The blogging waters have recently been stirred by two very different topics which both share much the same methodology. It has been fascinating watching the responses.
First, there is Scot Knight's recent post, "Mapping Emerging" presenting Michael Patton's chart on orthodoxy and emergents. Brad at PIBC, Steve McKnight at Emergent Village and Earl Barnett have provided loci for discussion.
Then, James Choung presents the gospel in three minutes through a diagram on You Tube. (If you don't have time to watch the whole presentation, there's a write-up of this diagram on PDF.) Several blogs, including Kim's and Rick's give it high praise.
What is fascinating to me is that Patton's diagram has received lots of criticism for it's "linear" thinking (anticipating this, Scot wrote, "Yes, we all have our opinions about charts...") whereas Choung's diagram has not. Now, it is one thing to criticize the WAY Patton has drawn his chart (Brad rightly asks "how did Carson become the center of Orthodoxy?") but it is another thing to dismiss the whole endeavor of diagramming as "linear," and a completely other thing to criticize one diagram as linear while refraining from criticizing another diagram for the same "intellectual sin."
So I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me? Is it the case that the folks who are down on the "linear" Patton diagram haven't yet seen the Choung diagram, and given the chance, will reject it as well? Or is it the case that the Choung diagram, being on YouTube, is perceived as more "relational" and "right brain" than the Patton diagram, which is not on YouTube? What is going on?
(Frankly, I like being able to work with both pictures/diagrams and ideas. It's even better when you can use them to lay out a position and then engage in a conversation/debate/dialogue. So, I have no problem with diagramming. The fun begins when you try to match the diagram to reality. Being Premodern, I'm thanking God for both sides of my brain and am praying that He will help me use it all for His glory. )
First, there is Scot Knight's recent post, "Mapping Emerging" presenting Michael Patton's chart on orthodoxy and emergents. Brad at PIBC, Steve McKnight at Emergent Village and Earl Barnett have provided loci for discussion.
Then, James Choung presents the gospel in three minutes through a diagram on You Tube. (If you don't have time to watch the whole presentation, there's a write-up of this diagram on PDF.) Several blogs, including Kim's and Rick's give it high praise.
What is fascinating to me is that Patton's diagram has received lots of criticism for it's "linear" thinking (anticipating this, Scot wrote, "Yes, we all have our opinions about charts...") whereas Choung's diagram has not. Now, it is one thing to criticize the WAY Patton has drawn his chart (Brad rightly asks "how did Carson become the center of Orthodoxy?") but it is another thing to dismiss the whole endeavor of diagramming as "linear," and a completely other thing to criticize one diagram as linear while refraining from criticizing another diagram for the same "intellectual sin."
So I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me? Is it the case that the folks who are down on the "linear" Patton diagram haven't yet seen the Choung diagram, and given the chance, will reject it as well? Or is it the case that the Choung diagram, being on YouTube, is perceived as more "relational" and "right brain" than the Patton diagram, which is not on YouTube? What is going on?
(Frankly, I like being able to work with both pictures/diagrams and ideas. It's even better when you can use them to lay out a position and then engage in a conversation/debate/dialogue. So, I have no problem with diagramming. The fun begins when you try to match the diagram to reality. Being Premodern, I'm thanking God for both sides of my brain and am praying that He will help me use it all for His glory. )
3 comments:
Hey Beth,
Thanks for posting this. I first want to say it's Steve Knight (not McKnight). Scot McKnight is my spiritual brother in Christ, not my biological brother ;-)
To answer your question though about diagrams and linear thinking, I personally a bit turned off by them. I see how they serve a certain point, but I feel the weakness of them rarely makes them that worthwhile. They often cause more trouble than they do good. This was the first I'd heard of the James Choung videos or book, so my guess is that many other folks in Emergent are pretty oblivious to this as well. And my guess is that most would be pretty critical of the Choung videos, although ... I must say, for me personally, anyway, I appreciate that he is trying to communicate the Gospel of the kingdom of God, not a truncated "get out of hell free"/"go to heaven when you die" Gospel. And when I see comments on YouTube from people criticizing Choung for not presenting that kind of Gospel message, then I immediately find myself switching over to being his defender and advocating for what he's trying to say in the videos (even if I'm not the biggest fan of the linear approach in the presentation). Does that make sense?
Anyway, just my two cents,
Shalom,
Steve K.
Beth wrote: What is fascinating to me is that Patton's diagram has received lots of criticism for it's "linear" thinking (anticipating this, Scot wrote, "Yes, we all have our opinions about charts...") whereas Choung's diagram has not.
The problem isn't with linear thinking per se. It is with the notion that we can simplify everything to such and adequately communicate what people are about. Linear process is good and important -- but it is not enough by itself.
Charts are good and helpful but it just seems paradoxical to reduce a movement (emerging) which focuses so much energy onto breaking out of mere linear to a simple chart that looks like a rehash of something the dispensational masters of the early 20th century would turn out. Perhaps ironic is the better word.
The reason that James Choung's videos are probably better received is that they are an attempt to move things beyond a simple bridge diagram -- to more fully take into account the complexity of the world and the decision making process.
One chart is a step toward over simplification and the other is toward being more multi-dimensional -- even though it is still a form of linear thinking. That's my sense of what's happening.
Oh Steve K--thanks for responding, and please forgive me for that typo. I'll make the change right away.
The peace of Christ be with you!
Post a Comment