Mark Driscoll vs. the Fifteen Winkers.
We’ve now got 15 winkers (Me, Adam, Kay, Doug, Kyle, Andrew, Tony, Mike, Will, Bro. Maynard, Jay, Josh C, Blake, Joe, Nick).
And just for the record, I’m not taking this too seriously. I’m so tired of all of these churchy/blogger schmohawks* getting their undies in a wad and reading into everything and bitching about everything. Now even the winks are being taken to seriously with people debating whether or not winks are “conversational” and characteristic of “emergent”. Are you kidding me? Do you have nothing better to do with your life than debate the playful gesture of a wink?
I’m about to name call.
D BAGS (censored for my mother).
CHIPTARDS (ht: Nick).
AND SCHMOHAWKS.
Go read the comments in this thread on my buddy Cleave’s site and try and pick out which adjective belongs to each person.
At some point all of these guys and gals stuck in their church offices (and home offices) need to get their heads out of their rear end and learn to lighten up. We are one cocky group when we take ourselves this seriously.
Can a man not wink anymore without it being analyzed?
* as referenced in the new season of Curb Your Enthusiasm by Larry David
Joshua Case
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 4:16 am Uhr
I’ll be twelve…
hehe..
jc
Scott Andreas
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 4:49 am Uhr
Sorry, Josh – no hard feelings anywhere.
I’m as much of a Driscoll critic as anybody, but I’ve got a pile of friends who love the guy and one who goes to his church.
The “peace sign” isn’t me getting all snarky and anal about analyzing gestures…it’s me doing what I can to smooth over the division and near-hatred that often brews between these worlds.
(Also, read Doug’s original post explaining the wink. Wish that would have been easier to get to in the beginning. I am now a fan of the wink.)
Love what you’re doing, bro – keep it up.
Scott
Josh
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 9:08 am Uhr
no worries dude. i wasn’t referring to you. glad you’ve stumbled across my site. look forward to seeing you around here more.
i just get frustrated when you read the comments on bob’s blog. or adam’s. we just take ourselves way too seriously. that was my point.
Helen
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 10:00 am Uhr
Nice…
I think that’s the effective weapon of our warfare: the ability not to take ourselves too seriously.
Nicholas
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 10:19 am Uhr
Alright, because you said shmoohawk, I will get you something at lunch today. . .
blake
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 10:31 am Uhr
i hear you bro.
i’m joining the ranks of the winkers.
jane
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 1:59 pm Uhr
could you ease up a bit on the “panties in a wad” and the “bitch” stuff?
these figures of speech only serve to showcase the underlying current of passive sexism that was naturally carried over from ex-evangelists into the emergent church. thx~!
Josh
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 2:04 pm Uhr
thanks for the input jane. i apologize for my insensitivity. i’ll modify the panties in a wad. but i’m not sure that “bitching” is passive sexism. i certainly didn’t mean either phrase in that way. but i certainly understand how the first could be bothersome to females. but the second i think is far removed from being relegated to one specific sex.
Joe
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 2:26 pm Uhr
I winked! Even though I suck at it. I had to use my hands!
Nicholas
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 3:30 pm Uhr
Oh snap!!! . . . Josh is totally like driscoll with the sexism. . .
Take that. . . | nicholasfiedler.com/blog
Wednesday, 26. September 2007 um 9:43 pm Uhr
[...] am joining up with the Emergy-14 – I will wink this time, but next time it will be an Acme Gun that fires a [...]
An Unfinished Soul » To Go With That Wink
Wednesday, 3. October 2007 um 12:27 pm Uhr
[...] in the Christian blogosphere are interpreting the “winking campaign” to be a sign of rudeness. Perhaps some mean it that way. I don’t know. That’s [...]