That quote you cite above is merely the latest fashion in sheep-like wolfwear. The only problem is that the form no longer follows function. The observer notices too much wolf and too much silliness in the sheep likeness to be of much use to a reasonable heretic.

Maybe he should contract with Slubglob for more garment design lessons in order to avoid this kind of wardrobe failure in the future.

LOL - we love you too!

ex:

They sure have a way with words, don’t they?


Mike:

Hey, man! You wouldn’t happen to have a relative named Matt in Minnesota, wouldya? I’d love to crash that family reunion.

I’d pay good money to witness someone in “the foresight field” having a chinwag with a fundy therapist.

Ha! I blogged about Matt recently, funny you should ask. But no, we aren't related that I know of - nor am I with David Morrell, the military novelist who created Rambo - alas.

Futurists aren't a scary lot, btw - there are some true-blue, conservative Christian futurists in the field - not all of us are crazy hairy ticks like me. :)

Oh, I don’t think futurists are scary; I think they are sad and needy.

And just so I can keep my records current, who do you consider a “conservative Christian futurist”?

And why are futurists scared and needy? Upon what are you basing this?

"St. Paul said the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. We must wonder who still believes that."

I firmly believe the Gospel is still, has always been, and will always remain the power of God unto salvation. In John 6 Jesus asked his disciples if they, too, would desert Him on account of the difficult teaching. I affirm, as the disciples did in response to Christ, that He alone has the truth and the words of life. "Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail me, but God is the strength o my heart and my portion forever." (Ps 73:25-6)

Mike:

“Sad and needy.” I said they were sad and needy. Maybe they’re scared, but I don’t care about that. Attributing another's beliefs to fear is just childish.

I’m basing this on my experience with a whole gaggle of futurists from Filippo Tommaso Marinetti to other art movements influenced by it such as vorticism, dada, constructivism….

I’m also basing this on the work of people like Alvin Toffler, and probably the gaudiest clown of them all, Al Gore.

I’m basing this on my experience with social futurists and methodological futurists; with people fond of methods such as visioning, policy analysis, strategy development, roadmapping, goalsetting, forecasting, modeling, trend analysis, horizon scanning, scenario development, prediction analysis….

Then there is the whole subset of futurists in the emergent church (which has more zeroes than Obama’s budget).

They are needy in that they cannot deal with the world they are in, so they are forced to ignore its verities and plead their case for change based on tendentious speculation and adolescent fantasies. A recent example of this was Doug Pagitt’s inane accusation that people who want to retain an orthodox theology do so out of “fear”.

Now that is just sad.

So, who do you consider a “conservative Christian futurist”?

Ok,
I want to know, why is when one questions things like this, the responses come in like "don't be a hater," etc. ad nauseum. Why is disagreement and critique always such a binary love hate thing? Jus' sayin' thas'all.

Sam:

Oh, I know; let’s pretend to be emergents and accuse them of fear.

Yah, that’s it!

We are courageous and they are little scaredy-cats. We are brave and progressive, they are afraid and small-minded.

Wow - you know your stuff, it sounds like. Either that or you just read a Wikipedia entry on futurists. But I'll go with "you know your stuff."

Buuut, you're saying that futurists are these alarmists who can't accept the world 'that is' - isn't your credo/blog byline a rejection of the world 'as is'? Is the difference - the irritating difference - that futurists are biased into taking to the world into their visions of tomorrow, whereas you're biased toward taking the world into your visions of yesterday?

Conservative futurists...the MSF Strategic Foresight program at Regent University is full of them - my fellow-students. One that you might have heard of? Tom Sine.

(The professional foresight field, theology aside, is probably about split between 'progressive' and 'conservative' futurists. Granola-crunching nonprofits have futurists, sure. But so does Coca-Cola, and the US Army.)

So Tom Sine is your “conservative Christian futurist”.

Let’s see if another question produces an equally daft answer: What is your definition of the word conservative?

Tom is a staunch evangelical in the Anglican tradition; he doesn't do some more mainline-ey or interfaith events b/c of his evangelical convictions. Just 'cause he's not a neo-Puritan does not disqualify him from being a conservative xian futurist imo.

Mike:

You say “imo”.

And that’s the tragic point, isn’t it? This is all just your opinion. That’s why I asked you for a definition; your opinion is emotional, tendentious and inadequate.

You cannot give a rational answer. And this, of course, is one of the blatant faults of emergence. You want to place people on some ideological scale of value to suit your prejudices; you refuse to deal with the realities of language, church doctrine and religious history. In other words, you refuse to deal with the "faith traditions", as you like to call them, of your fellow-man. That is why you have to mischaracterize it with the ridiculous “neo-Puritan”.

“…he doesn't do some more mainline-ey or interfaith events b/c of his evangelical convictions”.

Just because a guy doesn’t do “mainline-ey or interfaith events” doesn’t make him a conservative. This is so obvious even an emergent should be able to work it out.

Let me try to make this as explicit as possible. Suppose Sine were a communist—leftist to the core. (I’m not saying he is; I’m asking you to suppose for the sake of argument.) If Sine were a communist and “didn’t do mainline-ey or interfaith events”, that wouldn’t necessarily make him a conservative, now would it, Mike?

When can we expect emergents to grow up?

Is there a scientific definition of 'conservative'? My guess is that Tom is a Nicene & Apostles' Creed kinda guy who believes in personal salvation, the deity of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, etc...

Is that what you want me to say? Good grief.

That's your guess, is it?

Now would your guess be more, or less, reliable than your opinion?

(Just for my records.)

My guess as someone who knows the man but who doesn't want to put words in his mouth. Who are you, Joseph McCarthy?

Let's start over from the beginning - who are you, and why should I care? I don't mean that to be overly callous, it's just that I never heard of you before a week or so ago, and while I now now (from perusing your backlog a bit) what raises your ire, I still haven't the foggiest clue what you're for. It's easy to tear down others' sandcastles, but it's much harder to build your own.

So, it wasn’t putting words in his mouth when you first said he was a “conservative Christian futurist”, but when I ask you what you mean by conservative you think that would be putting words in his mouth. Like a fundamentalist you go around slapping labels on people and like an emergent you can’t define the terms you use.

I must say that that’s pretty unhelpful, Mike.

You’ve never heard of me?! I hope you’re not just saying that to hurt my feelings. My wife thinks I’m a famous person.

And if you want to start over from the beginning, I do believe the question was:

“…who do you consider a ‘conservative Christian futurist’?”

Let’s see if that gets any easier to answer on a second attempt.

Well I'm sorry that my language does not satisfy you with the degree of precision that, say, Esperanto or a Calculus textbook might. As far as I know (and without getting all Grand Inquisitor on him), Mr. Sine would have no problem freely assenting to the Beliefs listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity Neither would a number of my colleagues and classmates in the Regent Strategic Foresight program, who shall remain nameless to stay off of your lists one way or the other. I'll reiterate what I said above: The futurist community is quite diverse - politically and ideologically. You seem informed about the Futures field but your implicit assumption that it's a vanguard of the Left is misinformed. Trust me, there are NeoCon futurists.

I mean no hurt in saying that I hadn't heard of you, Mr. Remonstrant. Why, I still don't know your Christian name. :)

And again I ask - where can I read about what you're for?

Mike:

In talking about futurists, you said they weren’t scary; I never said they were scary. You said I called them alarmists; I did not call them that. You idiotically asked if our banner isn’t a rejection of the world “as is”.

You first said Regent University was full of conservative futurists but you only gave one name: Tom Sine. I’d read some of Sine’s stuff, so I asked you for your definition of conservative. You didn’t define conservatism, instead you said “he doesn't do some more mainline-ey or interfaith events”. I replied that that wasn’t the best possible indicator of conservatism.

You made a meaningless crack about neo-Puritans.

You ask if there is a “scientific definition” of conservatism, and then you “guessed” that Tom is “a Nicene and Apostle’s Creed kinda guy who believes in personal salvation, the deity of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, etc…”. Then you make another crack about what I might want you to say.

From the beginning I made it clear what I wanted: your definition of conservatism.

You suggest that coming up with a definition for a word you yourself used to describe Tom Sine was putting words in his mouth. You regurgitated the name Joseph McCarthy.

You asked who I am and you wanted to know why I thought you should care.

You want to know what I am for.

Still no definition for a term you introduced into the conversation.

Now you make irrational comparisons to Esperanto and calculus. You suggest that for you to define your own terms is to “get all Grand Inquisitor” with the Tom Sine! You write that all those conservative Christian futurists that “fill” Regent University shall remain nameless so they can stay off my lists, and I don’t even know what lists those are that they should be kept off of. I didn't ask for a list of names, I asked for a definition.

You still want to know my name and what I am for. You have 5 years worth of posts, and there are generally more comments than posts, and sometimes those comments are longer than the original post.

Still no definition of the word conservative which you introduced into the discussion.

Are you always this obliquitous or did I catch you during a workout?

I gave you a definition - from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity It's a little hoi-polloi, I know, but did you not see it?

I didn't ask for your name (if it isn't here, I'm not asking you to let down your privacy), but I would like you to point me to a post or two that'd help me understand better what your whole programme is. Thanks.

Oh yah, I saw it; it’s pure nonsense.

But hey, that’s cool, Mark. If you insist on going with wikipedia’s “hoi polloi” answer, that’s perfectly fine with me. Heaven knows I’m not here to impose clear thinking on Emergents.

If you want to go on record as believing that conservative is a synonym for orthodox and that conservatives hold to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles, and a literal Heaven and Hell, then I’m all for it.

I’ll even be happy to flag this exchange for future readers curious about how Emergents “think”.

But now, when they ask if progressive is a synonym for heterodox, and when they naturally infer that progressives don’t hold to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles, and a literal Heaven and Hell, should I encourage them in this preposterous oversimplification?

It also kinda trashes your answer about Tom Sine being a conservative because “…he doesn't do some more mainline-ey or interfaith events b/c of his evangelical convictions”.

But I’m ok with that, too.

Dissidens,

Certainly you weren't expecting any sane or thoughtful response from one of the official endorsers of The Shack were you?

Nope.

This is exactly the kind of desperate, scatterbrained, grab-bag, throw-anything-up-and-see-what-sticks “conversation” I have come to expect, scattered throughout with their devil-words and suggestive allusions to distasteful things like Puritanism, Calvinism, Fundamentalism, Joe McCarthy, legalism, systematic theological comprehensions of everything, Pharisaism…

They live in a very small playground full of very predictable bogeymen.

It’s sad, but in a hilarious kind of way, if you know what I mean.

Yes, watching him define conservative via wikipedia (twice) would have been more of a riot if it wasn't so tragic.

And remember, this is the way they told us they would be doing theology. Open sourcing is always for the Trucker Franks and Maries, never for the Apostles, Prophets, Dantes, Calvins, Machens, Schmids, Buswells, MacArthurs or Sprouls.

Open sourcing is, ironically, a way of systematizing ignorance.

So how would you define 'conservative'?

And, is 'neo-Puritan' pejorative to you? I didn't mean it that way. J.I. Packer's been using it, positively, since the 1970s I believe. In the PCA, where I cut my neo-Puritan teeth, we were fine with the designation.

If I were going to discuss conservatism with someone who knew nothing at all about it, I couldn’t do better than to assign the following readings:

Russell Kirk's definition of conservatism in National Review, 3 Sep 1982

http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Mind-Burke-Eliot/dp/0895261715
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Prudence-Russell-Kirk/dp/1882926013
http://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Have-Consequences-Richard-Weaver/dp/0226876802

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=28&loc=s