07 August 2007

Two Words:

by Phil Johnson





Phil's signature

30 comments:

Phil Johnson said...

Do pictures of words count as words in the word count?

Can we get the judges' ruling?

Anne H. said...

I thought it would count as two thousand words. ;)

Sewing said...

Um...

1. Even including all the words in the two pictures, you're okay, word-count-wise.

But 2. It would only be fair to the "watchblog watchers" who are lurking to point out that this is a bit of a stretch of Cent's proposed thesis of "How God loves the world"—which argument could be made from these, but requiring a much longer exegesis to bring it all together....

centuri0n said...

I'm going with "judge not lest ye be judged" on this one.

Who can fire the boss, anyway?

Darlene?
__________

For the record, the posts are off-topic because this they are not about how God loves the world. However, they are a demonstration of God's love for the world by being funny.

FUNNY!

Phil Johnson said...

Sewing: "this is a bit of a stretch of Cent's proposed thesis of "How God loves the world""

Yeah, I know. I was just feeling a little bit mischievous...

*kicks dirt*

centuri0n said...

I'm also feeling a little froggy over the fact that my brevity posts are getting the least-number of comments on-net.

I must be losing it.

jsb said...

Cent: No one believes that brief posts actually come from you. Who's the ghostwriter?

DJP said...

...and I just stare at my Photoshop Elements, and it just stares back at me....

Sewing said...

In this humble sinner's purely subjective opinion, I think Cent has got the nuance of short, succinct, yet poetic and evocative posts the most down pat so far (ironically!).

Sewing said...

...He keeps within the word count, and there's nothing left unstated! Then again, he had an ace up his sleeve, since he could devise the contest rules on his terms to begin with.....

Dan: I do like your ingenuity with links (accuweather) and image hints, though.

Phil: Your last one on the well-meant offer of the Gospel was quite eye-opening.

Just trying to make everyone happy here....

Sewing said...

They followed with a hearty rendition of Kumbaya....

Gummby said...

Cent: No one believes that brief posts actually come from you. Who's the ghostwriter?

Classic!

centuri0n said...

Gummby:
... there's still a possibility to make Sewing my new sidekick in the new blog template and leave you conspicuously absent.

... Gummby ... pheh ...

brentjthomas said...

Did you make up that term on the poster: Disenfranchised People Groups?
Wow. That is a real watery, snowcloney term, and could ruin many paragraphs.
Happy are the Disenfranchised People Groups.

Mike said...

Actually Brent, 'disenfranchised' or 'marginalized people groups' shows up in a lot of postmodern academia. Sadly, I attend quite a liberal university in New Jersey whose graduate program in language education has faculty that readily embrace postmodern, feminist, poststructuralist philosophies of language and education. Those terms float around the literature very often.

While on that subject, coming from one who's been forced to read much of this stuff under the postmodern philosophy on language and also on education, it's still hard for me to distinguish between those articles and the ones the emerging church folks keep writing. You'd think, as serious as some people are about plagiarism, that that'd be a problem even on an academic level. On a theological level (if we're allowed to say that with them), it's just extremely troubling. They're just like the world. They are the world.

Sewing said...

I hope that at least "unreached people group" (a different concept altogether) is an acceptable term...it seems to appear quite a bit in missionary contexts.

Cent: Just don't make me a "blogwrecker"!

Al said...

I would vote sewing for sidekick if he would update his blog...

and start baptising babies, like I know he wants to...

al sends

jazzycat said...

What a great concise definition of what deconstruction really means to the emergents.......

SolaMeanie said...

Phil,

You're going to be the death of me yet. Snorting coffee down one's windpipe is very painful, not to mention potentially suffocating.

If our EC friends respond with something typically petulant enough, I may well be on a respirator by nightfall.

You should seriously consider either having these published in coffee-table book form, or as T-Shirts.

SolaMeanie said...

As far as these posters having nothing to do with the love of God, I beg to differ. They do, in an abstract way. If they can convince at least one Emergent to recognize the bankruptcy of the methodology and theology, I think that is a manifestation of God showing His love and grace to the erring.

Now how's THAT for spin?

Sewing said...

Well, yes, it's a Nathanic kind of love....

centuri0n said...

These would be shirts already if the they didn't have a "not for profit" license. We can't sell the photo parts because our license is for non-commercial use.

Argh.

Daryl said...

Well Solameanie, it's up to you then. Maybe if you don't pass on the profits to the Pyro's no one will notice...

SolaMeanie said...

Daryl,

Thanks for the suggestion, but we tend to take a dim view of intellectual copyright violation around here, not to mention profiting from wheat I didn't reap. (smile)

I am personally much more inclined to print thousands of them and airdrop them via B-52 over Emergent Village's headquarters, if they have such a thing. After all, it's a movement that doesn't like being called a movement, complete with an executive director and board of directors.

Movement. Hmmm. Sounds like an idea for another poster.

Garet Pahl said...

Movement... sounds like something my mom used to make me say because we weren't allowed to use "potty words"(she's lightened up over the years).

SolaMeanie said...

Garet,

Actually, it makes me think of the old saw used to describe once vibrant Christian fellowships begun by a biblically sound, visionary leader only to ossify into moribund apostasy later.

"Man...mission....movement....monument."

Ouch, that's painful!

Andrew Perriman said...

I like the irony of the deconstruction picture - a building that looks like it's going to fall down if someone doesn't 'deconstruct' it pretty soon. As usual, you guys completely missed the point of the article.

Phil Johnson said...

Andrew:

The picture illustrates "deconstruction" in process. By tearing the building apart (starting with the window, the one feature that was originally designed let the light in anyway), someone has rendered it useless for any purpose.

As usual, you guys completely missed the whole point of the parody.

Andrew Perriman said...

Phil:

At least I intentionally missed the point of your parody. It's called irony. And be honest, your building is old and derelict; it's not being torn down; it's falling down; it's no longer fit for purpose.

But 'deconstruction' is not the same as 'demolition' - nor is it about making something mean what you want it to mean. The parody is funny but inaccurate. What deconstruction does (as I understand it) is point out the internal contradictions, lacunae, blind spots, in a text or ideology that have the potential to cause the collapse of its cultural or political significance or authority.

The article that you parodied was not about making the Bible mean what I want it to mean. On contrary. It was about deconstructing dominant modern interpretations of the Bible that have swollen to the point of obscuring or misrepresenting the text. The last but one sentence reads: 'The text itself will always have the capacity to subvert our reductive, trivializing orthodoxies.'

I guess the basic question is what is the building. Is it (1) scripture itself? Is it (2) an edifice of timeless, unalterable (but reformed - another irony) truth that has been constructed around scripture? Or is it (3) simply the prevailing culturally shaped world-view through which we attempt to make sense of the original text of scripture? My article takes (1) as a given. But it takes the view that what is often mistaken for (2) is really (3), and that we would get a much better understanding of (1) (for the sake of worship, mission and corporate life) if we allowed a critical-realist hermeneutic to deconstruct the modern domestication of the Biblical text.

Aaron said...

As far as these posters [...] If they can convince at least one Emergent to recognize the bankruptcy of the methodology and theology [...]

A not so wise, but occasionally insightful man by the name of John Mayer once said, "Is there anyone who ever remembers changing their mind for the paint on a sign?"

propaganda never convinced anyone who already held a position. It may be able to preemptively turn people off to movements or ideas about which they previously had no opinion or knowledge. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I'll leave it up to you to decide.