Andrew's "Open Letter to DA Carson"

The following is from Andrew Jones' blog today. Andrew was one of the originial creators and shapers of Emergent. He has been an active participant in the emerging church conversation for years. If there is such a thing as an "expert on the emerging church" it would be a title easily applied to Andrew. He is friend of the US Emergent conversation and a personal friend of many of us. The following sets a wonderful pastoral tone that many of us are praying will become the tone of the overall Emergent conversation:

---

An Open Blog Post for Don Carson
by Andrew Jones

Hi Don. Your book "Becoming Conversant with Emergent" comes out in June and I am awaiting my copy. But some clarification before then would help me. We bloggers are sticklers for the truth . . as Dan Rather found out.

Hey – I hate open letters . . . they are too long, too formal and they assume a personal enmity that is not always there. I thought an open blog post would be a little less formal, and would carry an extra level of communal accountability – for both of us. Readers would be welcome to say if my post was unfair or inaccurate, and they could also hear you say something (anything you want) as a response. Or you could ignore it and no one would ever know if you read it or not - then you could maintain your reputation without resorting the demands of us bloggers.

Sorry to bring you over to our new media world. I requested your email address on September 3, 2004, hoping to send you a personal email, but was denied by Christway Media - they said you would respond before Christmas in your book - and now we have to wait until June . . and even then we don't know if you will be responding to our concerns or not. Forgive me if i am impatient, but there is a lot at stake.

Firstly, you need to know that YOU ARE LOVED. People credit your character whenever they mention you. Many of the leaders in the Emerging Church were trained by you. Your books are on their shelves and you have brought people closer to the Scriptures and their Author. Please do not assume disrespect in this blog posting. I just want to clear up a few things so that I know the skinny on where you stand and can be truthful in what I say about your tape series (which I listened to) and your book “Becoming Conversant with Emergent" (which I have already ordered). Under different circumstances, you and I would get on really well, apart from you being a well known Bible teacher and me just a poor missionary who blogs instead of sending a traditional monthly prayer letter.

I write this as a leader in what is now known as the emerging church or emergent church. We are not committed to that name, but there is much criticism towards it at the moment and I feel that standing into the criticism rather than running from it will do us good in the long run, even though it may tarnish our reputations in the short term. But if the name was taken from us, we would no doubt continue starting church planting movements in the emerging culture in the same way, but then we would have to wait for a new identity to build, so that people could criticize us . . and why should we wait that long? Much better to accept the current criticism and respond to it. It sharpens us like iron, and righteous people welcome criticism.

I also write this as a blogger with a loud voice on the internet. When people type “Don Carson, emerging church” into their Google search engines, the postings on my blog (tallskinnykiwi.com) have been coming up in the Top 3 listings – well ahead of your tapes or book, making me somewhat of a doorway to your material. This was not intentional. Just a perk of being a new media publisher rather than an old media book person. (You wont find my writings in a book store). For the record, I had a Sleepless Night when I first listened to your tape and then responded with The Skinny on Carson's Emerging Church Tapes. You also made it into my Emergent Criticism Hall of Fame.The first two posts are worth reading, simply for the intelligent comments from people - which may serve you as an accurate reflector of the response to your upcoming book.

After thinking on your tape series for 5 months, I return to what i initially stated after my sleepless night:

"Regarding the accusation that emerging church people do not believe in truth or moral absolutes and that they tolerate everything, my response is this . . .
1. That is not true.
2. That is not right.
3. I will not tolerate it.
4. Because of answers 1-3, either Carson's description of someone in the emerging church is not correct, or I am not a part of the emerging church." Link

I also write as a leader inside Emergent, and one who gave the thumbs up for Brian McLaren to join the group. We were called Young Leaders back then, as you know, and were sponsored by Leadership Network. At the time, the group was getting negative press for an angry spirit (partly true – but certainly not me!) and I thought Brian would add some gentleness to the group and help with image management. Which happened! I am glad to have Brian as a friend, even though his theology is different than mine. I see him not as THE leader, but as one of the many players in the group, although he has become more famous because of his books. Brian does not represent the group's theology, anymore than I represent the group's ecclesiology (I have been bugging Brian about simple organic church for years but so far he hasn't heard me). Actually, I think diversity in the group is more a strength than a weakness and we have been criticized for lack of it.

I also write as a missions consultant, working to connect the global emerging church with the traditional mission and denominational structures. I have been involved in dozens of countries and am happy to report that there are great inroads into the emerging cultures with the gospel. There are new churches being started with little or no resources in Europe, Asia, South and North America, and these new wineskins are finding much in common with emerging churches around the globe. Your tape series and book may discredit their ministries and threaten their connection with those who sent them. I feel somewhat responsible to defend them against your accusations, since I have recommended this particular course of ministry to their leaders and to the young people on the ground,.

I don’t want to argue your points or your criticism. I have done so briefly, half-heartedly, as have many others. There is a lot of talk. Traditionals say that Emergents don’t believe in truth and Emergents say that Traditionals are not honest. I don’t want to add to it. But I do want to ask you a few questions, so that all of us will have greater access to the Truth, truth that is absolutely true as much as is possible in this murky blogosphere of ours.

4 QUESTIONS FOR DR. DON CARSON:

1. It has been said that you have never visited an emerging church, and yet you have written a book called “Becoming Conversant with Emergent”. Earlier on, we assumed (and I WRONGLY stated) that you had attended the Emergent Convention but now people say that you did not attend that either. I have since recanted my statement, in accord with the truth, and have apologized for my misinformation. But the question remains. So . . . have you ever been to an emerging church or gathering, and if so, which one?

2. By not responding to any of us, you seem to have risen above mutual accountability in the Body of Christ. We would consider this dangerous and would not tolerate such behavior if we encountered it among our own leaders. Such behavior could lead to heresy or worse. So . . . have you responded to anyone in the emerging church who, like me, have offered a defence and a reason for the hope within us, and can we read what you have written? This may be the single most important issue for some of us.

3. Our friends in the Vineyard Movement say that your unwillingness to reconsider or even respond to critics is a pattern. They apparently feel that you misrepresented them in one of your earlier writings and, just like now, you would not respond to their questionings and demands for truthfulness. So . . . did you ever respond to them, recant or apologize for mistakes or at least write something for them that we could read or link to?

4. We admit that some of our churches suck. And there are thousands of them around the globe, many of them brand new, immature, unwise and adolescent, so finding the ones that suck is not that difficult. But you have not yet given us a good model of church to compare ourselves to, or a direction to take if we choose NOT to start emerging churches out of our new believers instead of traditional churches. Please bear in mind that many of us in global ministry are starting churches in VERY non-Christian countries, and often with no budget or support, and therefore buying a building or renting one is not always an option – neither is paying a full time pastor, or paying for a seminary education. So . . .
before we tell our emerging house churches to look for real estate, and
before we tell our front line missionaries to leave the drug addicts on the streets and return to the suburbs, and
before we shut down our web-sites and move back to books and articles, and
before we retool our simple church training at festivals and drum up funding to rent conference centers and hotels, and
before we take ministry out of believers homes and place it in an A-Frame building with a big parking lot  . . .
please tell us about the local church you give leadership to and why you think it would make a better model than the churches we are starting.

Don, I wish you every rich blessing in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I ask you to pray for me that God will teach me his ways, and that I will always remain open to the Truth of his revelation,

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Jones
April 15, 2005

Comments

[Wes Allen]

I would be nice if DA Responded...

[tooaugust]

1. I don't think Dr. Carson sits at home and surfs the net all day. How would he even know about this?

2. As one who actually knows Carson, he's an incredibly busy person. His wife undergoing Cancer, a million and one people from all directions wanting him to read or comment upon something either he or someone else has written or said, Classes to teach, books and articles to write and edit, conferences to attend and oversee, raise his family, etc. In fact, I don't know anyone busier than Dr. Carson. I was amazed at how much he had to deal with and take on as opposed to other Professors and Pastors. I would cut him some slack and not view his lack of response to you as apathy.

[chris lancaster]

No human being is too busy to answer the four questions posed in the post. If Carson is going to bash people, he should at least respond in some form to their repeated requests for some sort of contact with him. It seems like he's just wanting to attack them, but not actually treat them like people worthy of meeting with and talking to. He apprently has shown no interest so far in talking to anyone in the movement--he just wants to attack it with a book. How can you respect that? And if it's part of a pattern of that kind of behavior, you're getting a glimpse into the kind of man and scholar he is.

[tooaugust]

This just goes to show how hate-filled and intolerant you people really are. You know nothing about him. It may seem like no one is too busy to answer four questions (which by the way turn into 4,000 questions when it becomes everyone wanting your attention and time) when YOU aren't him, and sit around all day answering blogs, but he is just that busy. And the four "minute and simple" questions are really just loaded questions, filled with all sorts of other things to address. It would take, oh i don't know, A BOOK to answer them. Oh yeah, he has done that, so attack away, but you're losing all credibiliy of niceness and understanding, and turning back into the "I just hate my Dad" movement.

[jeff stilwell]

tooaugust and Chris,
I believe the post was written for clarification. An "out" has been given to Dr. Carson. I believe this post has given him the utmost respect from every aspect. Niether of you are proving your point, just your disdain for the other side. I thought emergent was more than that. I value my SBC education and upbringing and weep for my consevative brothers who are missing out on more. Not because I'm better than them. I see everyday how small I really am. Let's not throw the mud, wait for Dr. Carson's response, or his book and go from their. Theological differences aside, I hope we're still on the same team.

[chris lancaster]

How is my response "hate-filled"? I just wondered how he could be too busy to address any of these questions, visit an emergent church, talk on the phone with anyone in the emergent leadership, or write a simple email. If you have a problem with someone, the biblical method is to go to them and address it personally. He hasn't made an attempt to do that, although emergent people have repeatedly tried to reach out to him. He did the same thing to the Vineyard churches when he criticized them and to others--so this is nothing new. What does this repeated pattern say about his method and his personality?

And what is "loaded" about the questions Andrew asked? They seem pretty straight-forward to me: Have you visited an emergent church? Have you talked to anyone in emergent? Have you responded to anyone from Vineyard? Can you tell us about your church? Nothing too complicated. He could probably answer them in five minutes.

If he doesn't answer them, I think that says something about him. And to say that is not hate-filled in the least.

[tooaugust]

Whatever makes you sleep at night, Chris. My whole point is that you don't know him or who he has responded to. He didn't respond to anyone in the Vineyard movment? That's funny. He worked with Grudem at Trinity for about a decade. His students are from all areas of the Church (from Vineyard to Emergent to Eastern Orthodox--there were even some Roman Catholics there when I was there). You no nothing of what his experience is in dealing with people. Secondly, does someone have to EXPERIENCE something in order to critique it. That sounds very cult-like to me. "Oh you just don't know what a great Church and Christian life the Book of Mormon has brought about in my life because you have never really prayed about it, gone to a Mormon Church, etc." Newflash: Experience is data coming into your life. You interpret with a worldview. You therefore don't interpret experience with experience, so it is irrelevant whether or not he has visited an emergent church or not. I have never been to an emergent church and yet can get what it is saying from its major proponents and you on the net. Am I at a loss because I didn't go to one and have an emotional experience there to where i would lose my ability to test the spirits because of my newfound partiality to my experience? Do I need to experience suicide to talk about why its wrong, or sell drugs before I criticize a drug dealer? I understand that if what is being said is that he needs clarification on what emergent is, then he needs to get that from emergent people; but it seems to me that much of what Andrew brought up is true of a lot of emergent folk I have spoken to. The difference is not that it is moral relativism (although on many moral issues I have seen in the movement moral relativists), but instead an attitude of theological irrelevance to the Christian life and unity (which is a practical form of relativism whether or not it stems from a philosophical form or not). So the questions are loaded and seek to dismiss Carson's concerns by using different definitions for what each means by faith, unity, Christian mind, etc. And you Chris, should obey Scripture and "not judge before the time." I've seen God crush the man through his wife's battle with Cancer, his concern for the Church in all areas of CHurch life (including even trying to produce deeper music for it), a concern for His students in all aspects of life, etc. And he is one of the most well balanced people theologically. He always listens to what is being said and takes far more ecumenical positions than I ever would. Once again, Chris, I'm sure everyone will "side" with you on it since you're the emergent guy and i'm not, but I am the one who actually knows anything about him in this conversation, so your judgmental dogmatism that he should answer you at your beck and call is but a noisy gong and clanging symbol.

[bill]

I'm not really interested in entering the apparent free with Chris and TooAugust but I would like to say I think Andrew did a commendable job of inviting serious discourse. The questions are reasonable and I would think one could give an intial answer without much effort. While I wholeheartedly sympathize with kind of harried schedule Carson must have I would suggest that if he has time to write and talk about the subject (in more than just a simple editorial column)he ought to make time for those on the receiving end of his criticism who would like to engage with him. I would not think it wise for him to do so via this sort of forum but I think meeting with or corresponding with a few folks like the Emergen leadership team would be quite reasonable.

[matt]

I comment with much trepidation. I don't want to enter into the fray that is happening here on the blog and may be beginning in a more broad context. I also potentially will have to face the man (D.A.) and his colleagues/community in an upcoming graduation ceremony.

I made a post back in December but removed it in fear of retribution. The faculty at Trinity have to do some sort of "vote of approval" for graduates before they allow you to graduate. I really don't know the details or what is required or what it means. I had experienced enough negative attention while there and in my writing that in a small way I was afraid of being "black balled" and not given a degree. So, I removed the post. Not sure how I feel about that...I have mixed feelings.

But I removed it because...I am afraid of them and the power they yield. Not because they are malicious - far from it. I learned incredible things from them and I believe they have hearts for God. If given a chance I believe each one of them would stand with Peter at risk of being stoned and say, "by no other name is man saved" and that makes them men and women I want to be close to and have on my side, regardless of my fear of them. The fear I have is because I believe there is a legitimate blindspot in their theological/epistemological/paradigmatic perspective. I don't think they understand. Not because they can't but they don't need to...do they? I'm not sure myself. And they probably don't have the time to either.

What was said about them not having time is soooo true! They don't. They have lives, families, their own people to shepherd and care for (regardless of whether you agree with the structure or methods in which their community ask them to shepherd them). They are pursuing God and just as Paul they struggle with their own flesh and blood in the midst of all that. The men and women teaching at Trinity (and in D.A.'s community) are in the body of Christ struggling to honor God with all they have, and they have done quite a good job at doing that...but they haven't seen Him face to face yet either.

So...what's my point.

I think they are playing chess on another chess board. Or, it could be stated, we are playing chess on another chess board. The word "dialogue" means something different. The word "truth" means something different. Our epistemologies (the way we categories and process what we know) is different. Our theologies, and the names in which we cry out to, and in particular the person we cry out through for forgiveness is stil Jesus Christ, son of God.

It is kind of like trying to play chess with someone who is playing on a different board than you are. They make a move but not on the board you are playing on, so you can’t ever make a move for them to respond to. Of course, vice-versa, they can never make a move for you to respond to. There really is no game because there really is no common chess board.

And, in this I believe there really is no dialogue because there really is not common ground...except maybe...Scripture and who they cry out to.

What does it mean when Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life?" I think, in the end, both Andrew and D.A. will say things with the same "meaning" and live very similarly.

[Bill]

So let me get this straight...the man who wrote a book critiquing something has no time to talk about that subject...no time to talk to or fellowship with those whom he has criticized? Yeah, that totally makes sense.

[chris lancaster]

It's sad that you have to live in such fear, Matt.

[matt]

about the time...

It's not that he doesn't "have" the time...he chooses what to do with his time - as do we all. He wrote a book and I'm sure it will say what he wants to say. Maybe a response, maybe just his thoughts. But "how" he responds will be so different I don't think we will "hear" it. It really is like another language...I can't explain it better than that after living and studying there 2 years.

But my point is, that his choice on how to use his time (and many other things) is like it's made in another culture - it's probably so different than some of us that it's almost like in another time or age or "dimension."

It's different. How his "community" thinks about all this is different. So different, I don't think there is going to be a connection made (but I could be wrong)

[matt]

about the fear...

it is sad and much commentary could be spilled on that in many ways...

But...it should speak louder than anything else I wrote in that long post (in multiple ways, some in which are quite humbling for me).

[Ken Archer]

As a friend and participant in these Emergent conversations, I am confused by our general response to criticism from outsiders like Carson, Mohler and others. I have boiled this confusion down to four questions I'd like to pose. Hopefully you can help me see something in the criticism from Carson and others that I don't currently see.

(1) Why, friends, aren't we looking forward to criticism from outsiders?

(2) Didn't Carson, Erickson and others have worthwhile comments in Reclaiming the Center that many of us could learn from?

(3) What better way to demonstrate our belief in truth than to anticipate, welcome and then thoughtfully and respectfully respond to criticism?

(4) Shouldn't we distinguish the substance of criticism (which we may learn from) from the context and manner with which it is delivered, and focus on the substance?

[matt]

(4) Shouldn't we distinguish the substance of criticism (which we may learn from) from the context and manner with which it is delivered, and focus on the substance?

I resonate deeply with Ken's last question. I struggled for a long time to "hear" the substance of the discussion that I found myself in the middle of at Trinity Divinity. It was quite the humbling experience to see my own struggle with context and manner rather than taking in the heart/substance. A humility I hope to remember and an experience that seems to have changed me...though time will continue to tell if I can change/repent of many things.

[david]

haven't joined in anything here, and don't want to stir the pot more, but have some thoughts.
i'm a pastor who would be considered emergent by evangelicals and evangelical by emergents. i guess that makes me a fence sitter.
i have listened to carson's lectures several times. i was deeply disappointed by his shallow analysis (perhaps this is a reflection that he truly doesn't have the time...or value the time...to engage in this conversation) of the EC. i thought a man of his stature should have done a better job.
on the other hand, i have searched far and wide for a reasonable response and have found few. Scot McKnight's is the best i've seen.
andrew's criticism in the "open post" seems to be directed toward Carson's unwillingness to respond. we need to be fair to dr. carson and recognize that he is not obligated to answer every query that comes his way (which i'm sure is an immense number).
THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM, PLEASE READ IT AS AN ILLUSTRATION. i have been working on an article regarding EC and Youth Ministry. as part of my research i sent out an email with about 5 questions to 10 "emergent bloggers" as listed by worship leader magazine. i also sent the email to several of the well-known authors from "Emergent". i only received substantive replies from 2. not sour grapes, i understand because i'm not always quick with my responses, but lets try to cut D.A. the same slack we cut ourselves!
...and lets hope his book is more substantive than his lectures!

[andrew jones]

hi

just found this conversation - thanks for the comments.

Heres a quick resonse to your queries:

1. Don Carson may not have time to respond to me, and thats OK. He is busy and may want to chat with someone more academic or on the same institutional level. I understand.

2. We should pray for his wife.

3. People should read the series of blog posts i have written over the past 5 months to get a better picture of my own journey and struggle with Carson's tape series , as well as my respect for the man.

4. The post was written by myself, and maybe, in some ways, was more of a "what andrew would ask don carson if we met in a coffee shop" than an official challenge. I didnt realize the amount of response the post would get.

[Scot McKnight]

There have been some good things said about my column on this, and I appreciate it; I'm now done with a response (www.jesuscreed.blogspot.com).

[matt]

McKnight's assessment on his blog speaks clarity into my experience of study with them and makes some more sense out of my struggle in studying under/with them. Though I bear little weight compared to Scott, I would say my experience of study with them (and subsequently D.A.) falls in the same description.

[Fajita]

People who don't know Jesus don't give a rip what D.A Carson and Andrew Jones have to say.

I hope that good conflict can be had by all, but not at the cost of looking like fools. Should we argue theology in a way Jesus wouldn't? Where in the world is our deep ecclesiology? We're all brothers and sisters, but it doesn't require sibling rivalries.

[Bob Robinson]

I've never heard of a TEDS student being "black-balled". That surprises me. Hey, they graduated me! If you speak your mind (as I did on more than one occasion!), you may ruffle some feathers; but the overall tone on the Trinity campus is one of grace and dialogue. Most of the profs (though not all, of course) are both academic AND pastoral in their approach.

I have many issues with Don Carson's lecture series against Emergent. And I feel that he does indeed come across as haughty, aloof and maybe even arrogant at times. But he also is a top-notch New Testament scholar and is passionate for the Church--he is both academic and pastoral.

What did you do at TEDS to make so many enemies, Matt? That truely is hard to do.

[Bob Robinson]

I've never heard of a TEDS student being "black-balled". That surprises me. Hey, they graduated me! If you speak your mind (as I did on more than one occasion!), you may ruffle some feathers; but the overall tone on the Trinity campus is one of grace and dialogue. Most of the profs (though not all, of course) are both academic AND pastoral in their approach.

I have many issues with Don Carson's lecture series against Emergent. And I feel that he does indeed come across as haughty, aloof and maybe even arrogant at times. But he also is a top-notch New Testament scholar and is passionate for the Church--he is both academic and pastoral.

What did you do at TEDS to make so many enemies, Matt? That truely is hard to do.

[tooaugust]

I agree with Bob. The only thing I can think of Matt is that you're talking about a major sin issue that you would be unrepentant of. Otherwise, if not, I don't know any position that would get you isolated. As I said elsewhere, there are people from all walks of life (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, Emergent, Evangelical, Calvinist, Arminian, etc.). This must be about something else than doctrine, no?

[SS]

It is unfortunate that many, many people follow the people who write, teach, speak, pastor...but, it's a human characteristic and one Paul directly addressed.

It's also human nature to be defensive of our own "side" or belief, and even within such an "open" community, defensiveness will take a negative form.

The good news is, we are all fallen and sinful, errant, flawed...and thank God He has given us brains, mentors, His Own Word--in short, all we need to draw our own conclusions. And a thread that struck a chord with me--we can, indeed, learn from even those we disagree with.

[matt]

I would be glad to express some of my story privately. But be careful how much you assume of me.

[John Mortensen]

There is a story behind Dr. Carson's lectures and book that may shed some light on all this, although certainly not bring any resolution.

Who I am and why I know this:

I serve on the faculty of Cedarville University in Ohio, where the famous lectures were delivered. This is me:

http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/mortensj

And this:

www.johnmortensen.com/blog

And I am connected to Emergent this way:

http://www.walp-ec.com/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=116

So, anyway, sorry for the self-aggrandizement, and here is the story.

On the campus of Cedarville we sometimes get to know students who are struggling to make sense out of following Jesus. Two friends and I started a group called Underground, to which some of the less evangelically-adapted students came. We decided to use McLaren's New Kind of Christian as a starting point for discussion.

Underground then became the focal point for much criticism of McLaren, us, Emergent, and all things supposedly post-modern. (I still get called a postmodern on campus, although sometimes it's just in fun. I respond by calling my detractors Cartesian Positivists. Then I kick them and run away.)

Just at this point the Bible faculty had the task of choosing the Staley Lecturer for the year. They had already asked Dr. Carson to come, but only two weeks before the lectures he was asked to change his topic to the Emerging Church. This was the bible faculty's way of trying to deal with us. Whether it was an attempt to start dialogue, shed light, or just napalm us into oblivion, I know not.

This may explain the hasty assemblage of thoughts which became the lectures and then the book. I do not mean to excuse it, but only to relate what I know.

My friend Dr. David Mills, who also was involved in Underground, attended the lectures and wrote a response which has circulated widely on the web. You can find it here:

http://www.kevers.net/mills_staley_response.pdf

Dave's insight, as well as his charity and restraint, are models for me.

Most hilarious line of the lectures: "Post-mechanistic???? We're building more robots than ever!"

We almost fell on the floor.

So there you have a bit of the history.

Everybody, be excellent to each other.

John Mortensen

[tooaugust]

Hey John,
you forgot to say "and party on, Dudes." :)
Thanks for the insight.

[Bob Robinson]

John,
Thanks from me too.

"This may explain the hasty assemblage of thoughts which became the lectures and then the book."

VERRRRY INTERESTINGGGGG!

[Bob Robinson]

Matt,
I'd love to understand your story, and seek to empathize in private.
I think that what tooaugust and I kind of bristled at is this: When you wrote (very PUBLICALLY) that "I had experienced enough negative attention while there and in my writing that in a small way I was afraid of being "black balled" and not given a degree", it struck us as "that doesn't sound right."
You're right, we do not know your situation. But from our vantage point, we could not allow that kind of statement to just hang there without TEDS alum speaking up and saying that it sounded not very Trinity-like.
As I write this comment, I am also writing to you directly, so you can tell me the scoop (not that I want the juicy gossip, but if I can pray with and for you and your coming graduation, I'd love to do that).

[Bob Robinson]

Based on what John Mortensen wrote above, I have a theory (and check me if I’m out of line in suggesting it—I can probably count on tooaugust to do so! I do not want to besmirch Carson’s character, but the theory below fits into what tooaugust said about Carson being “incredibly busy”).

Here it is:
Carson had a short time to prepare for a lecture series. He already thought lowly of Emergent because he already called Stan Grenz’s RENEWING THE CENTER “amateurish” in his review of that book. Since he understood that Brian McLaren’s ideas have been influenced by Grenz, then it was easy to be dismissive of McLaren as well.

Having written THE GAGGING OF GOD, he probably also assumes that he understands postmodernism better than anybody in the English-speaking world. His conclusions in that book (in his mind) are incontrovertible. (For those of you who do not know Carson, he has a reputation—many believe that once he has written on a subject, it may be the FINAL SAY of scholarship on that topic—and I’m pretty sure Carson is very confident in the things he writes.)

So, he thinks, “Okay, this will be a cinch. I’m an expert of postmodernism. I’ll read a few books—especially those by McLaren—and I’ll give the tip of the hat for what they (or he—that is, McLaren) agree with me about, and then I’ll blast them out of the water. These guys are easy. I can whip this lecture out in no time.”

This dismissive attitude about everyone in emerging/Emergent is what I think most of us are upset about.

[tooaugust]

Bob, you can't just speculate and reconstruct what you think Carson did. Why not conclude that he made an honest attempt to discuss a very new movement based on what info he had at that time? Speculation is the seed of gossip and ill feelings toward another. Maybe you're right and maybe you're not, but the whole point is, we don't know, and to reconstruct a fictional account of what happened only perpetuates anger toward him that I think is misdirected already. I thought one of the major points of ec was to always assume the best (even when it's your critics). I've found Carson to be teachable as well, so I don't think he has the attitude that what he has said is the final authority on the subject (although I agree with you that some of his students have that attitude about his writings). You guys need to stay with critiquing what is said and not the intentions of people, which we are commanded to not judge until the "the time" when God Himself will reveal the intentions and motives of a man's heart and each will have his or her own reward (or lack thereof) from God.
I, for the life of me, will never know what Matt is talking about, since I just can't see anything that would cause such a reaction among Profs there, but something must have since Matt feels he was treated this way. I leave it to you Bob to maybe help in his situation.

[David]

Bob,
while there may be truth to what you have said, there doesn't seem to be a lot of grace. i occasionally read your writings (i appreciated your article attempting to define what is and isn't emergent). Be careful not to fall prey to the very thing you are accusing Carson of.
John, thanks for your clarification. Sounds like you and David are doing good things at Cedarville. I'm encouraged to hear there are other voices out there (i'm a '95 grad).

[John Mortensen]

And please take my comment (as it seems you have--thank you) as nothing more than a little context. My intent was only to show that these criticisms that may have a complicated history. It is not simply a matter that someone woke up one day and decided to blow us all out of the water.

Though I respectfully disagree with Dr. Carson on a number of points, and also on his methods (e.g., to call a book "Becoming Conversant" would imply that one has had extensive conversations...ummmm...), is it not still possible to be thankful for the larger scope of his work?

After all, he is a good scholar and is working for the kingdom.

No one gets it right every time.

I mean, he's good, but he's no D.A. Carson.

[Bob Robinson]

David and tooaugust,

Yes, I agree. Thanks. I knew I could count on you guys to help me work through this in my head and heart!

It is speculative to say these things, and I DO NOT want to commit the sin of gossip.

I'm basing this hypothesis on my personal contact with the man (in which he had often been very dismissive of others--especially other Christians with views that differed from his own) and also from what I heard on the tapes (which fell woefully short of taking emergent seriously, and again confirmed my opinion of his way of dealing with people he disagrees with: almost with a sneer, with that higher-pitched voice you hear on the tapes when he seems really upset with people who are not as smart as he is) and then what I read above from John M and tooaugust.

Still, it is still all so speculative. Carson feeds the speculation by simply writing this book and being done with it--'nuff said, he doesn't need to honor those he criticizes with any attempt to answer the questions raised.

Chris is right to challenge tooaugust about Carson's "busyness" or inability or lack of desire to dialogue with those he criticizes. Carson will no doubt get a lot of recognition and book sales from this current book. In the emergent world, we talk; things happen much quicker in meetings and blogs and e-mails and conversations.

In Carson's world, you write another book. Maybe we are just impatient...that mode of communication is so slow and burdensome. Emergent-Types will eventually write more books defending themselves and/or taking to heart some of Carson's more excellent points of criticism, and then Carson-Types will write even more books...It takes YEARS for that kind of communication! Emergent types work on a much shorter time-frame than the Carson-Type world of communication on thelogical matters.

But I think Emergents are right to say Carson should be exactly what his book is entitled--he needs to "become conversant with the emerging church."

...I know that it wasn't until I sat down at lunch with Brian McLaren one-on-one that I REALLY understood what he was saying--through back-and-forth dialogue. As an apprentice of DA Carson, I grilled Brian for an hour, explicitly defending my theology (which is VERY close to Carson's) and the biblical interpretation and scholarly acumen of DA Carson himself. Brian gently and graciously explained what he meant by what he had written and I left that lunch with a much more favorable view of Brian's thoughts (while not neccessarily agreeing with him on everything we discussed).

...I know that it wasn't until I sat for two days in the front row of Stan Grenz's Critical Concerns course last year at EC that I could ask hard questions and challenge Stan in what he had written and was saying in the course. As I went back-and-forth with him, I began to understand what he was actually saying, clarifying my preconceptions and misperceptions. I left last year's EC with a much more favorable view of Stan's thoughts.

That's the beauty of being "conversant." While I deeply respect Carson's New Testament scholarship, I still think that Carson indeed needs to be challenged to live up to the title of his book.

[David]

right on, Bob. I agree with all there.
my only issue with you would be your blog's claims regarding cleveland's receivers...
team around the corner in detroit has done pretty well in the receiver department the last three years...

[Bob Robinson]

:)

[Winston]

I have read all of the above with great fascination and some saddness, fascination with the range of comment and saddness that all take it so very personally. I think that when one enters the public domain one has to accept the accompanying risks that that entails ie taking the heat when it comes, accepting delayed responses etc. So I think before Carson is called to account for himself, all here would do well to conduct themselves in a manner that will not stumble others. After all we are all one ecclesiacal body novices and accomplished professors included. I think that unless we can conduct ourselves in this manner and take whatever we deem as hits under the belt in a sermon of the mount manner, we disqualify ourselves from comment in this or any other forum. So what if Carson takes forever to reply or does not at all. Ones credibility does not depend on that does it? In all of this faith in the heavenly father for the truth to out is what is foundational. And eventually it will out. It may not be all pleasent news for emergent but if emergent's promoters subscribe in faith to their statements then it behooves them to display long suffering if thats what it takes. After all emergents future is not in the hands of Carson regardless of his stature. Our heavenly father will take care of it thank you very much. Jut my two bits in an attempt to add some perspective to the issue

[Matt H]

Hey all,

I want to thank you, Andrew, for your sincere questions for Dr. Carson. I am in no way connected to Dr. Carson, except that I am reading his book now (which has released, contrary to what Amazon may say ;) - check out www.gbibooks.com to purchase). I just purchased the book today, being interested in the topic because I have read several of Brian McLaren's books and have several friends that identify with the emergent movement. I have made it through the first 40 pages of the book and wanted to see if anyone from the emergent culture had read/commented on it. If you are interested in where I've been and where I am theologically, feel free to check out my blog (www.livejournal.com/users/mdhimsey). It's not updated often (usually about once a week). When I'm done with the book, I will probably post on it, of course with my views, which you may pre-gather from my current blog postings. Hope to see you all around!

Pax,
Matt H.

[Phil Groom]

Hi folks. I'm just another ordinary guy reading all this stuff and thanking God for the beam of light Brian McLaren's books have shone into my life. After A Generous Orthodoxy and The Last Word I'm feeling like a newly hatched butterfly. Wild, y'know? I've got every respect for Prof Carson but having just read Becoming Conversant, can't help thinking he's missed the point. So, for what it's worth, I'll point you in the direction of my review of the book:
Review of Becoming Conversant. Just make sure you read the Noah's Ark story to keep it all in perspective.

[andrew jones]

hey - just a few thoughts

(i am surprised this conversation is still going)

In response to Winston, it was made clear that Dr Carson did not need to respond and was under no obligation to do so (read the first part)

And anyway - the tapes were a long time ago and his book is out which is a better media to discuss.

And for the record, it was always an "open blog post" and never an "open letter" for reasons that i outlined in the beginning. it was written quickly one morning as an exercise in thinking out loud - which is how i often blog - its my equivelent of singing in the shower.

appreciate all the "thank yous"