Demergent Churches

Pastor Ted Haggard: "I didn't relax."

2006-11-04T05:58:00.000-08:00

Pundits have noted Pastor Ted Haggard's adroit deployment of two of former President Bill Clinton's media chess gambits. On Thursday Haggard borrowed Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" Emphatic Denial Gambit when he denied ever having had a gay relationship. On Friday, Haggard employed Clinton's "I Didn't Inhale" Gambit. Former President Bill Clinton made this gambit famous when asked about smoking marijuana while a Rhodes Scholar in England.

Gambits are chess tactics that involve forfeiture of certain assets in order to buy time and/or set up an advantageous position. In Clinton's cases, the "Emphatic Denial" Gambit successfully bought time but the forfeited asset was no mere pawn, it was his integrity. In the other instance, the "I Didn't Inhale" Gambit forfeited any impression that this candidate for the United States Presidency has kept himself away from illegal narcotics, but the gambit again bought him time in the minds of enough voters that he was able to make the case for his candidacy.

Similarly, Haggard's uses of the Emphatic Denial Gambit on Thursday, November 2 bought time (very little, less than 24 hours) and the cost, like Clinton's loss, was his integrity on the issue.

Then Haggard granted an interview on Friday, November 3 to a local Colorado Springs television news crew (see left sidebar for video of interview). Asked about the allegations of Mike Jones, a gay prostitute in Denver, Haggard denied that he had used methamphetamine or had had sex with Jones.

Asked to account for what did transpire Haggard deployed the Didn't Inhale Gambit for both sets of accustion (drugs, paying for gay sex).

Regarding using illegal drugs Haggard replied, "I bought it for myself but never used it."

Regarding the allegation of a massage with a gay prostitute Haggard replied, "I did have a massage but I didn't relax."

I, Miscreant, caught up with Sometimes-Fundamentalist-But-Now-Usually-An-Evangelical leader Rev. Jerry Eatwell and asked him about his relationship with Haggard. "If I may quote the Apostle Peter, 'I do not know him,'" replied Rev. Eatwell.

Miscreant: "Rev. Eatwell, Ted Haggard said he didn't use the methamphetamine but threw it away, and he said that while he did receive a massage from gay prostitute Mike Jones that he didn't relax. What is your reaction to Haggard's statement?"

Eatwell: "That's tough. He did seek out a massage from a prostitute, and that's not good. But if he didn't relax....well..(laughs)...I don't think I'd be able to relax in that situation either. As long as he didn't relax I don't think a massage is grounds to remove him permanently from ministry."

Miscreant: "Rev. Eatwell, what about Haggard's admission of buying but not using drugs?"

Eatwell: "I don't condone buying illegal drugs. That's dishonoring to Christ. But if he didn't use them, you could say that he was removing illegal drugs from the market. If Haggard had not thrown them away, someone else would have used them."

Miscreant: "Rev. Eatwell, what would Rev. Haggard have used methamphetamine for? The drug causes a cascading release of norepinephrine and dopamine in the brain, which in turn causes a spike in feelings of excitement. Does that sound like the sort of experience one wants when one is receiving a massage?

Eatwell: "No, it doesn't. In fact it sounds like the euphoria I experience when I sit down to a big meal of chicken fried steak, black-eyed peas, mashed potatoes and a slab of pecan pie."

Miscreant: "Hm. Interesting. From video clips I've seen I'd have guessed that the charismatic worshippers at New Life Church have the same cascading release of neurotransmitters every Sunday. I wonder why Rev. Haggard felt the temptation for the narcotic version."

Eatwell: "That's a good point...... Welp, time to go...the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has a board meeting to discuss all this." With a wink he was gone.

Phil Johnson lecture analyzes Emergent movement

2006-03-11T12:43:00.000-08:00

Phil Johnson presented a lecture analyzing the Emergent movement at the recent Shepherd's Conference. Appropriately, Phil is fairly fair. While I believe aspects of almost all human endeavors merit the peculiar scrutiny provided by satire, when one is taking off the satire lens one should be scrupulously fair about one's subject. While some Emergent leaders and followers will likely have helpful correctives that bring still more balance to Phil's analysis, Phil is to be commended for trying to be fair.

Unfortunately, Phil's characteristic wit is sublimated to the task of presenting a serious lecture.

On with the lecture. This is a transcript provided by Emergent No.

Who Needs Demergent When There's Purgatorio?

2005-12-02T08:01:00.000-08:00

This is far more funny than anything I've ever come up with. And it's got pictures!

Click on this link for a photo essay on what it looks like to be Emergent.

Marc, you're a genius and my kind of miscreant.

Where Are Those Interviews?

2005-11-09T18:50:00.000-08:00

I guess it's a good sign that there is still traffic and even recent emails bludgeoning me for not finishing the McFerrin interview and for not getting on with the Krispy and Tone Jone interviews.

To all the queries, all I can say is "Season of life." There are some covenant responsibilities that I have that, in this season, make posting satire a low priority. But there is light as I near the end of tunnel, and I'll eventually get to the interviews.

To those who have emailed to ask if I am "against" McFerrin and other Emergents, no, I'm not writing these interviews "against" them personally in a deep sense. But the "conversation" they are a part of and lead contains some silly things that invite satire. You know that they, as friends, make fun of each other. I'm just writing publicly some satire that is probably very similar to the teasing they do to each other. And if they can tease each other, why can't I?

Trust me, they have engaged in quite a bit of "can you believe this crazy ----?" mocking of modernist evangelicals. I know, because I go to the public conferences. I'm not invited to the inner circle events, naturally, but I can register for the public events like any ordinary person. I grant, as I mentioned in the last interview, that McFerrin is an exceedingly kind and gracious person, and I've not personally heard any mocking from him.

Tone Jone seems to have had a personality transplant, he is now so inoffensive and "Hey man, I hear you, I feel you." Krispy is probably better humored (he's genuinely funny) than both, but he has a lacerating wit and sometimes still feels his oats and mocks with the best of them. I've only seen him in seminars but he's pretty entertaining. My guess is that Tone Jone used to apologize for offending people a lot and now just feels people and affirms them, regardless. Here's a game you can play with Tone Jone by email or on his blog or in person at a conference: try to say something that he can't find any way of affirming in his effort to have solidarity with you. He and McFerrin, they never want to "foreclose" on a conversation with a human beign.

Krispy-- when he's pissed I doubt he ever feels the need to apologize for ruffling feathers of critics. He'll foreclose the [whatever word you think appropriate] out of you if he's bored.

Circling back, when the home issues resolve a bit I'll have more time for the interviews.

~ miscreant

Doug Wilson on Emergent, leaders

2005-11-09T18:42:00.000-08:00

Doug Wilson answers questions about the similarity of the critique he presses against evangelicals, and the critique leveled against evangelicals by Emergent folks. Read Neck Kissing.

Review of Carson on Emergent Church

2005-06-05T12:14:00.000-07:00

Zipping around the evangelical blogosphere I bumped into this blog run by Denny Burk and his helpful review of Carson's book on the Emergent Church. Check it out.

Interview with Bryan McFerrin Pt. 3: Is Emergent Actually Modernist

2005-06-05T10:16:00.000-07:00

This is Part III of a multi-segment interview that took place at the Emergent Conference in Nashville in May. The interview is with Bryan McFerrin, author of A New Fangled Christian and also A Generous Ego.

Demergent Churches: That’s a good question, Mr. McFerrin. Where is the love in trying to hang you on the horns of a dilemma? Can I come back to that? [McFerrin nods with a smile.] I think I want to explain what motivates me first—it’s the idea that any human being would evade, or try to evade, the truth.

Bryan McFerrin: And you think I’m doing that?

DC: Well, yeah, I did. You saw where I was going with your statement about the movements and the Enlightenment and evangelical empires, and you tried to divert. Why would you do that?

BMc: That’s fair. And then you’ll answer the love question. [DC nods.]

BMc: Do you have any idea how much criticism people level at me? Do you know what it’s like to have legions of people hoping you’ll screw up and say something wrong so they can pounce on you? Just hoping to catch you doing badly, not wanting to call attention to you doing well.

DC: Well, besides my parents, no.

BMc: Okay, let’s work with that. Did you and your parents have a lot of conflict?

DC: Yeah, what teenager doesn’t?

BMc: Sure. And after a while there were the same old things they would harp on, right?

DC: Yeah.

BMc: And it just got old. You thought, why are we here again? Why won’t they leave me alone? Especially if you had actually done something out of line, didn’t you want to avoid the whole hassle? Didn’t you ever interrupt or try to redirect?

DC: Of course.

BMc: Well….there you have it. A lot of people are wanting me to fail and I thought, “Here’s another guy with an axe to grind trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.”

DC: Fair enough. I can understand you being exasperated with critics and this being same old, same old. [pause]

But--

BMc: [chuckling] I knew a ‘but’ was coming.

DC: [smiling] Of course. I can understand where you’re coming from about getting harassed a lot but can you understand someone who is trying his best to make sense of this……….thing, this…conversation, and he senses some things are amiss, and so he tries to pursue those things to understand only to be thrown off the scent by one of the leaders?

BMc: Yes, I can understand your frustration. But back to the love question…you said yourself you knew you had me in a contradiction of sorts. Why were you so eager to nail me with it? Where’s the love?

DC: I love Christ and His bride more than I dislike awkwardness in a conversation. Also, I don’t think love is inconsonant with truth. I believe in such a thing as truth and despite what all your critics say, I think you do, too.

BMc: Of course I believe in truth. I’m glad you get that.

DC: I do, and because we both believe in truth, and because love and truth are bound up inextricably with one another, I think it was loving to pursue the inconsistency.

BMc: You really think that the aggressiveness you showed was loving? The sudden obsession to nail me with the inconsistency?

DC: Yes, because truth and love are not alienable.

BMc: No question you were loving the truth when you became so intent on pursuing me. No question at all. But….were you loving me, the person? Were you loving me?

DC: [looking off into the distance, marveling at the lookalike goatee guys milling around the conference corridors]. No, I wasn’t. You’re right. I was loving truth and I was not loving you. But you were being evasive. But….I guess I should be able to pursue and address your evasions in a loving way. I don’t have to change into Lawyer Man just because you’re throwing up verbal obstacles.

BMc: Exactly.

DC: So….can you speak to the inconsistency?

BMc: You don’t give up, do you? [smiling] You’ve raised a fair question and honestly I am uncomfortable with this. I can say, ‘Look, this is life. It’s messy. We don’t have a script we’re following. We’re trying to listen to the Spirit, trying to learn to slow down and listen to one another, and we’re going to make mistakes, we’re going to have blind spots. We’re not going to get everything right.’

DC: True that. But this is what rubs me and it’s not restricted to you in this interview, or your books and various articles that I’ve read. With all this emphasis on the evils of the Enlightenment, and your juxtaposing your Village and movement--

BMc: Conversation.

DC: --conversation—with the baby boomers and modernists of different stripes, you have been critical. If you’re going to distinguish who you are, the things you believe and do, from other people, then you shouldn’t be doing the same things.

BMc: We’re not the same.

DC: No, you’re not, but on some of things you most find fault with modernist Evangelicals, you do do those things. Look at the cadre at the core of your Village—you’re the Emergent Mafia. You’ve got conferences around the country, speaking engagements, websites, books. It is a movement, and the Emergent Mafia runs an ever expanding empire.

BMc: Nice alliteration.

DC: Thanks. Off the cuff.

BMc: Naturally. The fact that we in the emerging churches communicate does not make us modernists. The fact that some of the communication takes place through ancient media like books, or through more contemporary media like conferences, does not make us modernists.

DC: Why is that when you describe activities or tendencies that you’re apart of you call them “contemporary” and when older, traditionalist evangelicals do them you call it “modern”? If you were saying the same thing about Al Mohler or John MacArthur you’d say “modern media like conferences.” You change the terms when you talk about your own group and I want to say that conferences like this shindig were sitting in right now in Nashvilile is a modern construct.

BMc: Ever heard of the Council of Nicea?

DC: Ever heard of consumerism? Technology? Control? Efficiency? Marketing? You must take me for an idiot if you think you can compare the Council of Nicea to Emergent Nashville ’05.

BMc: Both are conferences for talking through what God is doing, how God is leading us in mission as we transition into a new cultural epoch.

DC: What, so they had break-out sessions on the nature of Christ and the primacy of the Roman bishop? “Come to the afternoon session on using non-biblical Greek words to describe the Incarnation.” “Get your DVD of Arius’ PowerPoint on the begetting of Christ made specially for the Caesar.” “If you’re stressed out from wrangling over homoousious, come get renewed in positive energy by walking the Labyrinth.”

BMc: Are you through?

DC: I suppose. Back to the conference comparison. I can’t believe you’re saying this with a straight face. You don’t see the difference between a theological council focused on Arius’ heresy and this tech-ed up, super-hyped celebrity worship fest in Nashville? You’re going to compare the fathers of the Church resolving the crucial doctrinal dispute of their time with these cool-obsessed people here?

BMc: Why are you so harsh about the people here? These are my friends. They’re good people with sincere hearts trying to respond missionally to what God is doing in the culture.

DC: I don’t disagree that there are a lot of sincere people here doing just that. But come on, you’ve got to admit that an awful lot of people here are obsessed with being cool. And expressing it.

BMc: Again, you’re really harsh about this. I think they are reflecting the culture and loving the culture. They’re not here to bash the culture. I should say, we are not here to bash the culture. We love culture. We love people in the culture and thus it’s natural that we would look like the culture.

DC: You don’t think it’s a little weird that so many of the people here look alike?

BMc: Not at all. What is wrong with them sharing similar tastes, love for similar bands, artists, literature. It’s our affinities with what God is doing in the culture that pulls us together for conversation.

I think you’re judging people when you could be thinking that their sharing of similarities is the most normal thing in the world.

DC: I agree it’s normal….if normal is freakin’ pathetic.

BMc: Why are you on such a high horse about this? What, you’re not human? You somehow transcend the social nature of being human? You’re not like everyone else? Are you some caricature of rugged individualism? You don’t need people like the rest of us do, don’t need to fit in like the rest of us do, and so you stand there, outside and above us, judging us for needing one another. That’s what’s freakin’ pathetic, and I mean that literally. If you’re so distant and solitary, you’re the one who is a freak. Look around, the rest of us are the normal ones. We need each other and acknowledge it and it’s normal and natural when we share things in common like styles of dress and modes of speech. That’s normal.

DC: What happened to winsome McFerrin? The guy who famously doesn’t get upset with his critics? Where’s your love?

BMc: I do love you. I really do. But you piss me off and I can be pissed at you and love you at the same time. But I don’t appreciate your unloving attitude towards hundreds and thousands of your brothers and sisters in Christ. It’s arrogant and unloving and in love I’m going to call you on it.

DC: Really. And do you call them on being arrogant and unloving to modernist Evangelicals? When I hear insults of modernists Evangelicals at some of these breakout sessions I’m wondering where the love is.

BMc: I don’t condone that. If you really read my books and hear me speak you know I do not treat my traditionalist evangelical brethren badly at all. I seek to be at peace with everyone. Repeatedly I have actively encouraged Emergent people to be loving and charitable toward those traditionalists who are our critics.

DC: That’s good. That’s as it should be.

So….why can’t you take the next step on the consistency issue?

BMc: Which is what? What is the next step you have in mind?

DC: To acknowledge publicly and often that you’re like them.

BMc: I have no idea what you’re saying.

DC: Okay, I’ll try again. Let’s use what you said about pathetic Emergent types needing each other and that sharing a love for the culture has them looking like the culture and that’s the most normal thing in the world.

BMc: Okay. Yes, that’s what I said. I stand by it.

DC: So if I get you right, you’re saying I shouldn’t judge these cookie-cutter pomo, self-important, cool-obsessed people because it is NATURAL for them to be alike because they share affinities. The fact that they share these outward manifestations shows that they share affinities and so it’s natural for them to be alike.

BMc: Yes, I agree with all that. You’re reading me right.

DC: Okay. Now let’s connect the dots. The outward manifestations clue us in to the inner affinities that are shared. My contention is that Emergent types, particularly at Emergent Crack Houses like this conference are actually very similar to Enlightenment, modernist Evangelical conferences.

True, a lot of the content is different. But the deeper cultural aspects are similar. Similar hype, similar marketing machinery, similar celebrity worship. This shows that you actually have affinities with these modernist Evangelicals, just like all the goatee wearing fearless dudes here show their cultural affinities by looking the same. You’re actually very similar to your Enlightenment evangelical opponents. You and Emergent are actually quite modern, and that’s what makes your incessant explicit distinctions from modernist Evangelicals so deeply ironic. You’re just as drunk on modernity as they are, but you’re drunker because you criticize them for being what you are. You just do the same stuff with a different style--

BMc: You want me to respond to that diatribe?

Stay tuned for the next installment of this multi-part interview.

Adding Haloscan killed previous comments

2005-05-28T21:34:00.000-07:00

Those of you who wrote "Comments," thank you. I'm sorry that adding Haloscan today deleted your thoughts. It shouldn't happen again. Please keep your suggestions and contributions coming. ~miscreant

2005-05-28T16:33:00.000-07:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Interview with Bryan McFerrin Pt. 2 Avoiding the Question

2005-05-26T10:37:00.000-07:00

This is Part 2 of a multi-segment interview with Bryan McFerrin, author of A Generous Ego, which took place at the recent Emergent conference in Nashville this past week in May.

Demergent Churches: You are saying that Emergent people are NOT a movement because movements are a modernist construct. If I may paraphrase, you are saying that evangelical modernists have been doing ‘movements’ and this has been reflected in their empires, cults of personality, conferences, book deals, etc.

Bryan McFerrin: Right, but I can see you’re trying to paint us in a corner and make us look like hypocrites and I’m not—

DC: Whoa, there. Easy. I’m just trying to understand. How many times in this interview have you told me, “We’re a conversation, not a movement”? You drew that distinction and when I asked what comprised the substance of the distinction, you said, “empires, publicity machines.” I am not putting words in your mou--

BMc: Yeah, but you’re trying to catch me in a contradiction and I don’t know why you have to engage me in this sort of silliness.

DC: [pause, reflecting] Mr. McFerrin, that is a good question…Hmm….maybe because we’re having this interview in a large conference where there are Emergent stars and Emergent no-bodies, non-subtle publicity about one cool thing after another, and a room full of books from you and the other stars.

BMc: I think I—

DC: I’m just warming up.

BMc: I thought I was the one being interviewed. Aren’t you sort of inverting the whole reason we got together?

DC: Yeah, but so what? You’re pomo, you figure it out. Let’s transgress the conventions of interviewing. Or do you believe in some ‘Form of the Interview’ that we must conform to?

BMc: It just seems odd…and perhaps that you lured me here under false pretenses if you’re going to not ask me questions.

DC: I was asking you questions and you interrupted me as I was building up to my big question about your contradiction. You interrupted and said you didn’t want me painting you in a corner and then asked me why I wanted to engage in this sort of silliness. So I’m answering. Now you’re bitching that I’m answering.

BMc: It was rhetorical.

DC: So you don’t really want to engage in a real conversation. Ask your rhetorical question to make your point, head me off at the pass from asking you a hard question, and keep control of this. Manage me. Geez. I’m sorry that I called you pomo. What are you if not exemplary of modernist control?

BMc: Wow, you’re angry. Why do you think you have so much anger?

DC: Bryan, I am frustrated at the moment, not in life in general, because I was trying to be a good interviewer and hang you on the horns of dilemma. You didn’t want to be hung so you tried to take control. I’ve tried to answer and you tell me your question was just rhetorical. Why wouldn’t I be frustrated? I keep thinking there’s this contradiction that you need to answer for and you keep throwing whatever you can in my path to keep me from getting there. But I can see the destination in my mind’s eye. I know that contradiction question is just sitting there, begging to be asked, and I’ll jump around or over or under every obstacle you throw until you ‘get real’ and answer the question.

BMc: Why are you so desperate to hang me on the horns of a dilemma? Where is the love in that?

DC: Rhetorical?

BMc: No, that one’s real. Go ahead and answer.

Part III will appear soon.

Interview with Bryan McFerrin, Part 1 "It's a Conversation"

2005-05-21T21:14:00.000-07:00

Demergent Churches sat down with Bryan McFerrin, author of A Generous Ego, in Nashville this weekend at the big Emergent conference. This did not take place in a coffee house, no coffee was drunk, no beer was consumed, neither party listened to an iPod, and no text messaging took place. This is Part One of a multi-segment interview.

Demergent Churches: “Cardinal” Bryan McFerrin, thank you for sitting down with us for an interview.

Bryan McFerrin: You’re welcome. But I must say, I don’t really like the title “Cardinal.”

DC: My bad. I was just kidding. But aren’t you something like a Cardinal of the Emergent Village?

BMc: Well, technically no one is in charge. We don’t recognize authority, hierarchies. And so “Cardinal” would not be appropriate.

DC: What do you prefer? Don’t you, in fact, exercise great leadership in the Village?

BMc: I wouldn’t say I ‘lead’. I express thoughts I’m having and engage others in conversation.

DC: So you’re a Thinker in the movement.

BMc: Well, yes and no. I am a thinker but it’s not a movement. It’s a conversation.

DC: Wouldn’t it be fair to say that you are the principal Thinker of the Village? I know there are other players, but given the reception of A New Fangled Christian and A Generous Ego, it would seem that you’re the 400lb gorilla of the movement.

BMc.: You mean 800lb gorilla. And it’s not a movement. It’s a conversation. [frown]
..... [smile]

DC: Conversation. Right. Sorry.

BMc: I am uncomfortable with the titles, the emphasis on my leadership.

DC: And I’m just trying to say what is actually going on. I appreciate your humility, and all, but can’t we just be real? Name another living person who exercises more influence on the Village?

BMc: [crabby] Oh, alright.

DC: So what would your position be in the movement.

BMc: [eye brow raised, as if DC is a bit off] Conversation.

DC: Right. Conversation. So what is your position? Given that you’re the most influential person...

BMc: We don’t do hierarchies. We don’t have lines, or structure. [pause] I guess you could say that I function as something of a guru.

DC: So you’re the guru of a conversation? [upspeak, reflecting incredulity]

[uncomfortable silence]

BMc: Look, I didn’t want to get into all this emphasis on my leadership but you said you wanted to be honest. So yeah, I haven’t sought it out at all, but yeah, people see me as something of a guru.

DC: Of a conversation?

BMc: Why do you have to make fun?

DC: I’m not trying to make fun. It’s just a little weird. Come on, a conversation? Gimme a break. It’s freakin’ movement!

BMc: No it’s not. Movement is so Enlightenment and we’re past all that.

DC: Okay, what makes it a conversation?

BMc: We don’t have a top down hierarchical leadership structure. We’re not building empires of books and conferences focused on a cult of personality. That’s the modernist way, it’s very much of the world and we’re not doing that.

There’s a lot of danger in knowledge and power. Power can be and is used all the time in the church to hurt people. We’re trying to make a new way, to give power away, like Frodo in the Lord of the Rings. Boromir wanted the One Ring so he could take on Mordor, but look what would have happened? Even without the Ring he was corrupted. How much worse would he have been once the Ring owned him?

DC: So how’s this about the Enlightenment again?

BMc: Trust me, everything we do comes back to that. If I don’t reference the Enlightenment or modernism every 3 minutes something is wrong. The Emergent Conversation exists to tell young people about the evils of the Enlightenment.

Back to Frodo. If the Church tries to be like Boromir, and it was in the modern period, trying to take power back from secularism and trying to wield power, if the Church tries to be like that we’re just going to keep on hurting people, losing people. We’ve got to be like Frodo, and intentionally march to Mount Doom to destroy the Ring.

DC: And a conversation does that?

BMc: Yeah, it does. Look around you, what do you see? Evangelical empires, cults of personality, publicity machines, book deals, radio shows, television shows, conferences. It’s about top down authority, doing what works to grow the organizations, straitjacket thinking, efficiency, results. This is an abuse of power and a bastardization of the gospel. We’re not going to do that. Instead we’re having a conversation.

DC: So the conversation is a reaction against the evils of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was about knowledge as power, and the Church did that too. Is that what you’re saying? That’s why you’re a conversation, not an evil modernist movement?

BMc: Yes, that’s right.

DC: So, you guys must be doing things really differently.

BMc: [smiling] Yes, we are trying to.

DC: So no empires, no cult of personality, publicity machines, book deals conferences….

BMc: Uh. Well…..

Further segments of the interview with Bryan McFerrin will appear soon.