Mr. Corcoran is feeling somewhat out of sorts because he supposes we have not accorded his thinkings the respect he feels they deserve.

I should probably set the record straight on a few things.

First, we did accord his thinkings all the respect they deserve. He has misjudged the worth of his thoughts and now he blames us for being disrespectful.

Second, he claims that I removed a comment of his. This is false; I removed nothing. One of our four other administrators removed it (and I didn't ask who). [It was comment #5018.] On the one hand I regret that. It is in my personal interest to let stand everything these Emergents say, I think it reveals what is in their hearts, and when they blather on and on about allowing free discussion and honest conversation, I very much want people to hear what they say and how they say it. And what environment they want for this conversation. That in fact is why I post their blatherings here and it's why I link to their intellectual landfills.

That's on one hand. On the other hand what Mr. Corcoran wrote was offensive and inconsistent with the "engagement" he supposes is a virtue. It offended someone here and he or she (probably living in a red state!) chose not to play host to the rubbish. For those who may be visiting from another blog or those who may not have seen his comment, it consisted of nothing more than three sentences. The first—in reply to comment #5017—was "I see." The second was a suggestion that I go masturbate privately, and the third sentence was: "Enjoy."

Not one of those sentences advanced the conversation a single millimeter—or "mm" as we in the medical profession like to refer to it.

I say that it is in my interest to allow such crude talk to stand because it reveals the heart of the speaker. I feel that the New Testament requires me not to talk like that, but it doesn't require me to censor someone else. By the same token my interests shouldn't constrain some other administrator's sense of what is desirable on a blog he or she is a part of. Sorry, Kev.

Third, I go to the trouble of telling everyone this because one of his points was that we lack an "interest in engagement". Just let the record reveal exactly what profound contribution of his, what example of a "commitment to engagement", was removed.

Fourth, I should also clarify another misunderstanding. He resented being called a half-wit and sophomoric. Those were not intended to be derogatory at all. I was trying to be complimentary! (This could perhaps be one of those glass-half-full/glass-half-empty things.)

Halfwit of course comes from the Latin hemiintellectus.

But this fourth point introduces an issue that does deserve some time and perhaps debate. I have said this previously; perhaps it bears repetition now.

What we have in this particular instance with Corcoran, as well as in this alleged emergent "conversation", is not a conversation at all. Saying something really stupid or false, such as what Brian McLaren says about homosexuality or what Tony Jones says about truth or what Kevin Corcoran says about sexuality being aimed at the eschaton is rubbish.  I know it is rubbish, you know it is rubbish, bystanders know it is rubbish. And to accept it as though it has meaning in the real world is not conversation. It does not call for "engagement" at all. It invites laughter.

It is permissible to utter nonsense, but no one is obligated to accept it as meaningful or pretend something useful has been added to the conversation.

Conversation, for those who haven't heard, is not merely a sequence of alternating assertions. If someone says something that is false and nonsensical, the purpose of conversation is at risk until the correction is made. "Commitment to dialog" or "engagement" is not indifference to lunacy or acceptance of impromptu nonsense.

This is why emergents cannot "converse" with the MacArthurs, the Sprouls, the Mohlers, the Carsons....

This is exactly what we saw Monday with Tony Jones and Marie: "the perfect church" has become a place where you "can sit around and say whatever you want". I think it is worth our hearing them say this. The perfect church is where you sit around and say whatever you want; everyone can do theology.

What we have here are mere dabblers. Corcoran doesn't know what secare means, nor does he know what the eschaton is, nor was he able to establish a connection between the two that justifies "engagement". And now he wants to call it "semantic plasticity".

Isn't that sweet?

__________

Somehow I came across a nice folding leather carrying case. On the front it has a little transparent plastic pocket the size of a business card. The card gives a person's name, Medco Instruments, Inc., 4500 W. 137^th Street, Crestwood, IL 60445. There is a caduceus at the top and the words: Carefully Produced by Skilled Craftsmen.

Inside the case are samples of medical instruments. There is a pair of four-inch bandage scissors, a pair of six-inch scissors, something that looks like a blunt dental probe, an assortment of tweezers, and—the tool that most excites my imagination and my wife's terror—a #4 scalpel.

Now the mere fact that I have these tools makes me more of a medical professional than Kevin Corcoran is a theologian. Plus I can go to SmartDraw.com and get a free download of "easy medical anatomy software".

It is my confident belief, and I'm sure Trucker Frank will back me up on this, the only difference between me and a licensed physician is a silly piece of paper.

So if you are experiencing any internal discomfort, difficulty in breathing, poor circulation, persistent loss of memory, joint pain...please come by a let me take a look at it for you. I would work on my wife but she insists she feels just fine.

I will know more about the healing arts than Kevin Corcoran knows about the eschaton. And if worse comes to worst, I will put on your chart "semantic plasticity sufferer" and refer you to a friend who has a nifty chemistry set. He has the CHEM C2000 which promises to turn ordinary occurrences into remarkable events.

Now wouldn't you want to be part of a remarkable event?