I read the scriptures and find myself falling in love with Jesus. The gospels bring out an incredible love that I am struck by my lovelessness. His compassion for those who are on the fringe is compelling me to look at the fringe. Poor in Spirit people have a place. The meek have a place. Those who are oppressed have a place.
But not in the culture. The culture is about getting it right. Having our plastic ducks lined up. Being naked and ashamed but condemning those who's clothes are tattered. Tearing apart words and ideas that are unfamiliar because those gospel words have been removed or rationalized away and never taught. Sitting in school and defining but never doing anything with the information that could set people free. Getting so puffed up by our education or business cards so that our eyes swell shut in seeing just how bad many people in the world have it.
The culture is making a dollar off of scripture just because it has a catchy tune associated with it or it appeals to a daughter on Fathers Day to give it to her dad.(I saw a bible entitled "The Encouragement Bible.") T-shirts and bumperstinkers that use these same words of love to express condemnation to those who haven't heard the whole story yet but are getting sick of t-shirts and bumperstinkers that misrepresent the love of Jesus and don't stick around for the ending.
Institutional budget that are set so that it is attractive for people to come to give money to a budget that is set so that it is attractive for people to come to give money to a budget that is set so that it is attractive for people to come to give money to a budget that is set so that it is attractive for people to come to give money to a budget that is set so that it is attractive for people to come to give money to a budget that is set...
"The culture has no clothes!" a child yells out as the culture goes by in a parade to honor the culture. Everyone in the culture is shocked that it would be said even though they all knew it a long time ago...
15 comments:
Wonderfully described in a lyrical way....
the world would be a better place without those bumperstinkers as a mode of communication.
I am using the anonymous route as to not confuse the point with the messenger.
I have been reading this blog for over 4 years, have rarely commented and mostly only read it to keep track of you. I have concerns that I haven't shared but it is time to begin.
Should you be in the position you are in and have these opinions that you so freely give?
Have you made any difference by being in camping instead of the real world?
Haven't you caused enough trouble in the last three years?
I can't imagine any one identity (maybe OSB?) overshadowing a message more than the anonymous dynamic. It immediately makes one think "Who wrote this?" rather than pay attention to the content of the message, which in this case isn't much.
If you really want to address a problem, try contacting TB directly. Otherwise, if you must be public, have the intestinal fortitude to put your name on it, and make an actual argument instead of just question-begging questions.
Bah, OSB should have been OBL. And this Micah Watson, just to be clear and consistent about the name thing . . .
As another longtime reader, I would support taking down anonymous critical comments such as these. There are situations, like rape and national security whistle blowing where protection of the accuser is valid, important and necessary. This does not appear to be one of those.
In my role as a pastor I have a policy of not accepting any anonymous criticism. Doing so would foster an immaturity in the congregation that would be unhelpful.
Scripture is clear in regard to the need for us to first approach someone privately when we correct them. When we involve other people, our questions or corrections are in and of themselves damaging.
I agree with Micah, that should you wish to ask these accusing questions publicly, you should make full claim for them as your own, and be equally available to public scrutiny.
Yes, Tony. By having a popular blog and hosting 80 college students for three months every year, have you ever actually been in the place to influence anyone?
Come on, anonymous. Come up with something better.
Anonymous criticism can indeed be difficult to dialog with usually because so much important context is missing.
What of those who do not have the strength to speak out on their own, however, but may have a valid point? Should we continue to force them into silence because their veiled jabs make us that uncomfortable?
This anonymous contributor to Tony's blog here sounds angry and has likely been hurt. Do your continued criticisms of them, bolstered by the aplomb of your names or not, help to remedy that wound?
It seemed to me that the point of Tony's post was not to shun the outsider. The fringe. Well, the fringe often bites. What then?
I echo your sentiments, both Bill and Micah Watson, that criticism is most effectively handled personally and with a name attached. That is not, however, how this individual has chosen to couch it for whatever reasons. Before we get too excited about defending Tony, why not let Tony address the issue at hand? No need to shoot first and ask questions later, right?
I guess my main point is this: Anonymous sounds hurt. Frustrated, angry and wounded (like many of us in many different contexts, I would venture a guess). Should that be overlooked because we disagree with the means or the end?
I think there are times when anonymous criticism is warranted. However, as with any criticism, if it begs the question, or is not offered lovingly, or it fails to hit its target, it will be divisive rather than constructive, as it appears to be in this particular case. That being said, I do tend to share some of anonymous commenter's frustration with Tony's approach to The Revolution. The main reason I think is that this post fails to hit its target: what exactly is "the culture"? The so-called Christian sub-culture? What exactly is that? And what is "the story?" And why must they be opposed to each other? As it stands, Tony's expression of frustration with bumperstinkers seems to be a bumperstinker of its own (only on a blog instead of a car), and the anonymous comment is another bumperstinker in response to Tony's, and perhaps even this comment of mine is a bumperstinker....
There is so much infighting and labelling going on right now in Christendom. Emergents seem intent on finding fault with Evangelicals, and Evangelicals are quick to return the favor. Just today someone wrote an article describing why al Qaeda supports the Emergent Church. I had to laugh at how funny that comparison was, yet it is pathetic that such a view is truly held. Nobody seems willing to even acknowledge that the other might have a point, brings something to the table. It is always one thing VS. another: the culture vs. the story, or anonymous vs. Tony, or the Emergents vs. the Evangelicals. Thankfully I'm going to the A's vs. the Angels tonight and there are $1 hot dogs. I think we need to eat more hot dogs and spend less time griping on our blogs, myself included.
I don't think I am griping. I didn't label the emergent or evangelicals or even al Qaeda. I am not joining those who are thinking about splitting with the PCUSA or the Boys Scouts.
I do know that half of the people in the world tonight will go to bed wishing they had the $1.00 that you will spend on a hot dog tonight to feed their entire family tomorrow.
I know, I just changed the course of the conversation to the hot dog and away from the fact that we don't deal with the starvation.
This is what I'm pretty sure I know.
1) Free will gives us permission to ponder and our call to live as disciples, as communal people, gives us permission to ponder out loud and maybe not be right... but the recipients of our pondering are then charged to work and refine in the name of Christ with the guiding of the Spirit.
2)Blogs are seductive because they give you insight to a person's thoughts, prayers, and mistakes but create a false notion that you are not then responsible to wrestle, refine and encourage in the way Christ has called us to live.
3)I, we, have been called to love and serve a mysterious, sovereign God... but that doesn't then give us, the communal people, permission live as either mysterious or sovereign. Christ moved into the neighborhood. God wrestled, touched hips and made it so walking with a limp was worthwhile.
I believe that in the way our anonmymous friend is challenging our Tony friend, I would like to ask that voyeurism would be laid aside and conversation (an angry one, a challenging one, a heated one, or even an theologically charged one) be offered... for the sake of growth and for the sake of the community that he/she has chosen to speak into.
Tony, you may not be griping or doing any of the labelling, but many people are, and the talk about "attacking the culture of the Institution" can come across that way. And you're right, the money that was spent on hot dogs could have fed a family for a week. Where do I send the six bucks I saved by not getting nachos?
holy crap...how did I miss THIS dialogue for so long?
Could someone puuuleeeeeze tell me what the real world is? I'm dying to know....
I still think God has placed you on the fringes as a prophet and that you are one who writes wonderfully.
"What of those who do not have the strength to speak out on their own, however, but may have a valid point?"
What is the strength we imagine a person lacks? Is it an insecurity, a moral failing, or a lack of assertiveness? I believe this more an issue of will than strength.
"Should we continue to force them into silence because their veiled jabs make us that uncomfortable?"
I am not forcing anyone into silence. Rather, I am seeking to discourage what I believe to be unethical. Anonymous criticism does not make me uncomfortable. It offends me. I find it unreasonable and damaging. There are many inappropriate means of communicating. Having a valid point does not give us license to use those means.
I do not believe it is helpful to encourage someone to criticize anonymously. I do believe it is helpful to encourage them to act in a more mature manner.
"I guess my main point is this: Anonymous sounds hurt. Frustrated, angry and wounded (like many of us in many different contexts, I would venture a guess). Should that be overlooked because we disagree with the means or the end?"
I am sorry that Anonymous may be hurt, frustrated, angry or wounded. I don't desire to overlook that. I do desire to encourage Anonymous to respond to that in a more constructive way.
I see where you're coming from, Bill. I can see that you find the anonymity offensive and painful, and I'm certain that you have some good reasons behind that. While I agree that anonymous criticism is not ideal, we're going to stay separate on it's blanket censure. This isn't the first time that the issue has arisen on this blog, unless I'm mistaken, and Tony has (courageously) left the option open for people to contribute anonymously.
I guess that I'm just an optimist, thinking that this anonymous poster isn't out trolling the blogsphere for people to eviscerate. The post to me spoke from a place of brokenness, hurt and anger. To tell someone 'Why don't you wait to contribute to until you've got yourself all patched up and can play by our rules' seems not only contrary to the point of Tony's post but itself shading towards unethical. To me. But I am young and naive and unhealthfully optimistic at times.
I think that Tony has done a very honest job of responding to the comment, again showing his desire for transparency in his ministry and willingness to bear the slings and arrows that go with his calling (and by this I do not in any way wish to intimate that they do not leave their marks). I would imagine that he counts himself blessed to be so enthusiastically defended by friends.
To wrap up this embarrassingly long comment I say this: My greatest hope for the anonymous poster is that they and Tony might be able to meet or otherwise directly converse, that wounds might be exposed and compassion might be administered like a balm with humility and caring.
Post a Comment