Not that anyone reads my site, but if someone did, they probably already know about these two subjects. I can't say anything (much) that hasn't already been said, but I'm gonna talk about it anyhow. I think these subjects are worthy of one or two more posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First: In a nutshell (or as emergent-me likes to say "in a cubbyhole"): Paul Proctor has had a few not-so-nice things to say about the tragic passing of Pastor Kyle Lake. I would link to Mr. Proctor's statement, but in the words of Joe Thorn:
"I am not interested in driving more traffic to those sites which, in this case, are revealing puerile theology and haughty words."
If you really want to read it, you can visit one of my links at the end of this section, and they will direct you there.
I (unfortunately for me) was not familiar with Mr. Lake prior to when the news of his passing flooded most of my daily blog-reads. However, I do have enough faith in the judgment of my many brothers and sisters who DID know and love him to say this: it is clear to me he was well-loved and will be greatly missed.
I wish to comment on the controversy that has transpired due to Mr. Proctor's unkind approach to this situation. I wish to quote Mr. Proctor briefly, to give you a sense of his thoughts, but I don't care to spend any more time than necessary on this man's ideas.
"I would only add that the Emergent Church is also in a really bad place right now; that many spiritual laws are also being violated; and they would do well to heed the Word of God and repent before their artsy-craftsy plans for the future are unexpectedly altered, like Rev. Lake's."
The forefront of this issue (and maybe the whole emergent-postmodern vs. traditional-conservative-fundamentalist-evangelical debate) is really very simple to me. It's one thing to disagree, even to vehemently disagree, which is a subject I intend to discuss in the second half of this post. There is a lot to be said for good-natured, good-spirited debate and firmly held beliefs. However, as far as I'm concerned, the moment you wish ill will towards (or exploit ill that has befallen) one of your brothers in Christ, that is the moment a serious problem in your faith becomes evident. I cannot for a moment imagine Christ speaking this way about the death of a man who served Him. Now, I understand that Mr. Proctor doesn’t seem to believe that Mr. Lake WAS serving Christ, but even so…when a well-loved Jewish Rabbi, or any other religious leader, dies in some unexpected accident, I would never be inclined to say that person died because they did not repent for their wrong beliefs or improper teaching.
When I realize some of the ways in which Mr. Proctor used the bible to support his beliefs about Mr. Lake, I wonder…didn’t Christ also teach love, mercy, peace, gentleness…? I believe we must always be seeking the appropriate balance between calling people to the table for every perceived "unrighteousness", and dispensing liberal mercy and grace…after all, last time I checked, we ALL are still human.
What I don't see is a biblical argument that proves to me that Christ would ever wish a Pastor to die as punishment for any of the things Mr. Proctor has suggested that Mr. Lake was guilty of.
I hope Mr. Proctor's final words will be of some comfort to Mr. Lake's family:
"And we know that all things work together for good to the87 that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28
Here are links to just a few things some emergent-type-folks have to say about this subject:
Jordan Cooper
Bob Hyatt: Here and here
Andrew Jones
Joe Thorn
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on to other matters:
Justin Baeder, of Radical Congruency, has opened a can of worms...not to say that it's a bad can of worms. He has decided to...hmm...how shall I say...fight blog with blog.
It's called :Emergent What?
I'll let him describe it for you:
"This site is an aggregator for several anti-emerging-church blogs. Comments are welcome from people of all theological perspectives and backgrounds. Authors retain copyright for their work; see the permalink at the end of each post to view the original and any comments on the author's site."
The anti-emerging blogs in question are "Slice of Laodicea" and "EmergentNo". I won't link to them, either (see above).
Briefly...the two blogs in question (henceforth referred to as the TBIQ) tend to be pretty darned anti-emerging. Now, I personally have only visited either a handful of times, but I hear plenty more about it in this grapevine called RSS FEEDS. The way I understand it is the TBIQ tend to censor their comments to the point that no one of any differing opinion is allowed to post a comment. Justin Baeder believes everyone should have a right to comment on the issues raised by the TBIQ, so he has created a blog allowing people to do just that.
For brevity, I'm not going to discuss the specifics or give examples. I'll include some links at the bottom where you can find some other people's thoughts about :EmergentWhat?...for now, I just want to stop and think about this whole thing for a moment. And I may raise some hackles...
I can't say how much I love my emerging brothers and sisters. I have found my place among them, and have more peace than ever before in my life. For the first time in my life, I feel a sense of belonging to something bigger than me and yet a part of me.
Please know my following questions are just that. They are not a call to arms, they are only questions...
And yet...I suspect there is something larger at play here. We emergent types are so accustomed to defending ourselves, our beliefs and our practices of our faith, is it possible that sometimes we don't realize when it's time to let go? I have certainly not been faced (yet) with the types of personal criticism that are typical of the folks behind the TBIQ. I cannot say how I would respond if it were me, and I'm not saying I would do differently.
I wonder if we can't send a louder message by ceasing to listen to/engage with our critics. I understand that one of the points of the emerging church is conversation, discussion. I can imagine how frustrating it could be when those critics refuse to converse or discuss with us.
Can we move on? Can we, as the collective EC, feel confident enough in our identity to feel secure in our beliefs and practices? Can we show, by example, that we are not concerned enough with differences of belief/theology/doctrine (isn't that one of the "tenets" of the EC?) to be bothered by this anymore? Can we turn the other cheek?
I am not questioning the motives or character of those that want badly enough to converse with the TBIQ, that they are willing to take matters into their own hands. I understand and agree with the reasoning behind this.
But I wonder if it's necessary. In the end, who do we answer to? Who will judge our loyalty to the Gospel? Certainly not the folks as the TBIQ.
I would appreciate and be interested in any views on this matter. I am only thinking out loud, not saying that I have decided to condemn the approach to discussion.
After all, I subscribe to the "grapevine" feed of :EmergentWhat? What does that make me?
Some other thoughts on the subject:
Scott Berkhimer
Chad at Addison Road
Alan Hartung
Bob Hyatt
Leighton Tebay
Endnote (and why I have discussed these two different subjects in the same post): It seems the authors of the TBIQ seem to be somewhat of the same sentiment as Mr. Proctor (see above) regarding Pastor Kyle Lake's passing. I think this relates the person who can be so callous about a person's death and a person who can be so critical and unaccepting of discussion. It's fundamentalism at it's worst.