Contrary to what you seem to be arguing, what books you endorse, for whom you choose to speak, and where you choose to write all mean something about your point of view.

The fact that DeYoung made this simple point has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether he meant his “you’re emergent if” list innocently in a humorous sense, or instead meant it to be deadly serious.

So what on earth are you trying to say about DeYoung?

“* “endorse one another’s book” — Oh, puhleeeeeze. Does anyone with even a modicum of personal honesty think that book endorsements have any real value?”

“Value” is a weird way to put it. But sure, book endorsements have meaning. Which depends on precisely what the endorsements say.

If you see a group of people who regularly endorse each others books, you think it’s “drek” to perceive any kind of commonality between them?

“* “speak at the same conferences” — Two people occupying the same physical space within a 72-hour period are somehow aligned theologically? So when a Hindu has a doctor’s appt right before me, does mean that I lose my salvation?”

What?

Your religion has nothing to do with your decision to go to the doctor, so no. Occupying the same physical space has nothing to do with your philosophy/religion/ideology/theology, so no. Speaking at a conference? Yeah, that has something to do with ideology. The inference you can draw depends on the themes of the conferences.

“Aligned theologically” might be too strong. But “there’s something of a discernible movement”? That’s “drek”?

Your comments really don’t help me understand where you’re coming from with this.

For that matter, your “translation” of his quote–”You can’t complain about over-generalization about emergents because there is no over-generalization about emergents. I have declared it so.”–seems rather deliberately obtuse. How does “There’s something of a movement afoot” translate to “it’s impossible to overgeneralize”?

It’s as though, in your mind, there’s no difference between “It’s possible to make some generalizations” and “It’s impossible to overgeneralize”.

Never did I complain one bit about DeYoung’s list. I questioned the idea that it was intended to be fun-poking satire, given the greater context of the book.

As long as I’m in a myth-dispelling mode, let me knock out a couple more that I’d imagine a few folks are having. I’m not Emergent. I am Reformed. (And not just b/c the list here fits me a lot better. )

OK, let’s break it down.

* “endorse one another’s book” — Oh, puhleeeeeze. Does anyone with even a modicum of personal honesty think that book endorsements have any real value?
* “speak at the same conferences” — Two people occupying the same physical space within a 72-hour period are somehow aligned theologically? So when a Hindu has a doctor’s appt right before me, does mean that I lose my salvation?
* “write on the same blogs” — You’re really going to try to closely associate people that write on the same blog on the personal blog of the proprietor of the BHT?

You’re right. It’s not drek — it’s laughable baloney. I was trying to be nice. Thanks for correcting me.

How is that insulting? ….. If you think that’s offensive

Never said either. Please stop over-generalizing. Oh wait, I can’t ask that. DeYoung said there isn’t any.