watch out, i’m dangerous
Tuesday August 16th 2005, 12:52 pm
Filed under: faith, personal, blogs

i’ve been called many, many things in my life. but i don’t think i’ve ever been called “dangerous” until today! i could take this lots of ways, i suppose — but i’m going to choose to take it as a compliment; i mean, women often like men who are a little dangerous (right, jeannie?), and our culture seems to value somewhat dangerous men, especially if they also seem to have a sensitive side. dang — if i can be both dangerous and sensitive, i might really have somethin’ going here!

so, watch out for me. keep a bit of distance, because i’m dangerous. but not too much distance, because i’m sensitive too.

15 Comments so far
Leave a comment

of course paul is going to talk about evidence. it would be stupid for a man who had seen and spoken to Jesus, been blinded by Him, and been healed after following His guidance to NOT talk about evidence.
could you imagine paul NOT using his evidence and witness in conversation with every non-believer?
“well, funny you should mention Jesus because i’ve got this great stor…. forget it… i don’t want to bore you with details.”
i don’t feel like the Biblical example presented makes Rob Bell wrong at all… he’s talking about first century churches, not apostles… the churches stuck out but not because logical proofs for the existence of a benevolent God… they didn’t have the eyewitness accounts of Paul but they certainly had experienced the living God in an unexplainable way… where explanation and proof were insubstantial in the early church’s words, evidence and proof were communicated clearly by their love. and i don’t see how this would throw apologetics/reason/logic out as witnessing tools… they stay in the utility belt secondary to love.

Comment by Andy 08.16.05 @ 2:57 pm

i think the doctor meant ‘contagious’ not dangerous! :) just kidding!

Comment by bobbie 08.16.05 @ 3:35 pm

Dangerous? I love it! Ooohh. I read the post on Stand to Reason. They are so absorbed in their way of thinking, that they totally missed your point. Thanks for being “dangerous”!

Comment by Mike DeVries 08.16.05 @ 4:42 pm

Hey Mark,

I’m not sure how to take your comments. I didn’t call you dangerous, I said your IDEAS “may be dangerous,” referring to the danger they may pose to the faith of believers. I’m sure that you would agree that false ideas are “dangerous” to our walk with Jesus in the sense that they can seriously keep us from experiencing life with him the way he intended. Now, maybe I’m wrong that your ideas are false but it’s the ideas that are up for discussion, right?

It seems you may have taken my comments personally. I certainly didn’t intend for them to be a personal slam. In fact, I complimented you so people might recognize the positive contributions you have made. If you’ve taken offense to me referring to your ideas as “dangerous” I’d be more than willing to edit my post.

And if you think my ideas are wrong, off-the-mark, etc. please engage them and show me where I may be missing the point. I’m very open to correction. That way, we may be able to get some constructive conversation going that’s free of sarcasm & personal attacks and that may be helpful to others.

For the Kingdom…

Comment by Brett Kunkle 08.16.05 @ 6:45 pm

I love it! Dangerous huh? Congrats!

Being a truth-teller always presents danger!

Comment by Clint Walker 08.16.05 @ 7:36 pm

i don’t think i took it personally, brent. i rather enjoyed it.

Comment by marko 08.16.05 @ 9:12 pm

it’s the kilt, babe

Comment by bob c 08.16.05 @ 11:11 pm


i would love to hear you respond to kunkle’s point… what about the example of paul?

what role do you think apologetics should play in christian life?

Comment by brian 08.17.05 @ 3:02 am

It seems to be a fairly typical response to completely ignore the argument and resort to claiming being called “dangerous” as if it was some sort of personal attack. It was the IDEAS that were dangerous not Mark personally. I have often wondered if it is an inherent trait of the emergent crowd to sort of throw out some trite remark rather than actually address the idea. In reality most “young” people in terms of actual demographics are turned off by this sort of posture.

This sort of “dodge the argument” game followed by a laugh and a giggles routine will last a couple of more years tops. It’s similar to the one guy who is pointing out to everyone not to drink the arsenic-laced cool-aid and everyone laughs at him.

Can someone actually be so arrogant to think that they are so right in their ideas that they basically resort to laughing away every challenge to their idea? It is somewhat similar to every debate about evolution you see, the evolutionist is laughing and never actually addressing what the ID guy is saying because they are just “so right.”

I am going to throw the word “babe” in this post so I can be considered “really cool.”

Comment by Nate 08.17.05 @ 10:44 pm

Have always enjoyed your thoughts and reflections on the significant and the mundane. Keep it up..its refreshing.


Comment by J.R. 08.17.05 @ 11:22 pm

What are you complaining about? The STR readers have called me every name in the book.

Tony Montano of

Comment by Tony Montano 08.17.05 @ 11:43 pm

Tony, that’s because you use the STR blog (and apparently this one now) for advertising your website while often hijacking the conversation like it’s your own blog.

Comment by Roger N Overton (Murdock of The A-Team) 08.18.05 @ 1:09 am

Oh, and I just thought they didn’t like me.

Eitherway, your blog is next…

Comment by Tony Montano 08.18.05 @ 4:46 am

nate, tony, roger: everyone take a step back, breathe deeply, drink a tall cold something, and be nice. please.

Comment by marko 08.18.05 @ 5:25 am

I drank a tall cold 40 and i’m even more pissed!


Comment by Tony Montano 08.18.05 @ 7:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: