More Shaping - Misrepresentation and all that

Well, now Mike has popped up and suggested a few things about my feedback. Here is his comment from yesterday:

Mike says:

I'll have to add my two cents worth because I fear you've misrepresented me also. When I talk about an orgasmic life I certainly do encourage us to eat well , laugh loudly and love intensely, BUT... I also say that we ought to give away as much of our time, energy and money in the cause of others, including the poor!! Don't eat shit, watch crap TV and sit around whining about life. Live it loud, wonderfully and generously. Eat good food and share as much food with others as we can. The word 'companion' means 'with bread'. True companionship means sharing bread with others. Throw great parties, give great gifts and always defer to the needs of the poor and the oppressed.

Also, on the matter of dosh, I make it my business not to profit in any way from the wealthy Christians God has directed across my path. I'm like a clearing house for mission and the poor.

You've been too harsh on us, you bugger.

Mike

Now, I will avoid getting upset over the expletive. I am assured that the comment has nothing to do with the Windsor Report at all.

I am glad that Mike has made such a good rejoinder about the importance of a justice-based orgasmic lifestyle. And I always said that I didn't have too much gripe about what he had to say anyway. He made it clear that he gave away as much as he can and that his lifestyle was not part of the properity agenda which is so anti-gospel. No problem, Mike. Thanks for clearing this up.

However, I do think that both Alan and Mike have to get off the 'you've misunderstood me' agenda. My comments resonate with other people's comments from different events. There is a bit of widespread misunderstanding going on here. How do we work this one out. A few possibilities:

1. There may be a problem of cultural translation - that we Brits are misunderstanding you guys because you are speaking in a different cultural code. Perhaps its about an anti-institutional bias that simply goes against the grain in the UK setup. But I am not so sure of this - after all we are all victims of the Pax Americana and we are all part of the globalisation agenda - there is actually quite a bit of similarity between the cultures by now...and we are also all part of the subculture of Christianity and par tof the Christian subculture discussing mission and emerging church - so there isn't much mileage here, I don't think.

2. There may be a problem of miscommunication - Alan said in his comment that his communication could be read as being anti-institutional but that is not how he felt of himself. Well, that's a bit hard on us listeners, Alan. I mean how are we supposed to know what you think other than what you say or what you write? Mike, how do I know your justice credentials unless you tell me about them. Readers can only base their understanding on the limited bit of the author they have contact with...if you want me to understand you better, give me more of you...until you do, ignorance may reign.

3. There may be a problem of misrepresentation - it may be that the reader understands where the author is coming from exactly. It may be that they are mind-readers and so can work out what the author actually meant to say although he didn't actually say it. It may be that the reader can fill in all the cultural gaps required. At that point, if the reader decides to make a comment which he knows consciously goes against the author, then it is misrepresentation.

4. There may be a factual disagreement - it may be that whether I understand what you say or not, I basically disagree with what you are saying - like the Early Church debate. If I think you are wrong, tough. I can say it!

I reckon that the various levels of misrepresentation here are the kind of things that occur in literary gaps - where I haven't heard or you haven't said something clearly enough. With the various comments, like those Maggi has made, it is not that we have gone out of our way to misrepresent...it is that we have a different point of view. I thought that the emergent church would be more open to debate and dialogue...perhaps we need to look again at the cut and thrust of the early Church.

Just cos someone says something you don't agree with it does not mean that you hate them, that you do not value them, or that you diminish their work. In fact it is a massive complement - it means that they have actually taken you seriously enough to think about what you have said.

No, Mike, I am not a bugger. I'm your brother.

Pete

Comments

[jonny]

language eh?! now i think you are misreading mike's use of bugger - i read it as a friendly 'you cheeky bugger', but then you may have thought that as well and i am misreading your ending as sounding put out when you are being ironic and cheeky yourself... just goes to show how complicated all this virtual communication is without the tone of voice/facial expressions etc... it's hard to tell whether the tongue is in the cheek or not. i think mike said everything he's resaid here at the day in sheffield but then i did hear him in three locations so i may be wrong... it seems totally reasonable to suggest you misrepresented him in that - why do you feel put out by that? (when i read your post i thought it was bit accusing about mike if i'm honest) and mike and alan have joined in the conversations here, on steve's blog and wherever else in a totally reasonable fashion. i love your conversation that you have documented with alan. why are you making a deal of this? i don't get it. what makes you say emerging church can't debate when that is what is happening? if a few people get put out so what?....

[maggi]

Pete, I formed my initial thoughts about Hirsch and Frost's ideas through their book. The more I hear about their tour, and readng these e-mails here and some of the comments on blogs elsewhere, it sounds to me like they have something really imporatnt to say about evanglism, church and 'blokey' men. Maybe the problem is in trying to make a universal missiology out of something that is very particularised? They are right that there are slabs of the world that some styles f gospel presentation don't reach. I also share your misgivings about their loose and hyperbolic use of Church history to make a missiology. But maybe this is why it isn't chiming home, when it's obviously being vastly useful in the home context of Forge?

[Michael Frost]

Oh bugger! I seem to have offended you by calling you a bugger on your blog. Well, I'll be buggered. Being misunderstood does hurt like buggery. Never a truer word spoke though, Pete, you are my brother, you bugger!