Before I posted the conclusion to the series on One-Eyed Jacks, I paused for a brief intercalation entitled “Saruman and the Emergent Church.” It was a reaction to and elaboration on a post at Challies wherein he takes exception to some of Tony Jones’ (one of the ubiquitous spokesmen for the Emergent Church) statements.

Doug Burtt apparently didn’t like my post (which is fine) and left the following comment:

I was initially impressed by this website (being a fan of Tolkien), but frankly this article misrepresents and insults both Tolkien and the Emergents. I am greatly disappointed.”

While the “greatly disappointed” seemed to be a tad histrionic, it was an OK comment as far as it went. I replied,

Doug:

Serious charges, if true.

In what way or ways do you believe I have misrepresented and insulted Tolkien and/or the Emergents? The Emergents I can perhaps understand (if a compelling argument can be adduced) but I have no idea how I may have misrepresented Tolkien or insulted him.

If you have time, I would be interested in knowing more.”

Then I decided to follow Doug’s link to Boar’s Head Tavern, where he is a contributor and a site that can be narcissistic at times (but not always: it depends on who’s writing) but frequently has some good insight into the state of Christendom. Being naive, I guess, I was a little surprised by Doug’s post there:

And I suppose Osteen is Sauron…

Not only are Emergents heretics and apostates, now they are Tolkien villains.

The only thing left now is for someone to accuse Brian MacLaren of being the AntiChrist…

Even a moderately sober reading of my post shows that Doug’s post is less-than accurate, but that’s not the point. It should be the point, maybe, but it’s not the point.

I should be grateful, I guess, for the link but I was struck by the difference between his comment here at LOTK (where I could respond in my tiny little corner of the cyberchurch) and his post (which emanated from the bully pulpit that is BHT and to which I could not reply: comments are closed at the tavern). This, I realized, is exactly the sort of thing that my long, long, series - which Doug doesn’t seem to have read or, if he has read it, failed to see himself in it - anyway, the series was attempting to address this kind of person: those who appear to be something they are not while hiding what they really are.

Safe from refutation at the wildly popular BHT, Doug comes across boldly, snidely, and heroically. But in the dark corner of the cyberuniverse that is LOTK, where responses and rebukes are possible, he’s quite different: wimpy, careful, almost effeminate. Hello, One-Eyed Jack.

This is not to disparage all the contributors at BHT - I find Michael quite genuine and insightful most of the time - but is only to single out Doug as an example of a One-Eyed Jack: brave when impunity is all-but assured, but quite different when there is even a remote possibility of rebuke or being called to task.

Thanks, Doug, for showing the other side of your face here at LOTK.

Should you care to comment again, Doug, feel free. In fact, I would be very interested in how you feel I have misrepresented and insulted the two parties involved.

Realize, though, that since BHT reserves the right to take cheap shots with the comments closed, I’ll reserve the right to edit your comments if and however I see fit.

That’s fair, isn’t it? And, since I said it up front, I can hardly be accused of being a One-Eyed Jack.



Namárië.