I reread both my post and Richard’s and I don’t think I misunderstood him. I would like to emphasize that it is the author’s contention that it is the Emergent Church guys creating these dichotomies. Maybe there are those within the ECM itself that wouldn’t agree with each other that those dichotomies exist, but at least one or more significant “mover and shaker” in the ECM have stated those dichotomies before.

You said:
“Then listing as false dichotomy:
‘Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.’

(A dichotomy I haven’t seen in this extreme so far in emergent literature)
So what exactly is he speaking against?”

Seriously?

I mean, are you telling me you’ve never read a ECM proponent that does not beleive in inclusivism in respect to salvation? You need to go back and read McKnight’s stuff on the atonement. Or some of the things that McLaren said about Buddhism and Eastern religion.

The problem with the ECM crowd is that nailing down what any of the leaders within that movement really believe. It’s like trying to stab a grape with a fork. We can’t get anyone to admit anything. Like Morbius said to Neo, “There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” The ECM will always emphasize the journey of knowledge more than its destination.

Here’s a pretty funny website dedicated to de-motivator posters for the ECM:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm

It sums up the dichotomies nicely.

I think you misunderstood Richard’s comment.

> The problem with your criticism of this author creating dichotomies is that
> in saying so, you’ve created a dichotomy.

The point is not in dichotomies per se, but if they are true dichotomies, false dichotomies, or (true or false) statements of dichotomies created by other people.

So it feels problematic to me when Stoner says first:
“I also believe its call to affirm [...]the value of listening to and respecting those who hold divergent opinions to be a very healthy and helpful corrective.”

Then listing as false dichotomy:
“Those who teach or believe other “stories” need to be respected, not converted.”

(A dichotomy I haven’t seen in this extreme so far in emergent literature)
So what exactly is he speaking against?

Another thing:
Antinome 16 “Our posture toward culture is to affirm it, not critique it.” seems to be related to synonyme 6 “Correction with criticism” or even 5 “Judgment with judgmentalism.” .
So the synonyms give a hint for how to understand the word “critique” and to see where the dichotomy might be.

That is: As I do not think that the list can be applied to all people who are considered being “emergent”, the ones wo keep these antinomes and synonyms should be asked about what bad experience of christianity led to such a perspective.

So “affirming culture” has a broad aspect which is indeed to be discussed as this concept involves creating or leading that culture as christians instead of simply counteracting against it.

Much more this is true if we really meet one who keeps the false synonyms Nr 2 and 7 (“Authority with authoritarian”, “Power with oppression”). If I encounter such people I cannot help but ask me, what bad experiences may be behind this attitude.

But regarding Emergent Church: There are no such synonyms in my experience. But power is watched sceptically (with good reasons), and authority is something granted and which must be earned by one being trustworthy and faithfully.

Beside that, if Emergent is a camp, there are many different tents, and in fact it is a conversation which tries to debate about exactly such perceptions.

So it seems to me very rude, unkind and self-righteous to read comments like Nr. 15 . Is that what your Jesus had taught you? To adjudge and abdicate others their christianity?

Good work uncovering this.

The problem with your criticism of this author creating dichotomies is that in saying so, you’ve created a dichotomy. Here’s the dichotomy:

Blogs that “go more in the direction of positive affirmation of what is good and clarification toward what is better”

vs.
Blogs that “indulge in affirmation of this kind of antagonistic (dichotomizing!) polemic”

In short, your argument is self-defeating. You can’t avoid compare and contrast. It’s part of the laws of logic.

Furthermore, if you read the original post thoroughly, one of the main points the author makes is that the Emergent Church guys are the ones creating dichotomies that don’t exist.The two examples he gave were, things that appear synonymous but really aren’t AND things that appear in opposition to one another but really aren’t. The author seems to be seeking synergy not dichotomy (at least with the content, maybe not with the Emergent Church Movement itself).