For a personalized avatar, register at gravatar.com
I love the way people use the suggestion that we pray for people as a backhanded insult. Mocking someone's honest reflections is very mature. Well done.
Hey, Frank, have you read that book advertised in your sidebar, Mark of Jesus: Loving in a Way the World Can See? I bet it's good.
It's an insult to pray for someone who is obviously very sad, very disillusioned, and very concerned that he has wasted his life?
iMonk said (as I cited here) to blog my concerns, and I did. Too bad you don't approve of either that or the request for prayer.
Jared: I have in fact read that book. I happen to have my copy with me. Care to discuss it?
So what's the argument here? iMonk's opinions should not be taken seriously because he has a self-loathing view of himself?
This is an ad hominem argument and should not be taken seriously. In fact, this whole exchange reveals a particular degree of contempt for the iMonk that was not provoked in the immediate context of the discussion.
Perhaps, it would be best to dedicate a series of posts to establishing the warrant for attacking the iMonk. That is the real issue at hand.
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/a...2/ 13035550.html
Frank, sure.
In what way does this post demonstrate the love Jesus commended among the brethren? Would it be honest to say it is written completely out of loving concern for Michael Spencer, and not even partially out of a desire to mock or rib him?
If someone is really concerned about someone's emotional and spiritual state, is focusing an entire post on that person, including snide remarks, a genuine demonstration of that concern? Is it less or more appropriate than, say, a private email to the person offering to talk with them or pray for them, or even a straightforward blog post expressing concern and calling for prayer?
Anyone who knows me knows I'm cool with trading punches with blog-buddies. Heck, the BHT losers and the Thinklings trade good-natured insults all the time.
But "good-natured" is the key. I've been around the blogosphere long enough to spot insincerity when I see it.
I say this as a devoted TULIP man, but it never ceases to amaze me how those with the best intellectual grasp of the doctrine of grace tend to be the worst practicioners of it.
No, the argument is that we should evaluate what the imonk says through the framework he has laid out himself in his own writing. Does this mean he necessarily doesn't distance himself from his sitz em liben in critiquing theological or denominational trends? No, but it doesn't mean that he does either, and this goes for all of us. Take me. I used to be a hardcore methamphetimine addict; and I have lots and lots to say about the drug war in America and its politics, and, as you might expect, I don't put as much distance between what I might write about the drug war and myself as I do when I evaluate theological trends. Does this invalidate what I write about the drug war? No. Does it provide some framework within which to understand my comments? Yes, and that can be positive or negative. Does it mean I am a truly impartial observer? By no means.
As for praying for Michael...those who object to prayer requests should take them for what they are. On the one hand you give Michael the benefit of the doubt, but not Frank. Why? Why can't a critic not sincerely request prayer for his opponent? There are many reasons for requesting prayer, and sometimes a spade is just a spade, and Paul's words about questioning the motives of others cuts both ways:
1 Cor. 4:3-5:
But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
Why can't a critic not sincerely request prayer for his opponent? [sic]
He can. (And should!)
The key word there is "sincerely."
From my perspective, if someone is sincere about a brother's emotional and spiritual state, then he'd consider it unwise to insult/mock/needle the man. But if you think the whole thing is a sham, you wouldn't say he needs prayer for those reasons anyway. Unless you meant it as a final jab.
this post by Frank is unfortunate
I dont agree with emerging church on various things and I find that many that are disillusioned with the American church (or the Western church/their old denomination/their present denomination/their previous/present pastorate/or their own failures) can sometimes go too far in the corrective direction passing orthodoxy to heresy.
Since I believe in TULIP--I trust that the Lord is sovereign over salvation:
I believe that He who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it.
I also believe:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."
I dont know enough of Michael's life to determine which one he is(one who departs like Demas or one who is restored like John Mark and Peter)
but he doesnt answer to me ultimately.
He answers to his elders(as one who must give an account for his soul) and ultimately the Lord.
I truly am encouraged by his honesty and brokeness.-
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ..24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."
"The Lord is near to the brokenhearted
and saves the crushed in spirit."
Just to keep the conversation going, we should keep in mind that my post here was called "another turkey recipe".
I'm mostly appalled that those who think so little of this post have not given that title the full what-for. It sets the tone for the rest of the post.
I'll be back in a second.
If this is a duplicate post, please delete it.
Several interesting things:
1) Confessional writing is everywhere in the Christian blogosphere because it is part of the Christian tradition. You may dislike it. That's your choice, but it goes back to Augustine, Luther, Cowper, the Puritan journalists. It comes forward to Merton and Real Live Preacher and Lauren Winner. Even Ecclesiastes and the Psalmists. Confessional writing isn't punditry. You are well aware of this as a bookseller.
2) Your excerpts fail to have context. I write out of emotion, experience and passion, but the context of my life is 30+ years in the ministry. I haven't left or been kicked out. 30+ years preaching. 14 years preaching and teaching at a 107 year old Christian community. 27 years of marriage. Two grown kids. This is my life. These are the promises I keep. So I let off some steam at the keyboard. How can you, a quite intelligent man, be so blind to the context of my life and writing?
3) Your attempt to diagnose me does reek of personal dislike. You are one of those who is stung by my posts about my disagreements with the Reformed community. Why don't you excerpt those posts? Why go to the personal ones and suggest that I have some disorder, which you certainly aren't capable of diagnosing. It seems a bit of a distraction. I've written many essays on my views on the church, the Bible, the Christian life. There's much there to post if you want to say I am wrong. But how does a bookstore owner across the country get to present me as mentally/emotionally unstable? It would be ridiculous of me to go to my blog right now and post that you are dangerously paranoid and a psychologically broken person.
So the "framework iMonk has created for himself" is the governing principle by which we are to read him? And just why is it so important to establish? The answer is precisely to discredit him, to make his comments on an unrelated subject (the Emerging Church) wholly irrelevant.
Not only that but readers are expected after 1,700 words of of iMonk bashing, displaying his confessions in an unflattering light, and wondering out loud if he is a Christian to buy a 6 sentence plea for prayer as a genuine expression of love and concern?
Please.
well, that's one way to get the hit count up Frank.
What's with the backhanded compliments, Frank? Is this a new fad in the "Christian" community, or is this just you being a jerk? Did you really want people to pray for Michael, or was this a way for you to appear pious while piling on a guy who dares to admit to weakness for the benefit of his readers? Either way: classy move, guy.
Let me get this straight.
The iMonk churns this stuff out daily, and is a hero of the faith in the mold of Augustine, Luther, and the Protestants. He sits surrounded by hundreds...nay, thousands of thank you letters lauding him for his "honesty and openess" about his personal struggles. He deserves to be hoisted onto our shoulders and paraded through the streets as an example to all of the reality of the Christian life.
Then Turk quotes the iMonk, and he is decried for being "insulting, immature, full of contempt, unloving, mocking, snide, (insert deep breath here), insincere, ungracious, paranoid, psycholiogically broken, and a jerk."
Frank, I, on the other hand, will interpret your comments with the same face-value hermenuetic that is required for the iMonk. Your concern for him is real, and shared by many of us who read his stuff from time to time.
XOXO
Adam provides for us:
| So what's the argument
| here? iMonk's opinions should not be
| taken seriously because he has a
| self-loathing view of himself?
In a nutshell, yes.
| This is an ad hominem argument and
| should not be taken seriously. In
| fact, this whole exchange reveals a
| particular degree of contempt for
| the iMonk that was not provoked in
| the immediate context of the
| discussion.
The really astounding thing is that I haven't provided an argument for anything yet except that iMonk is biased by his own self-loathing.
See: if I say, "well, you can't trust Bob to tell the truth about Global Warming: Bob works for Exxon," it may be true that Bob works for Exxon, but it may have nothing to do with whether Bob will tell the truth about Global Warming. It may turn out that, in the end, Exxon has a clean track record when it comes to dealing with facts regarding any apparent changes in the Earth's climate – in which case the ad-hom charge is valid. On the other hand, it may turn out that Exxon has a verbal policy of firing anyone who expresses support of global warming theories, and in that Bob cannot say anything nice about global warming.
In the latter case, it's not ad hom: it's a fact – it's the way thing work out.
And in the case of Mr. Spencer, he doesn't write anything nice about the churches he has personally interacted with – but when some new thing appears that is frankly juxtaposed against the denomination in which he has spent his life as a minister, he finds it a great idea.
There's really only one way to solve the problem: let iMonk go Emergent. After 5 years as an Emergent pastor, let him blog about his experience. My guess is that they don't want his kind of publicity.
| Perhaps, it would be best to
| dedicate a series of posts to
| establishing
| the warrant for attacking the iMonk.
Attacking? Because I think he's an unreliable person?
Dude: let him blog. The only thing I said about the guy – in the meta of a blog I read 2-3 times a week – is that his comments are not credible in the face of his own confessions against Christianity. If you think he's credible, you read him and send him a cookie or something to show your support.
Just don't anticipate I'll be lining up with you for the parade in his honor.
Mensa Reject:
You're proof that they have the wrong standards.
Have a cookie. 
Then Jared offered:
| Frank, sure.
|
| In what way does this post
| demonstrate the love Jesus commended
| among the brethren? Would it be honest to
| say it is written completely out of
| loving concern for Michael Spencer,
| and not even partially out of a
| desire to mock or rib him?
Actually, I offered a 43-word dismissal of iMonk's comments on Fide-o, and he clearly requested that I flesh out my concerns on my own blog. I did.
I think iMonk is a complete turkey – there's no doubt, and I didn't leave any doubt except to those who think that asking readers to pray for someone is a way of making fun of the person you’re praying for.
Now the question is: is it up to me to avoid mentioning the self-involved and vitriol-filled record of iMonk's "confessions" whenever I happen to run into him? Is that how you personally would classify "love among the brethren" – don't bring it up if a brother is offensive? See: you bring it up that I am being offensive. So maybe there's a different standard we should abide by that involves something other than walking on eggshells around an unstable person.
| If someone is really concerned about
| someone's emotional and spiritual
| state, is focusing an entire post on
| that person, including snide
| remarks, a genuine demonstration of
| that concern?
You mean like, "I hope he doesn't take down his blog again because someone calls his emotional bluff"?
I wonder -- which is the greater hypocrisy: acting like that Michael Spencer is a credible person with a clear vision of his own life and the culture of the church, or refusing to be bullied into submission by a person who is a spiritual fraud, and using things like sarcasm and snark to highlight the reasons why Michael Spencer is a fraud.
-continued
-continuing-
Now, as we read this next part, I want to know who didn't see this one coming:
| Is it less or more
| appropriate than, say, a private
| email to the person offering to talk
| with them or pray for them, or even
| a straightforward blog post
| expressing concern and calling for
| prayer?
Oh yeah: THAT'S how iMonk handles his disputes. Moreover, that's how the NT outlines the first generation of believers' handling of people who publicly were disgracing the church or blaspheming.
Let's not try to say that this view of how to handle the iMonk comes from the George & Woodbridge book. It comes from the classic playbook of people on the internet who are not very careful with what they say and hate being taken to task in the same public circle they brought their phony opinions to in the first place.
| Anyone who knows me knows I'm cool
| with trading punches with
| blog-buddies. Heck, the BHT losers
| and the Thinklings trade good-natured
| insults all the time.
|
| But "good-natured" is the key. I've
| been around the blogosphere long
| enough to spot insincerity when I
| see it.
If you find iMonk good-natured, you have redefined the term. At the heart of his internet persona is anything but a good nature. He is completely overwhelmed by his own history of failure and regret. And, in the end, he wants to hold other people accountable for it.
| I say this as a devoted TULIP man,
| but it never ceases to amaze me how
| those with the best intellectual
| grasp of the doctrine of grace tend
| to be the worst practicioners of it.
This has nothing to do with being "reformed". You can't find that word or its surrogate in any of my posts on this topic so far – except just now to you. This has to do with whether iMonk has the credibility to tell the church at large that Emergent has something they ain't got.
The only thing we have that they don't have is him, and they can have him as afar as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean I haven't or won't pray for him "sincerely" (whatever that means); it means that if he's looking for permission to act on his inward disappointment toward the traditional church, he shouldn't be waiting for permission. He should just go and don't look back.
Jared responded to Gene:
| ------------------------------------
| ------------------------------------
|
| /Why can't a critic not
| sincerely request prayer for his
| opponent?/ [sic]
|
| He can. (And should!)
|
| The key word there is "sincerely."
Aha! So I'm the one who can't be trusted because of my motives! Gene was right!
Actually, here's the test of fire: use the Google search bar on this blog to find the phrase "pray for". You'll find that it is a phrase I have never goofed on. And in return, I offer you think: there is also no need to apologize for thinking that I was goofing. It's not me you offended.
| From my perspective, if someone is
| sincere about a brother's emotional
| and spiritual state, then he'd
| consider it unwise to
| insult/mock/needle
| the man. But if you think the whole
| thing is a sham, you wouldn't say he
| needs prayer for those reasons
| anyway. Unless you meant it as a
| final jab.
Jared: in fairness to you, how would you approach a person who says that he has punished his family with decades of ministerial service, he resents the way he was herded into the ministry, and he resents the way in which the other pastors and church members he has seen behave all the time?
I'm interested.
ScottyB returns with a few words:
| this post by Frank is
| unfortunate
Really? In what way?
| I don't agree with emerging church on
| various things and I find that many
| that are disillusioned with the
| American church (or the Western
| church/their old denomination/their
| present denomination/their
| previous/present pastorate/or their
| own failures) can sometimes go too
| far in the corrective direction
| passing orthodoxy to heresy.
OK: so what does that have to do with my post(s) to/about iMonk?
| Since I believe in TULIP--I trust
| that the Lord is sovereign over
| salvation:
| I believe that He who began a good
| work in us will be faithful to
| complete it.
Fine: in what way does that make my posts "unfortunate"?
| I also believe:
| "They went out from us, but they
| were not of us; for if they had been
| of
| us, they would have continued with
| us. But they went out, that it might
| become plain that they all are not
| of us."
Sure: my post?
| I dont know enough of Michael's life
| to determine which one he is(one
| who departs like Demas or one who is
| restored like John Mark and Peter)
| but he doesnt answer to me
| ultimately.
|
| He answers to his elders(as one who
| must give an account for his soul)
| and ultimately the Lord.
Ho-boy! WOOO! Man, that a relief! I thought that ScottyB was going to get me with "the greatest of these is Love"!
One of the central facts of the matter here is that I really do "feel bad" that iMonk has had such a crappy life. I do! I wouldn’t wish what he reports in his blog on anybody! But the question is not, "do I feel his pain?" The question is, "Does his 'pain' entitle him to be an unquestionable advocate of his own opinions, or ought it cause us to question whether what he says is somehow mixed up in the pain and religious angst he airs out on a regular basis?"
Listen: we can't trade in the apologetics just because somebody claims, "my pain makes me real, man. My pain makes me authentic." You don't ask a kid with a splinter in his foot how to treat the splinter, because if you tell him you have to cut him to get it out, he'd rather died from an infection.
The other thing those who advocate "he's just accountable to his elders, not the blogosphere" need to account for is their willingness to chastise others. If iMonk is accountable only to his elders, then I am accountable only to mine, and your criticism of me fails on the grounds that you would use to reproach me.
Anyone else?
Michael can be a real jerk sometimes. So can I. I will certainly pray for him.
I found Michael's article about his time in ministry to be an expression of his emotional state. I think that he truly does wish to serve God and that, deep down, he doesn't regret being a minister of the Gospel.
That you have used this article as some sort of weapon against him is quite disturbing.
I will also pray for you - you're a real jerk too.
I don't remember ever saying otherwise.
I'm not interested in a p*ssing contest. You retort, I retort, blah blah blah. I lost the taste for that after six months blogging.
I will respond to this:
how would you approach a person who says that he has punished his family with decades of ministerial service, he resents the way he was herded into the ministry, and he resents the way in which the other pastors and church members he has seen behave all the time?
I wouldn't lampoon him. Someone in that situation is obviously hurting.
I would pray for him. I might highlight the post (as I did the letter to his family at Thinklings) with comments appropriate to the nature of the post. I'm not sure what in those excerpts calls for humor. Lord knows there's plenty at the BHT to make fun of.
Michael and I have had our disagreements. I found "I'm Not Like You" essay bewildering. I have a hard time reconciling his distaste for the Gospel-less Osteenization of the evangelical church on the one hand and his appreciation for the em-church warm-and-fuzzies on the other. But never does my disagreement with him trump the facts that a) we are friends, and b) he is a Christian brother.
So while we trade barbs like all brothers do, we don't treat each other lovelessly.
You can fill the thread with protestations. I don't care.
You're calling him names, putting his salvation up for dispute, criticizing his pains, bringing up anything wrong you can think of he's done, and then think your call for prayer is going to sound sincere? Won't wash.
And while you're keeping record of wrongs and disputing his burden rather than helping him carry it, you've sure written a hum-dinger of a funny blog post!
If the level of concern and love Michael "deserves" is somehow contingent upon how worthy you think he is, if your concern in these posts is just making sure one bad turn deserves another, then it's more a waste of time coming here than I thought. If I want a junior high level "Well, he did it first!" mentality, I'll go surf some Xangas.
Or the BHT. 
On the other hand, it may turn out that Exxon has a verbal policy of firing anyone who expresses support of global warming theories, and in that Bob cannot say anything nice about global warming.
The problem with this is that you fail to meet the criteria of relevance. iMonk simply asked a question about the nature of past cultural sociological phenomena and how it related to the Emerging Church. Instead of engaging the issue at hand you launched into treatise about how the iMonk can't be trusted, because he has regretted his ministry, hated his life, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, this is a red herring, and hardly establishes a warrant for forming the kind of argument you believe is free of ad hominem fallacies. And, of course, it is not, because the kind of enmity you need to match the illustration of the prejudiced Exxon executive is one that is found in atheists and their aversion to anyone sympathetic to Christianity. Your quotes only establish a certain penitent disillusionment, not an outright hatred for the Christian faith.
And as an endnote, I do not plan on joining in a parade for the iMonk, but do share his sentiments about repenting of religion and turning to love of God.
I said:
Your quotes only establish a certain penitent disillusionment, not an outright hatred for the Christian faith.
When I said "your quotes" I was meaning the iMonk's that you used.
I'm curious: who put anybody's salvation up for dispute? I put it up that I have no idea how to judge his salvation! NONE!
Jared and Adam can read that any way they like: it was said in the context that this post "is not about proving he's not a Christian". If, to them, that means that I have taken it upon myself to disprove or cast doubt on his status as a Christian, any other dispute is unresolvable: they're going to read what they want me to mean rather than what I have written.
As for "what calls for humor", it's iMonk's obviously-dismal self-awareness. Are you Thinklings making any headway with him using dour stoicism and stonefaced reason? Apparently not.
When I can say "iMonk: your hatred for yourself disqualifies you from being a credible critic or advocate of others," and have that statement turn into a blogospheric eruption that tries to drag in all displaced pastors, the book of Lamentations, the veracity of emotive states, the "sincerity" of prayer requests, and Xanga, somebody has got to wonder why BlogWorld War III has to break out. Why not just prove that iMonk is a stable guy?
Prove that he's a stable guy, and that will utterly dismantle my original statement. Funny how that doesn't cross anybody's mind in all of this -- that iMonk is a stable guy with no emotional problems, so that proves centuri0n is full of gas.
It's crazy when I have to man both sides of the argument to keep it on track.
Adam:
I find it hard to class the statement
[choosing to be a minister] was, I'm convinced, the greatest mistake of my life"
as "penitent disillusionment". What it sounds like to me has to be left unsaid because any negative charactrization of it will be seen as either sarcasm or disdain. It simply cannot be seen as valid criticism.
that iMonk is a stable guy with no emotional problems, so that proves centuri0n is full of gas.
Hmm. I'm not sure you're reading my comments.
Michael himself admits he has some problems.
I do too. Feel free to poke fun.
My point, and I guess I have to bullet-point it for ease of comprehension, is that:
1. If you think he is emotionall, mentally, and/or spiritually unstable,
then . . .
2. The right Christian response is to share his burdens and pray for him. Or, if you don't care to, ignore him.
My point was that, if you really think he has all these problems, making fun of him is not a demonstration of Christian love.
Yes or no? Do you agree with that? That we don't kick brothers when they're down?
Furthermore, your response thus far has been "But HE does such and such," which, again, is hardly the point. Find me "tit for tat" in the Bible, and I will apologize immediately. Find me conditional grace, love dispensed on condition of someone's loveliness, and I will disengage.
My point is NOT that Michael is 100% healthy in all matters physical and spiritual. (For the record, I don't know anyone who is, and anyone who says he is is a big fat liar.) My point is that if you believe he's not, sarcasm and ridicule are not mature treatments.
What I see is you saying the iMonk is messed up, making fun of him, and then claiming your call for prayer is sincere. Something doesn't add up.
We're all grownups here, right? Can't we be honest with each other without deflecting everything with sarcasm?
You're either concerned about him or you're not. And if you are, why the jabs?
Is that more clear?
Jared: I want you to see clearly what you are telling me.
Your argument, as you have just bullet-pointed out, is that because iMonk has emotional problems (and we're not talking about having a bad day once in a while), we should simply give him a pass on the things he says and then, in a godly and sincere way, join hands and sing "Kumbayah" with him.
Here's what I think: we should not allow emotionally unstable people to speak on behalf of Christianity in any respect. The flaw in your argument in favor of treating iMonk like a sick person who wants to get well is that he doesn't want to get well. He wants to be who he says he is right now because it gives him street cred. If iMonk gave up his "I'm a wounded pastor" riff, he'd have no basis for making any of his criticisms.
Sometimes we NEED to hear from wounded pastors, or the abusers go unchecked.
I don't agree with everything the IMonk writes, and I haven't read everything he has written, but, after 22 years of ministry, I have often related and benefited from his confessional posts.
Ministry can sometimes be heck. Just read Jeremiah.
Frank - I notice that all the world isn't loving you...
I don't always agree with everything that Frank writes but I will say that I think he has hit the nail on the head regarding Michael "Spenser" aka iMonk. I have on more than one occasion read the BHT and the Internet Monk and shook my head wondering how Mr. Spencer could hate other Christians as well as the Christian life so much. It is as if he is cursing God for his own life. It is obvious that Spencer hates men like Phil Johnson and others who hold to a Reformed theological persuasion. Frank, there probably far more who agree with you about the sobbing, whining, depressed Michael Spencer than you know. Hold your ground and do not back down because you tell the truth about the BHT.
-----
With apologies to Kurt who noticed the offense (I am guilty of not noticing), and to Kyle, who probably didn't know what he was getting into (which seems to be a badge of honor among the BHT crowd), I have edited this comment to remove the offending phrase.
People: let's keep this about the matters at hand and not about things that take the argumentaway from the actual offense.
Edited By centuri0n on 11/23/05 @ 8:00 AM CT
Is Frank "keeping a record of wrongs"? I thought he was quoting from a public record of wrongs which are a fixture of the confessional style of the blogger in question.
Seems to me that someone who taunts a critic with the words "if you have the spine" should himself have the cojones and good taste not to be a crybaby when he gets exactly what he asked for.
Jared, you probably ought to get that telephone pole extracted from your eye-socket before you try to do any more optometry on Frank.
Frank doesn't need me (or anyone) to come to his aid, but Wow! THIS is like deja vu.
I remember sending out an e-mail to our business alumni back when the whole Monica Lewinski thing broke. I asked for prayer for the President, and was lambasted for making assumptions about the situation, his character, etc. My call for prayer was certainly Biblical, and (as best as I can tell about my own deceitful heart) genuine.
Frank has asked for prayer for someone who thinks his whole life and choice of ministry as a vocation was "the mistake of his life," and you sit there calling him a jerk? This guy needs help, divine help, and I'm not judging him when I say that--it's the truth. I would think you'd want everyone praying for him...if I was in that state, I would want everyone praying for me--even those who would completely disagree with me on every point of theology.
Frank, I'm with you, and I will pray for Michael. Thank you for reminding me (and all of us) of our great duty & privilege to intercede on behalf of others before the throne of grace.
Well Frank, what have you gone and done this time?
Incredible, it's like de ja vue all over again (that whole nonsense that transpired when Dr. White blogged his thoughts on this Monk character).
In fact, it's eerily familiar to what happens when you have the guts to stand up and speak against the Emergent movement.
I don't read "the iMonk". I read his responses to Dr. White (was that last year?) and that was enough for me.
Give your spine my regards. Seems like it's working just fine.
SDG
**Here's what I think: we should not allow emotionally unstable people to speak on behalf of Christianity in any respect.**
We should not allow? Who's we? Please inform me of the keepers of True Christianity. Allow? You propose to stop iMonk from speaking? You would do so if it were within your power? Unbelievable.
As for the emotionally unstable, I trust that you have the appropriate credentials to make such a diagnosis. But even supposing you do, based on this statement, I trust you never sing any hymns by William Cowper. He had quite a history of emotional instability. It's a pity God couldn't use him.
I'm wondering how much use He's getting out of the Reformed bullies of the blogosphere.
Wow, this has really gotten weird.
Ignoring everyone else, and responding to Frank, who wrote:
Your argument, as you have just bullet-pointed out, is that because iMonk has emotional problems (and we're not talking about having a bad day once in a while), we should simply give him a pass on the things he says and then, in a godly and sincere way, join hands and sing "Kumbayah" with him.
Wrong. This is why I don't think you're understanding me. I'm not anti-criticism. I'm not anti- calling people on their wrongs. I'm not anti-punditry or confronting a brother or any of the other theoretical things everyone one of us with strong doctrine and opinions do on the blogosphere.
I'm not saying give him a pass. What I'm saying -- again -- is that if YOU believe he is emotionally unstable and spiritually unstable, how loving do YOU think it is to mock him? If does have emotional problems, etc etc, what is your motive in lampooning him?
I'm not against satire. I'm not even against criticizing the iMonk. I do it myself.
I'd rather you interact with what he's said and demonstrate why it's wrong. I'd rather you interact with his intellectual views and initiate a real debate.
But you've done something else instead. I'm not saying give him a pass. I'm saying that, if you think he really needs prayer because of his problems, WHY ARE YOU INSULTING HIM?
I'm asking how that fits into your view of Christian love?
'Cause if it was a straight up satire piece, you wouldn't be sincerely accusing him of emotional problems and you wouldn't be calling for prayer at the end. And if it was a sincere noting of his emotional problems and call for prayer for him, you wouldn't be insulting him.
I really resent the kumbaya stuff. I ain't a touchy-feely guy. But as a theology nerd, I do take the stuff the Bible says about love and bearing each other's burdens seriously. It's a package deal for me.
Frank,
If the iMonk IS emotionally unstable, do you really think this is the way to go about helping him out?
I know you probablly don't care what I think, but I have to say this is pretty lame. Disagreements are onething but this is ugly. IMO.
Hold your ground and do not back down because you tell the truth about the reprobate over at the BHT.
Yes! I knew if we waited long enough somebody would call our salvation into question!
Score!
C'mon Kurt...I've been a "fraud" since this afternoon. Get with the program.
Frank I am assuming you have not Pastored. If so I think you would have a little more understanding of iMonks confessions.
While I disagree with him often on matters worth discussing I could actually sympathize with him concerning some of what you posted of his.
Scott:
I have never pastored. However, I have been a leader for large organizations consisting of more than 200 people. When I make these criticisms, I don't make them from a perspective that I think leadership is easy: I make them from a perspective that leadership is hard, and it shakes out those who are unsuited for the job.
That answer may beg the questions "should leadership inside the church be 'hard'?" and "was it ever any different than it is today, really?"
I'd love to see some feedback on that.
iMonk:
You are a fraud. That doesn't make you unsaved. Your grasp of language for someone who complains that he ought to have been an English professor is not very keen.
Kurt:
You are right that the comment that you fella at BHT are "reprobate" is out of line. I have duly anathematized it from my high-speed connection at work. I have no idea if you guys are reprobate, backslidden, saved, unsaved, Christian or what-have-you. My complaint isn't about your (plural) salvation-state; it is about his (singular) ability to be a credible observer.
However, I do know that for all your (plural) complaints about how other people treat you (that's you-plural, not you-personal; oh for the King James English!), you're (plural) not really all that different from the caracture you (plural) draw of your (plural) enemies. I used to think the jokers at communio sanctorum were the clown car of internet God-talk, but I would be willing to hear the argument that you fellas are much more convincing (though not as entertaining) with your grease paint authority and your floppy-shoes reasoning. I know you're disappointed, but I couldn't decide whether to say "the big red nose of your venom" or "the big red nose of your smugness", so I left the big red nose out of it.
What I see is you saying the iMonk is messed up, making fun of him, and then claiming your call for prayer is sincere. Something doesn't add up.
We're all grownups here, right? Can't we be honest with each other without deflecting everything with sarcasm?
You're either concerned about him or you're not. And if you are, why the jabs?
'Cause, you couldn't be sarcastic and caring at the same time, because that would mean that you're not a 1-dimensional caricature. That might make you, well, a real person.
It is interesting to notice the progression of events here. Centuri0n disagrees with iMonks theology, but instead of posting a critique of his theology, he posts out of context excerps of some of iMonk's confessional writing, and mocks them. Then, he requests "prayer" for iMonk.
The readers of his blog instantly react strongly and negatively to this post. Not expecting this reaction, Frank is forced to defend himself. At first, he defends his call to prayer as sincere and explains his concern for Michael. No sign of the high-five crowd that he expected. People don't buy his "concern" and so the negative reaction continues. So Frank, in comment 11, tries a different approach and basically tries to divert the reaction by pointing to the title of the post and saying its all in good fun.
Frank then spends several posts defending himself point by point to those who have reacted negatively. By this time, the high-five crowd arrives. The vitriol of their posts exceed even what Frank has posted, and emboldened, Frank goes on the attack himself and the "concern" and "humorous" tone disappears completely.
The attacks inevitably broaden to not only Michael, but those who dare to post on his site. You could see that coming a mile away.
Still no critique of iMonk's theology.
There you have it. Amusing, if it wasn't at someone else's expense. As it is, it's just sad.
Matt, good grief. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. [eyeroll]
Look, this convo is obviously fruitless. I hoped that even if it be discarded, my point would at least be understood. I think I hoped for too much.
And since I'm not interested in rhetorical ping-pong (vain disputations and all that) or hearing that honoring love makes me a wuss (like that hippie Paul!), I'll bow out.
Frank, thanks for the open forum. Really. Most folks would have been zapping everybody by now.
Heck, some folks don't even allow comments!
Mr. Turk....
Two things....
What a writer writes and what a person says/does in real life aren't the same thing. IM is where I write and publish. It's the place I hear and express a "voice" that is unique to that place.
If you listened to me preach or teach you wouldn't hear the same thing. Would you hear me say that growing up among Arminian revivalistic fundamentalists affected me? Like in making me more reformed? Uh...yeah. Would you hear me say my marriage has struggled? Yeah....I just did 10 sermons on marriage and frequently referenced our journey. From the letters and comments, it was helpful. So consider that a writer has a "writing place" that isn't the person you see and hear in other relationships.
Secondly, For the last 14 years, I have trustees, the President of our organization, elders and an accountability group. Before that, I worked under deacons and on church staff, so I had a senior pastor. I've never been fired. I've never been told it was time to get help. I've never been told to move on. I've had a pretty normal run. My only try at the full time pastorate was rough, but not any different than thousands of other guys. I am accountable for my emotional state, Mr. Turk, and I don't sound like the Internet Monk in my life. I'm a WRITER. Exploring the writing life. Reflecting.
Do you think Solomon was always the guy in Ecclesiates? Ever consider that you could have had lunch with him an not heard that depressing stuff? Do you think David always cussed out his enemies? That Jeremiah ALWAYS was depressed?
Mr. Turk, you are an intelligent person. I assume you have the knowledge of people it takes to understand that a journal- even a published one- is the WAY some of stay sane, not the evidence we aren't.
| At first, he defends his
| call to prayer as sincere and explains his
| concern for Michael. No sign of the high-
| five crowd that he expected. People don't
| buy his "concern" and so the negative
| reaction continues. So Frank, in comment
| 11, tries a different approach and basically
| tries to divert the reaction by pointing to
| the title of the post and saying its all in
| good fun.
Again, I point you to my own blog record. If you can account for the fact that, apart from the example you seek to stand upon, no other example of me asking for prayer can be found to be snark (see: because I take the matter of prayer seriously; if I were a pastor who called his decision to enter the ministry "the greatest mistake of my life", I would hope that I would also take the matter of being a minister of God and to God's people seriously and not treat it like the subject of a reality TV show and like Richard Hatch walk naked on the beach to prove my authenticity), you can start assailing me for demeaning prayer.
You might also review the tape here at the blog to find out that my every-day readers know something about me that you obviously haven't figured out yet: I can take care of myself. I don't make half-considered confessions on the internet and then expect "my friends" to come running to my rescue because I put my foot in it again.
And it's funny: I didn't have to change the title of the post, or delete it because it got attention. It turns out that when I wrote the post, I put a title on it that I thought represented its contents.
What?! You mean some people actually think about what they are going to say before they say it? You must be kidding! Nobody writes like that! Nobody in the blogosphere, anyway!
| Frank then spends several posts defending
| himself point by point to those who have
| reacted negatively. By this time, the high-
| five crowd arrives. The vitriol of their
| posts exceed even what Frank has posted,
| and emboldened, Frank goes on the attack
| himself and the "concern" and
| "humorous" tone disappears completely.
| The attacks inevitably broaden to not only
| Michael, but those who dare to post on his
| site. You could see that coming a mile
| away.
See: I disagree with this – only because of the off-line conversations I have had about this topic so far. Many of the readers who are watching this thread think that the conversation is actually funnier when I am taking apart the unconsidered apologetics being foisted by the defenders of iMonk.
And personally, except for CSB's offense at the direction that the topic has taken (which I take very seriously, even if I disagree with him), I have gotten a lot of laughs reading people say things like, "Hey: I don't agree with his theology one bit, but to identify the root cause of his errors as his emotional problems and then make light of it – that's unthinkable!"
-more-
-cont-
It's hardly unthinkable. And all of the making light has come as a response to things like Kurt from BHT taking offense at one careless remark (not from me) about reprobation. You might notice, if you are really interested in the contents of this exchange, the lack of words like "looney", "kook", "crack pot", "crazy", "nut", "goofball" when referring to iMonk.
Saying he is an "emotionally unstable person" is not making fun – because that is, in itself, not funny.
| Still no critique of iMonk's theology.
Only in the world where telling him his views are unreliable because he is an emotionally-unstable person is not a critique. I have to wonder what the bru-ha-ha is all about if I haven't critiqued iMonk.
| There you have it. Amusing, if it wasn't at
| someone else's expense. As it is, it's just
| sad.
Well, we don't want you to be sad. Walking might help you work it out – there are some really cool hiking trails in the Adirondacks, and this being a very cold time of year there you will probably not run into anyone who might upset you.
-30-
I'm not Reformed. I'm not Emergent. I'm just a Christian.
And this whole affair is just ugly. Ugly on all sides.
Peace and grace to you all. May you find the unity and love that Jesus said would mark his followers. But I have to confess, i'm just not seeing it here, and it makes me sad.
(Respond if you want. But I'm not coming back to rebutt.)
I'm still wondering if you boycott William Cowper's hymns. I'm still waiting to see your psychological diagnostic credentials.
Too many ill-advised links led me here. First and last time. It seems that christian blogs aren't much different from christianity at large -- a fascination with cannibalism; I'll never understand the attraction of a religion whose history is founded on burning its own adherents at the proverbial stake. Smells like smoke in here. Enjoy the bonfire, Christians!
| Mr. Turk....
|
| Two things....
|
| What a writer writes and what a person
| says/does in real life aren't the same thing.
| IM is where I write and publish. It's the
| place I hear and express a "voice" that is
| unique to that place.
A voice which is confessedly the voice of a pastor of a church. Saying, "when I write, I'm not speaking for me but perhaps the people 'like me' or 'the people for whom I have the deepest sympathy'," does not exculpates you from responsibility for what you say, or somehow disassociates the iMonk blog from other comments you might make in the blogosphere.
"iMonk" may be a pseudonym (as is "centuri0n", you see), but it turns out that you bill iMonk as "the personal web space of Michael Spencer ... a minister, youth specialist, writer, teacher and communicator in churches and schools for over 30 years."
Is that confession a manner of speaking, or is your disclaimer here a manner of speaking? It would be useful to fill that out a little for us.
| If you listened to me preach or teach you
| wouldn't hear the same thing. Would you
| hear me say that growing up among
| Arminian revivalistic fundamentalists
| affected me? Like in making me more
| reformed? Uh...yeah. Would you hear me
| say my marriage has struggled? Yeah....I
| just did 10 sermons on marriage and
| frequently referenced our journey. From the
| letters and comments, it was helpful. So
| consider that a writer has a "writing place"
| that isn't the person you see and hear in
| other relationships.
Let's make sure you are saying what I am reading: are you here confessing that the iMonk is a "voice" for the internet, but that it is not actually representative of your ministry and your life?
That's an interesting confession – and I applaud you for making it. I wonder if those people who have, here and elsewhere, represented your "voice" at iMonk as confessional, real, and authentic will applaud you for distancing yourself from this "voice" when it comes time to defend it from criticism that it is an emotionally unstable persona?
-more-
| Secondly, For the last 14 years, I have
| trustees, the President of our organization,
| elders and an accountability group. Before
| that, I worked under deacons and on church
| staff, so I had a senior pastor. I've never
| been fired. I've never been told it was time
| to get help. I've never been told to move on.
| I've had a pretty normal run. My only try at
| the full time pastorate was rough, but not
| any different than thousands of other guys. I
| am accountable for my emotional state, Mr.
| Turk, and I don't sound like the Internet
| Monk in my life. I'm a WRITER. Exploring
| the writing life. Reflecting.
Yes, I read you when you said that the first time elsewhere, and I ignored it for a very simple reason: I don't think it translates into what you'd like to translate it into in this discussion.
Let's go back to the word "fraud" for a minute, shall we? I have called you a "fraud", and you – well, I am not sure if it was "you" Michael Spencer or "you" iMonk, but one of you -- interpreted that to mean "unsaved". Well, it turns out that we're not having that discussion, are we? I wasn't having that discussion even as far back as when I said, "this is not about proving he's not a Christian." This is about exposing your rhetoric on the internet as fraudulent one way, or the other.
If iMonk is not your actual life but only your "vox clamantis", then the claims of your defenders that iMonk is real, man, and we respect his honesty is a hollow claim: it's not real but a literary exploration of some feelings that you may or may not have, or that you may or may not have seen in others.
On the other hand, if iMonk is "really you", all the honesty and stuff that your charming readers think it is, then your attempts to be rational and measured – like this response to me, for example – are the sham. iMonk is not a rational person: he's a visceral person, highly emotive – and for good reason. He's gotten the short end of the stick, spiritually, socially and academically. The rational stuff is for the rubes – because the visceral stuff is the honesty, the meat and potatoes of how a minister of the Gospel lives.
Let me be as fair as possible: I'm not sure that ministerial life is either a soft ride on the pillow cushion of sound doctrine and snuggly love among the brethren, or a swim for dear life down the rocky rapids of public humiliation and faith crisis. I'd bet that it has moments of both, and mostly falls on points on the line between these two extremes. The question is whether someone who's willing to portray "the life" as either of these extremes is a reliable person. iMonk is a person who is willing to portray "the life" as one of these extremes, and is therefore unreliable.
-more-
| Do you think Solomon was always the guy
| in Ecclesiates? Ever consider that you could
| have had lunch with him an not heard that
| depressing stuff? Do you think David
| always cussed out his enemies? That
| Jeremiah ALWAYS was depressed?
Well, again, I think it's a lofty aspiration to say that iMonk is of the caliber of any book of Scripture or even any man depicted in Scripture. It seems somewhat desperate to say, "well, there's depressing stuff in Ecclesiastes so someone claiming publicly that going into the ministry was the worst mistake of his life is simply par for the Christian course."
| Mr. Turk, you are an intelligent person. I
| assume you have the knowledge of people it
| takes to understand that a journal- even a
| published one- is the WAY some of stay
| sane, not the evidence we aren't.
There is a difference of class between a journal and an open microphone. And while I am sure that many people use their journals to vent their frustrations, there is also a difference between using your journal introspectively and using your journal as a means for hiding "what you really think".
I really have not idea which you practice at this point. The most unexpected thing to come out of this open conversation is your claim that iMonk is a literary prop. I wonder if your readers are going to let that sink in or if they will, as usual, give you a pass.
-30-
"We should not allow emotionally unstable people to speak on behalf of Christianity in any respect."
Then who will speak?
Michael is neither Demas nor Mark. He is a sinner saved by Grace who, unlike many, has not forgotten that he is a sinner. He is a man walking with God.
BTW, that old "I can't say who is a Christian and who is not" trope is a joke. Agreed, we are not God and cannot say with any certainty. But to even raise the question is absurd.
nny243 said:
| I'm still wondering if you boycott
| William Cowper's hymns.
"still"? I didn't see you ask the first time. "still" indicates that I have ignored your pleas for information.
It turns out that iMonk has nothing to do with Cowper -- not related. I wonder: if I chase that rabbit, will you pony up another?
| I'm still waiting to see your
| psychological diagnostic credentials.
It's funny that you think this is the deal breaker -- that it's the argument you put up that can't be answered. If having the right degree is the only way to enter into this conversation, my suggestion is that, again, you should apply it to yourself and to your (apparently) defenseless iMonk.
My suggestion is that is being degreed is the method by which we establish one's suitability to be a critic, iMonk doesn't have the paper to criticize the SBC and the Christian church. However, that point will escape you because you didn't think of it prior to jotting down your thoughts.
It's not as far a leap -- or any kind of a leap -- to say that a minister who thinks his decision to enter the ministry as "the worst decision of [his] life" shouldn't be in ministry and shouldn't judge the ministry of others. See: in the world I live in, people who hate their jobs can go find new ones. I've done it myself. And I've done it without painting previous employers or environments as dismal -- and I didn't owe then the respect that the position of the ministry of the Gospel deserves!
Nathan:
I didn't raise the question -- I took great pains to cut off those who would claim that was my question. Uncanny how those who want to defend iMonk think it is the central matter when I have repeatedly disavowed any such claim.
As for who iMonk "really" is, you should read his last post to me in these comments. I think you'll be surprised how quickly he is willing to call the iMonk persona a literary device rather than a true confession of who and what he "really" is.
>That's an interesting confession – and I applaud you for making it. I wonder if those people who have, here and elsewhere, represented your "voice" at iMonk as confessional, real, and authentic will applaud you for distancing yourself from this "voice"...
Ah....progress.
People who at some point in life learned to read literature will have no problem with a writer's voice and their real life being less than overlapping.
I mean, good grief Mr. Turk, where can we start?
Ever read Shakespeare's Sonnetts? (BTW- I am using examples, not claiming to be Solomon or Shakespeare. How Sophmoric.) Do yo think Shakespeare walked around talking to men and women like that? "You hair is wirey and your breath reeks. Have a nice day."
So what do we do today? We have whole indistries debating whether Shakespeare is Shakespeare. Why? Because his writing voice- which is his life and the real world and absolutely true- is DIFFERENT (not FALSE) but different from his writing voice.
Again, if you attended a literature class somewhere along the way, you would know that C.S. Lewis and the narrator of The Great Divorce are the same man/life, but different voices. Arthur Miller is and isn't Willie Loman. Robert Frost came to the Road Less Travelled....as do we all.
I guess this is, as I said, a matter of literary appreciation. If you think that the great literary figure of the day is Charles Stanley or something, then what can I do for you?
You've read, I'm sure, of my love for Thomas Merton. He wrote in his journals in a way that would have had him thrown out of the monastery in a month. The reason he wasn't thrown out...was he wrote in his journals.
How to write and how to read. You own a bookstore and can direct your customers to the right aisle and the right books. I'd like to suggest that when the book is open, its not as simple as you make it. Writing is a world that overlaps with the real world. It is the same person, the same life, but it isn't the same experience. There are voices that express the human experience different. Some outline it. Some turn it into poems. Some write their journey honestly, and sound out the journey in others. The IMonk's favorite quote: "We read (and write) to know we aren't alone."
>I think you'll be surprised how quickly he is willing to call the iMonk persona a literary device rather than a true confession of who and what he "really" is.
Mr. Turk: Are you willing to defend the proposition that your online persona is entirely and 100% the same as your real life?
100% different?
I said that a writer and his writing are not identical. Same person. Same life. Same experiences. Different voice.
I go to the hospital. I visit a cancer patient. I small talk. I smile. I pray. I read the scriptures.
I go home and write an essay raging against cancer and voicing my doubts at the God who allows such pain.
Do you not understand this, Mr. Turk?
For Robert and others who have Robert's complaint:
When the Boy Scouts determined that they would not have homosexuals leading troups of young men and someone sued the Boy Scouts to allow a homosexual man to lead a troup, was that "tearing apart" the Boy Scouts, or was that actually establishing what the BSA stood for?
How about the last election in the UK? Tony Blair's party suffered pretty big defeats at the polls -- was that "tearing apart" the UK, or was that the process by which the UK remains in tact?
Now on a smaller scale, I assume that you have lived in a home with a family unit of some kind – perhaps you are married right now, or perhaps your closest experience to marriage was what your parents demonstrated to you. Is the marriage growing if and only if there are no conflicts – or is married life about facing conflict and resolving it in order to press the relationship forward?
Now if , in these three examples, conflict is part of the deal and resolution of the conflict is actually the point of the disagreement, why is it that when someone like iMonk is called a fraud by someone like me it is called Christians "tearing apart" each other, or "cannibalism"?
Is it because I refuse to allow iMonk to dictate the terms of my conscience? Is it because I refuse to let the source of his offense to be masked by a kind of politeness with which he would never trade –unless he's on the defensive? This has not yet been the least bit ugly when it has stayed on-topic. When the topic has veered away from my original complaint, I have taken the liberty to snark the offenders.
Hope that helps.
Cowper was a great hymnodist. But after Cowper sank into mental illness and lost his assurance of salvation--indeed, believing himself to be damned--he stopped writing hymns and wrote nature poetry instead.
Cowper would have been a disaster in pastoral ministry.
iMonk:
I would represent that all the opinions I have posted on my blog are mine, the sense of humor I demonstrate here is mine, and the things I believe are fairly represented by me here. I can think of one recent case in which I regretting something I posted, and for that I posted a retraction.
So in the sense that I stand by all my blog posts, the answer to your question is "yes". You may use Google at your convenience to try to dismiss that claim.
BWIW, I have two witnesses that can tell you whether or not I'm fudging: johnMark and PyroManiac. If they are reading the meta and see this comment, I encourage them to chime in give their opinion as to whether who I am "in person" is different that who I am "in persona".
There are others who know me "by phone" -- Brad, Matt, PP, maybe others that I have left out by means of faulty memory -- and I encourage them to testify as they see fit.
So what about this:
>I go to the hospital. I visit a cancer patient. I small talk. I smile. I pray. I read the scriptures....I go home and write an essay raging against cancer and voicing my doubts at the God who allows such pain.
Am I liar? Hypocrite? "Fraud?"
I needed to add "Then Frank Turk excerpts my essay and says I am unstable and unfit for the ministry."
If you are going to continue this, "But of course it's either literal or a purposeful lie" tact, go ahead, but you've already lost the point, and not to me. You lost it to the entire world of literature. You lost it to thousand s and thousands of PASTORS who write poetry and essays. John Donne. Gerard Hopkins. On and On.
I'm quite willing to end this here. I can't imagine what else there is to say. Either you get what is going on with writing and writers, or you don't. If you've received a revelation that a blogger can't be a "literary" writer, just be advised thousands of us don't buy it.
On a personal note, I have changed my mind about a couple of things here:
1) You've been remarkably civil to me personally in this debate, and I do appreciate it. I find that an extended discussion with you is more palatable than just reading your daily posts/comments, and perhaps the same is true with me, I hope.
Before this episode, I would have hesitated to share a meal with you. Now, I wouldn't.
2) I am not bothered by the prayer issue. (You'll note I haven't mentioned it.) I don't particularly see that part of your post as much different from the sort of thing I've said thousands of times.
Calvinists don't really believe in prayer anyway. (That was the imonk, btw
Peace.
Anybody know how many comments a HaloScan thread can hold? 
umm...I think Jesus left the room about 60 comments ago. He was shaking his head in disgust. Just wait til Pat Robertson hears about this.
iMonk:
I have no idea whether that's one of your "real" statements or one of your "vehicle" statements. None! And that is my point. There is no way to tell when you "turn it on" and "turn it off", so when you say (in words to this effect, in case Richard Abanes is lurking and checking my research methods) "Emergent is good" or "Emergent is bad", I don't know whether to take that in the context that the iMonk in "in" or the iMonk is in a cage someplace.
That is my complaint, as it has been since the initial comment at Fide-o.
You are tempting the snark in me by continuing to compare iMonk to giants in literature and to Scripture. The comparison is only valid insofar as both appear in text. Comparing one of iMonk's reflections on hypocrisy or church life with Donne's "Elegy I: Jealousy" (or any of his works) is like comparing a KJVO street preacher to Spurgeon or Owen. It would be spectacular to say that Jonathan Swift and I have the same gift of gab, but it would also be both presumptuous and preposterous.
-more-
-cont-
... and I just lost the second half of my comments.
Here's the nutshell:
-let's stop trying to compare what we're writing here to great literature. That dog doesn't hunt.
-let's think about what we're doing here if what we're doing here would never fly in real life; let's also not talk as if the blogosphere isn't "real"; if we can fool ourselves into thinking that a post on a blog is like a great piece of literature, let's also fool ourselves into thinking that when people read what we write here they are actually reading what we have written and take it seriously.
-let's leave the opportunity to have lunch with iMonk wide open, as long as he promises not to spit soda out when I am as funny in person as I am on the blog.
Fair enough?
Travis:
You win "comment of the day". There is no prize other than the satisfaction that you got me with that one.
Since I'm simply discussing method- and not the quality of the work- I'll be happy to compare myself or you to nameless, little known writers.
If you think that a comparison to method is a claim to quality, you're off base.
Anyone can write a poem, a play or a psalm. But not like David, Miller or Donne.
You continue to repeat the same error. The WAY or METHOD of saying something in writing isn't identical to the "real world," but it isn't FALSE to the real world.
I have the thoughts about cancer, but I would write them when I might not say them.
You are claiming that my writing/comments may be a lie because I would write things I wouldn't say in real life.
Try harder: Same person. Same truth. Same life. Different ways of expressing things.
Since you do this all the time, it's a moot point. You understand exactly why my comments on the EC are not deceptive.
An interesting conversation Mr. Turk. If you ever teach English, purchase an anthology of worthless little known writers and tell your students to write like that.
And don't say "that dog won't hunt" to someone in Appalachia. That Okie sophistication is over my head.
First, I am both a writer and an editor. Not the best who ever set pen to paper (or index finger to keyboard), but competent to earn a living doing it. Therefore, even despite my glaring absence of any advanced degrees, this conversation has now touched on an area where I ought to be permitted one small tincture of opinion:
One of the things that I absolutely deplore in the Oliver Stone-influenced postmodern style of "storytelling" and "literature" is the deliberate blurring of the line between fiction and reality.
As a matter of fact, from my perspective the whole pomo agenda seems pretty much like an irrational but studied-and-determined campaign to obliterate that line forever, at all costs.
Michael Spencer has compared his writing to Shakespeare and the prophet Jeremiah. It seems to me that a more apt comparison could be made with Michael Moore. I mean that. I'm not saying it just for effect, or trying to be merely insulting. The predictably shrill, fingers-in-the-ears, you're-being-mean-to-me chorus that always seems to follow criticisms of the iMonk and his Tavernfolk could have been borrowed from the talking-points at moveon.org, under the subheading "How to respond to conservative critics."
The blending of multiple personas Michael Spencer admits and apparently regards as the sine qua non of his writing style is precisely why I didn't think Frank's "you're a fraud" remark was so far out of line or uncalled for in the first place. (Not to mention the questions Mr. Turk raised about Mr. Spencer's emotional stability—which, by the way, is not necessarily tantamount to expressing doubts about his sanity.)
The iMonk's emotion-laden critiques of the church are never labeled "fiction." On the contrary, they are almost universally hailed as "honest" and "authentic." It's hardly kosher to protest (always after the criticism comes) that they are not real reflections of who Michael Spencer is. They cannot be "honest" and yet a mere literary device at the same time. That is Frank's whole point. It is a good one.
Furthermore, I do not see where Frank's opening salvo or anything he has written subsequently was "uncalled for," unduly harsh, necessarily uncharitable, or otherwise execrable. Search and see. I agree with whoever pointed out the irony of someone who goads a critic with taunts about "backbone" and then squeals like a stuck pig when he gets exactly what he demanded.
Furthermore, it's not necessary to assume that Frank's first comment—"but your hatred of Christian life (starting with your own) disqualifies you from being a reasonable commentator"—stemmed from evil motives. On the contrary, I think that is a true example of genuine candor. Not to mention clarity.
And here's what seems the gist of the iMonk's constant argument against his critics: It's OK to be "honest" in a complaining sort of
cont.
And here's what seems the gist of the iMonk's constant argument against his critics: It's OK to be "honest" in a complaining sort of way, but clarity and certainty are damnable. I disagree with that. I'm going to continue to say so with clarity and conviction. Sorry, but that's who I really am.
Second, I'm happy to state for the record that every time I have ever met or spoken to Frank Turk, he impressed me as someone who is the very much same in person as he is at his blog. There may be legitimate reasons to criticize him. Calling him phony or insincere is way off target, however.
Phil--- I appreciate whatever you are doing.
I've got the English degree and I teach literature. I can't agree with you. I know the books you edit, and they certainly underline your point.
Problem is, you aren't editing the kind of thing that I write.
And I hate to say this, but are you guys just stupid? Shakespeare, etc. as an EXAMPLE of a kind of writing. Good grief. Not as a comparison to the quality.
I've listed example after example of the kind or writing that inspires me. You guys know its there. If you've never read a journal, or something LIKE Augustine's Confessions (think he talked about his sex life in the pulpit?) or Merton or P.J. O Rourke for goodness sake....
This is just ridiculous. Phil edits JOHN MACARTHUR!!!! What am I supposed to say? I don't write that stuff.
Peace to you both. Adieu. See you at the Bob Jones University Conference on Literature, where we can all learn that Shakespeare is in hell.
Thank you! Good Night!
Uh, Matt here. Looks like I may be too late, but FWIW...
That Okie sophistication is over my head.
FYI--this statement is very offensive. About as offensive in these parts as misspelling a name is (apparently) where you come from. Not because you're making fun of our sophistication (which you clearly are), but because you called us "Okies". We're Arkies.
As far as Frank goes, WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). This blog is 100% Frank. That's probably why my blood was boiling earlier by some of the comments about him.
For instance, someone said What I see is you saying the iMonk is messed up, making fun of him, and then claiming your call for prayer is sincere. It seems clear to me that this statement (and many others) are saying you can't be both sarcastic and caring. Frank is both.
If a single person had said "Frank, I think it's unkind for you to put those pictures of the guy waiting for the sky to fall," I could have at least respected that. Instead, the statements are, in effect, "Since you were sarcastic, I can't believe that you were sincere in your call to pray for him." In fact, one person said this: You can fill the thread with protestations. I don't care.
You're calling him names, putting his salvation up for dispute, criticizing his pains, bringing up anything wrong you can think of he's done, and then think your call for prayer is going to sound sincere? Won't wash. In other words, no matter what you say, I won't believe you're sincerity.
Here's what you need to do. Go back to his original post, ignore the pictures, and draw an imaginary line (or some other break) between the rest of the post and "However, in light of these links...". Perhaps that will help.
Apologies if I made a geographic error. I don't know any great geographers to compare myself to.
Matt, you're an idiot and a shame to the Church.
But I love you.
Now, ignore the first part.
How's that working for you?
Columbus?
For the record, yes, I am stupid at times. The one meagre degree I managed to earn could not change the fact that I am Okie born and bred and my grandfathers and great grandfathers all raised cattle.
I am just sophisticated enough to know, however, that BJU is known for performing the Bard rather than for execrating him.
I also know that Siloam Springs is on the wrong side of the state line, but just barely.
And the only contemporary fiction writer I truly enjoy is Tom Wolfe, a non-fiction specialist who manages to import vivid real life into his fiction instead of vice versa.
I do, however, sneak an occasional read of things P.J. O'Rourke has written. I greatly appreciate his skill as a writer and humorist. He's not someone I would care to emulate, though.
Matt Gumm continues to buck for upgrade to sidekick.
Phil Johnson continues to earn his stripes as my friend.
Jared proves that one side of this discussion will say anything to win its point.
It's been a heck of a Wednesday. I'll bet everyone's at work waiting for 5 PM.
I'm not waiting. Have a nice turkey, and I'll see you all on Friday after the throng of customers evacuates from my store.
I have a degree in English Literature, and I have talked to Frank Turk on the phone. I have also been reading the iMonk for a little longer than I have had a blog, which I guess is around 9 months or so. I will make a few pithy, wonderful comments that will probably solve this entire thing.
One, I bought some books from Frank, and I talked his ear off. I thought he was a great guy, and I hope to keep up with him and get to know him better.
Two, there is a difference between non-fiction and fiction and biography and bullcrap. If I write a fictional book like "The Shofar Blew" and the pastor cheats on his wife, no one will think that this makes me a lecherous pastor...I hope. But if I write in on my blog, "Boy, I've been eyeballing my secretary and she looks fine. Lord have mercy." People will be rightly disturbed. I do eyeball my secretary, by the way. She also happens to be my wife. In addition, when I visit sick folks in the hospital, if I say a short prayer and try to be comforting, and then go home and write, "I hate my job!" Then if the patient was a blogsurfer, I don't think he'll be pacified with, "I'm just blowing off some steam. Sick people drag me down."
Finally, I have enjoy some things that I read over at iMonk's house. Don't be dismayed, I only like some of the things I write at my house. But some things I did not like, and a couple of times I even commented. I must say that the pastoral-type angst riffs were some of the ones that made me think, "Is he okay?" That is genuine reflection, no sarcasm or jabs intended. Admittedly, my judgment is somewhat tilted on this because whiney preachers are my biggest pet peeve. As I once heard a preacher say, if I could change one letter in the Bible, I would add an "H" to the fact that the overseer must "not be given to w(h)ine".
There you go. Problems solved. If you need to check my degree creds, I went to the University of Alabama, which is objectively the best university in the nation. Roll Tide.
Wow! And it's not even Thanksgiving yet.
One of the things that sucks (can I say sucks?) about this medium is lack of context.
For instance, since I know Frank, so I know his comments are sincere. Others out there don't know Frank, and obviously won't believe he's sincere no matter what he tells you. And since I don't know Jared, I don't know if he's merely exaggerating to make his point or being downright insulting. If the latter, though, kudos to you for finding the exception to the rule I learned in grade school about "but" negating everything that came before it.
Man, I'd love to take the time to tell you about why it's HyperCalvinists, Arminians, & Open Theists who don't pray, and why, but my market is closed, we've got family coming in from out of town, and it's my birthday tomorrow, so if you want to know the answer, just ask Phil Johnson about his Sunday School teacher who quit praying for the lost because God can't violate man's sovereign will. The short answer is, theology really does drive methodology.
Cent--anytime. But I'll need to get you a better picture than the one in my Blogger profile. For better or worse, I think you're finally working toward making this dream a reality.
And for those who might still doubt where Frank's heart is, check out this post. This is also vintage Frank. [P.S. to Frank--I've been wondering how you came across Dooce!]
Jared proves that one side of this discussion will say anything to win its point.
Heck, I'd be satisfied if someone would acknowledge comprehension of my point.
I'm not trying to win. I'm clear on the fact that you're not budging.
I just hoped it was possible for a conservative, inerrantist, 5-point Calvinist to say we should treat our brothers with love and share their burdens rather than ridiculing them without being called a groupie or a hippie or a kumbayah-singing tolerista.
And whether you think what I'm saying applies or not, towards the end I was just trying to see if you guys understood what I was saying at all!
I'm not convinced, because every time it got repeated back, it got twisted and sarcasmed into incomprehension. Thus my junior high analogy. It's like teaching kids when you're goofing around and then you try to talk seriously about something but they just can't stop goofing around. Everything's a joke, including someone's alleged "emotional problems" and someone's quoting Scripture on love.
And since I don't know Jared, I don't know if he's merely exaggerating to make his point or being downright insulting.
I just knew I should have added a comment saying I didn't mean it, but I thought that'd be understood. That's what I get for assuming.
If the latter, though, kudos to you for finding the exception to the rule I learned in grade school about "but" negating everything that came before it.
Matt, I don't know you, but as a Christian brother, I do love you as far as a stranger is able.
Why couldn't you ignore the stuff that came before the "but"? Why did you have to wonder about if I was insulting you or if I really do love you?
It's the same reason your suggestion to ignore everything before the prayer request doesn't work.
---
It's been a long time since I've take part in a scrum of this sort. I don't miss it. It makes me feel icky.
At some point it does become less about trying to get your point across and more about just hitting the ball back.
I've succeeded at least in drawing a bit of fire from Michael to myself, and I'm cool with that.
Have a great Thanksgiving week, everyone. And I do mean everyone, without exaggeration.
Frank is the same Frank, whether online Frank, phone Frank, or email Frank. This is infallible testimony.
Here's the difference. If you tell me you didn't mean it, I believe you. (And I'm not singling you out when I say this) No one (except possibly the Monk himself) did that for Frank.
Hope you have a good Thanksgiving. If my internet is working, I'll try to visit BHT (that is, if they'll let me--I live in a dry county, you know).
I'm not a member of the BHT, btw.
Feel free to visit Thinklings.org, however. Less whine than the BHT, and more masculinity per square inch.
That blog is still open?
Really Jared, I'd be careful in claiming to own the "nexus of the intellectual universe" around here
Someone suggested I should nickname my blog "The sump pump of the intellectual universe." I think he meant it as an insult, but I wonder, Jared: would it constitute trademark infringement if I used that line?
Hey, by the way, Turk: When did you replace the flasher-guy in your blogheader with the Country 'n' Western songleader?
Or is that Abbie Hoffman's back? I can't tell.
I like what Jared said: "It's been a long time since I've take part in a scrum of this sort. I don't miss it. It makes me feel icky.
At some point it does become less about trying to get your point across and more about just hitting the ball back."
This is probably my greatest disappointment in being part of Christian blogosphere, . When I entered in a about six months ago, I joined in with the "Well, it's the internet, so you can say mean things and get away with it" mindset. But I got the same feeling Jared describes: Icky (although I'd use an even more masculine term like scuzzy). It's not cool, it's not funny, it's not necessary, and I'm pretty sure it's not Biblical. Scripture says that the "Lord's servant is not quarrelsome or pugnacious (amakhos = brawler).
I'm not saying we ought not ever debate or disagree, but snarkiness and insult have no place in the discussion (unless one can provide a Scripture verse that says it does).
And one more thing, Frank: I think it's really cool how your formerly black-white-and-gray blog has gradually become more and more colorful.
It's the perfect metaphor for how your association with me has affected your personality.
would it constitute trademark infringement if I used that line?
I don't know. But probably.
Actually, as a good Christian, I could never sue a fellow believer.
So please fill out the doctrinal questionnaire I'm sending to you via email and return it promptly, so that I may be sure of your salvation.
There are only eighteen questions related to dispensationalism.
Before the comment-counter tops 100 or this post sinks too low on Centuri0n's blog to be noticed, I want to say a couple of things that seem obvious to me. Others have been too polite to point these things out, I suppose.
First, Michael Spenser's emotion-laden screeds are offensive mainly because even though he describes them as "confessional," and he pretends to be self-effacing, and he manages to make himself seem psychologically fragile, he is actually being accusatory in a passive-agressive way. His "regrets" are full of reminiscences about ways other people have failed him. The "I'm not like you" ditty sounds like an angry echo of Luke 18:11. Even the disgusted tone he assumes whenever he describes how he "used to be" always sounds like a backhanded way of caricaturing everyone who still loves the old-style version of whatever system he is criticizing (the SBC, Calvinism, etc.).
Second, I dare anyone to actually read Spenser's "With Regrets" post and then immediately compare it with anything Centuri0n said and explain with actual quotations what Cent said that misconstrued or demonized anything Spenser said about himself. Spenser called himself "not a healthy person." He described his own self-loathing with these words: "I hate that I have become this person." "I want that version of Michael Spencer to go away." Then he insisted, "I am only being honest."
It's really hard to see how Centuri0n deserves such scorn for simply repeating what Spenser said about himself. It's also amazing that so many people find Spenser's repeated public emotional eviscerations so winsome.
I, on the other hand, agree with Spenser's own evaluation of himself. I think pretending to be called to the ministry was probably one of the worst mistakes he ever made.
Ladies and gentlemen: Cubby Martinez.
All I need is a manly-voiced announcer, and the blog could be a late-night talk show.
Frank,
I'd like to be the first to volunteer for the "manly"-voiced announcer job.
My vocal talents fall somewhere in the spectrum between Charles Nelson Reilly and Paul Lynde.
XOXO
AMDG
I am grateful that I am no longer Protestant, because now I remember just how much y'all protesteth and with what contentious spirit.
Peace be with you, if possible.
Ms. Tryon:
It's people like you wot cause unrest.
Consider that a warning -- bargain basement Catholic apologetics gets the left foot of fellowship around here.
Am I the only one who finds himself with an activated gag reflex whenever I hear the words “Confessional writings?”
Cent, an observation about my experience hardly qualifies as apologetics, bargain basement or not.
Like I said: peace be with you, if possible.
*shaking the dust from my feet*
Lets just confess to one another?
I'm always charmed by people who can't just leave but have to announce their leaving.
Ms. Tryon has left the blog!
You can all resume your duties. Ms. Tryon has left the blog.
* shakes the dust off his blog, and wonders if there's a way to close comments in HaloScan without buying a subscription ... *
Kyle,
What is a description of a credible witness for Christ?
Dana,
Are you serious? If you don't already know the answer to your own question then I am sure any explanation I provide for you wouldn't be adequate. Perhaps your buddies over at the BHT can help you out with that one.
Pecadillo, I thought you were keeping a low profile!?
Umm, I'm not so sure I have any buddies at BHT.
So, yeah, I am serious. Your comment about being a credible witness just seemed to stick out, and I just wanted to know what would be considered credible.
This probably isn't the place for the question, because I'm not really asking in regard to imonk or Frank or you, or what's being discussed here.
Just wonderin'.
Am I the only one who finds the boars a bore?
I find this debate a bore.
To all concerned (from a reader of bht, imonk, pyromaniac and this blog):
I have little patience for this childish in-fighting. It pains me to see two groups of Christians at loggerheads, and not because of theology, but just because they just seem to hate eachother.
Now all of you, get on with writing those brilliant, Biblical and Christ-centered posts which you come up with from time to time
Mickey:
I'd be interested in any "hatred" posted by myself or anyone defending my side of the matter here. You know: examples and links.
I'm not above admitting I'm wrong: I just don't apologize every time someone says, "well, you're a Christian ..."
Frank:
A stats-junkie like you must be really wowed by the number of comments this post got, especially coming as it did at the start of a holiday weekend.
I think you should set your sights on trying to top the Thinklings' "What Color Is This Liquid?" comment-count. De-saturate the colors on your new blogdesign, and let's get a fight going about what color you are using.
Or something like that.
Jared always comes through
Sorry - I did say "seem" to hate eachother. I know from you're blog that you're lovely really. I just get really bored by inter-blog fights, however lighthearted, and I want to see posts about something else. Unless you want to fight with me; it would give me something to do.
Perhaps Michael has spent too much time around those rebellious teenagers as he acts like one himself. Or, maybe this is his mid life crisis. Who knows? I will say that according to what he writes (confessional or not) he is not a very credible witness for Christ. Imagine having a pastor like him who hates the Christian life and the ministry so much. Wow! He certainly does need prayer!
-----
Kyle ended this post with "I pray God saves his soul," and that's out of bounds. This is discussion ought to be about what was actually said and not about whether any of us can see the hand of Grace saving or reprobating Michael Spencer. Snark is one thing, but overstatement of perceived spiritual issues is entirely another.
Keep it beteen the ditches, Kyle: that's twice I've had to warn you about this kind of thing.
~centuri0n
Edited By Siteowner
I think it's a lofty aspiration to say that iMonk is of the caliber of any book of Scripture or even any man depicted in Scripture. <
Wow this is all I needed to see in order to confirm to me where you guys stand on this. I don't know this I monk guy but I would have to say that guys like you and Phil seem to give evidence of trusting in the flesh as well as men like Steve Hays. Guys did you ever think that God puts this here to reveal your ambivilance between one another on purpose? Self-pity is a double edged sword and can take other forms as well. Sometimes we see in others what we don't like about ourselves.
To those of you who trust in the intellectual sphere in both Arminian and Calvin camps I hope you will read this passage and study it. Luke 15:28-31
This all confirms to me what I've long suspected.
Commenting by HaloScan
