hope they plan on doing some more critiquing the Institutional Church too. I think of a couple right off the bat.

Some of the posters miss the point, but do add some light on the overall conversation that is going on in and out of the Emergent Church (which is completely different than the emerging church.)

Good post, I've forwarded it to some of my friends. Hopefully stuff like this will contribute to the conversation more than pull us into our corners for the fight.

PJ

What is "emergent"? That seems to be a buzz word on this site. Are poking fun here at tolerant Christianity or at the new generation of Christianity that is emerging with more widespread contemporary worship?

If the former, I see how some of these may be funny, but I don't think they are. However, some of the issues are definitely present and should be prayed for, not made fun of.

If the latter, older generations should celebrate the fact that a younger generation is finding a way to worship Jesus - as long as it is biblically sound.

Either way - both groups should be prayed for and not made fun of.

Definition of "emergent church" please.

Rick, as I only have 1500 characters I better be succinct. Basically it is a "new generation of Christianity that is emerging with more widespread contemporary..." well worship isn't the right word. More of holistic living. Basically it is a movement of people who feel the traditional forms of church are not reaching the spiritually needy folks of this world. Beginning with discontent and questioning emerging churches are embracing what can be called missional living, encountering Western culture as a missionary would encounter a foreign culture. This means a wholesale revision of how church is understood and how doctrine is conveyed. Emergent, more formally, is a group of people who have united in the pursuit of this ideal. However, it's not the whole of the emerging movement, which is mostly diffuse. A great further look at emerging thought can be found in Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger.

Goodness me! It sounds as though some are all for openness and toleration until they are satirized. Coming from a Church where words like tolerance and inclusivity and mystery are used deliberately to exclude traditional believers, I have to wonder if at least some emergent folks--judging by some of the reactions above--are about 15 years behind where my Church is now and heading in fundamentally the same direction.

Funny, Tim, you must be reading different posts than I am. My impression was that the above posters took the satirizations quite well. Being open and tolerant does not require that you can't have an opinion or respectfully disagree with others. Read the threads on Hillary Clinton or Mormonism if you want to know what shrill responses look like..

Dear P: I was thinking of those comments that used words like mischaracterization, mocking, mean, etc. I would say simply, yes. That is exactly what satire does; that is what makes it funny. And believe me, having been a target for decidedly non-emergent folks, I know what being on the wrong end of shrill feels like. I'm no apologist for either side. Rather, standing outside both camps I do see troubling similarities involving being overly sensitive when it comes to criticism and heavy-handedness and sloppiness when it comes to silencing opponents. There's something in these posters about planks and motes for everyone. Cheers.

I just don't think they're funny.

Neither do I find these especially funny. Most of them are based on a misrepresentation. These are not intended to point out the foibles of a particular group. They are intended to show that that group is essentially outside the bounds of "true Christianity." If satire by definition is "mischaracteriz[ing], mocking, mean," then I wonder if it has any place in Christian discourse. Is being funny really the ultimate value? Does it "cover over a multitude of sins?"

As a member of TeamPyro, Rod, I'd be interesting in knowing where these posters say that this group is "outside the bounds of 'true Christianity.'" There's no question that Dan, Phil and I would agree that many EC beliefs are outside the bounds of orthodoxy. But to say that the group as a whole has no Christians in it is, well, not found in the posters at least. As to whether satire belongs in Christian discourse, I'd love to read the book of Galatians with you.

Please e-mail me at frank at iturk dot com if you'd like to talk seriously about this issue.

Frank,

The posters were presented as a part of an overall campaign to show that "EC beliefs" taken as a whole are not orthodox and need to be repudiated. You (pl.) have repeatedly been called to task for painting with a too-broad brush. What I wrote and what you are defending against are two different things.

Is it your position that Paul mischaracterized his opponents and that he was mean to them?

I don't deny that many belonging to your target group have made similar attacks on "traditional Christians."

It is not enough for our words to be true (or even funny). Even when addressing error, we are required to be compassionate and humble--especially when addressing error.

This is one of the saddest things ive seen recently among the Christian community. I don't mean sad in the content but in the heart and motivation. These posters, whatever he intent show a deep and bitter attitude towards other Christians. The spirit is smug not gracious, the message is sarcatic not humerous. The people in the posters are mocked and love is all but evaporated.
I know this message will not change anything but I am sure these posters will do nothing to bring people closer to the kingdom of God. They also do nothing to glorify or enjoy God. I struggle to believe any confessing Christian could say that they were seeking to express the love of Christ when these were created.

| The posters were presented as a part
| of an overall campaign to show that
| "EC beliefs" taken as a whole are not
| orthodox and need to be repudiated.

Actually, the posters were presented, as Phil said in the final TeamPyro post on this little boil-up, “[as] caricatures, not scholarly definitions. If you click on the images, however, your browser will point you to some random samples of the kind of rhetoric that inspired these posters.”

For people who are keen on demanding fastitious accuracy from critics, it would be nice for you to at least hit the wall on which our dart-board is hanging.

[more]

[cont]

| You (pl.) have repeatedly been called
| to task for painting with a too-broad
| brush. What I wrote and what you are
| defending against are two different
| things.

Given that you cannot identify what we did (see above), this criticism falls a little flat.

| Is it your position that Paul
| mischaracterized his opponents and
| that he was mean to them?

Even the Message recognizes that Paul says something like this to the Judaizers: “Why don't these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves!” Listen: we haven’t gone half as far as that in criticizing EC excesses. If you don’t recognize the irony and sarcasm in Paul's’ statement, I’m sure you can’t recognize the irony and sarcasm in the posters.

[more]

[cont]

| I don't deny that many belonging to
| your target group have made similar
| attacks on "traditional Christians."
| It is not enough for our words to be
| true (or even funny). Even when
| addressing error, we are required to be
| compassionate and humble--
| especially when addressing error.

See above. I think it’s one thing to address unbelievers in a way which makes us ambassadors and, as Paul says, “the scum of the earth” for the sake of being all things to all people. But when we are talking about those who say they are in the church, and say they are doing the Jesus work in the world, and they are instead doing the things Phil linked to in his original posts, we should use the ways and means which Jesus and the Apostles used to address them. If you need more examples of that, I can give them to you.

It would behoove you to look into what Jesus said to religious types who were either too liberal or too stuffy. The real irony here is that we have religious liberals who are themselves too stuffy when it suits them.

I am still available via e-mail if you would rather address this in a less public forum, but I am also wide open to hashing out your complaints right here, if you think this is an appropriate forum.

[-30-]

Scott Davidson:

I am interested in your concern here, but I have a question -- will posting your sadness and criticism of TeamPyro bring anyone closer to Jesus? If not, aren't you guilty of the same thing you are very sorry about here?

See -- I think that if you are right, you can't post criticisms of the posters. Criticism only tears down, apparently. You have to go do something else – to avoid being guilty of the charge you present.

If anyone wants to be a reformer and a critic, he has to accept the idea that criticism is not inherently destructive. In order, for example, to critique Evangelical social passivity, one has to believe that criticism is actually useful. But when one fields a team to play that game, one ought not just to have a really good pitcher: one had better make sure his shortstop and 1st base guys can catch a line drive -- because the other team, in fairness, as other ball-players, is going to swing at the ball, not just wince when the heater comes over the plate.

Frank

The intent of my post post was not posted as an outright criticism of team pyro but rather a culmination of the comments from both side regarding these posters. I am far more critical of the kind of language used in the emergent community as I am closer tied to many of the people indentified with the movement.
Frank, I am also the last person to condemn critique as it is often the foundation of reform.
My primary concern was to just get people to stop and think what the net result of using language that is often times personally and corporately offensive and clearly inflamatory. I don't care what "camp" someone is in, we all have a calling to do what we do in love.

Frank-
I am still processing through how to respond in the EC context but I didnt see this as the place to have that discussion. I will I hope have some of those conversations in person.

I appreciate you keeping me honest

Grace-Peace-Love

Hey now, don't be slammin' narrative theology!

Frank,
Thanks for this wondrous display of Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome. You are the Jedi Master of PDS.

My Dear Wormwood:

Nice. You, my friend, are the Jabba the Hut of hypocrisy.

Now all you need to complete the trifecta is to go back to your blog and write some more about how ungracious is all the sarcasm in those posters, and what a shame it is that real "conversation" can't take place when so much mean-spiritedness is going on.

Don't forget to end it with: "Thank God we're not like them." LOL

This whole conversation is so familiar... it reminds me of Jr High when the bullies would tease and mock and tear people down, and then when someone would finally stand up for themselves and say "That's not funny," the bullies would respond with "Whatsa matter? Cantcha take a little joke?"

Funny, Mike C. I was just thinking response from the Emerging side is also familiar... It reminds me of Mike Tyson complaining about being "picked on" every time he gets arrested or criticized in the press.

Very nice this blog =)