I am still reeling from Pagitt’s comment, “Complex understandings meant for all people, in all places, for all times, are simply not possible.” The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary defines complex as “involved; complicated; perplexing.” So it seems to me we have a complex statement here. I think he just wrote a complex sentence which says that complex understandings of complex sentences are not possible. It seems that, even if the statement were true, we would not be able to understand it. It’s another instance of someone using words and sentences to explain to me that words and sentences can not be explained. That kind of thing gives this small-town boy a headache.

I want to know more in detail what it was about Mark’s contribution that ticked you off. It seemed to me that the editor or whoever was in charge of communicating with the authors gave them a specific agenda to approach. It seemed as though most of the authors did not even approach the agenda (Pagitt and Ward).

I think I know what you are getting at when you say it ticked you off but I would just like to hear more from you. Could it be that there was nothing really regarding emerging church practice and that it was just full of bible believing doctrine? And do you think that Mark Driscoll should even really be tied in with the Emerging Church, or is he really just a mega church leader who does a great job at reaching those in a emerging culture. I really enjoy Driscoll’s writings but I can understand your frustration, I just would like more clarification as to what it is.

And personally the one author who frustrated me the most was actually Karen Ward. I had a hard time reading through her chapter. I didn’t see how it really benefited the discussion. I also disliked her use of blog posts from other people. Perhaps that is just me but I thought I would share my frustrations.

Great review though Marko! And I hope you have a great time out of the country!