Sunday, June 05, 2005

Time to cut the apron-strings

I wouldn’t ordinarily bother with this sort of thing but, unfortunately, it seems to be symptomatic of how some in the “Reformed-Catholic” community comport themselves.

Jon accuses me of raising << such irrelevant topics as his Christian experience and speculations about how much he may or may not know compared to someone of more experience. >>

Sorry, but Jon is rewriting history here. First off, I never addressed anyone’s level of spiritual maturity. That’s beside the point.

Second, this is what Jon said in his original reaction piece:

<< Goodness. Why do people attempt to comment on things about which they know so little? >>

<< Again, one is left wondering why people feel the need to comment on things they know little about. >>

So who was the one speculating on comparative degrees of knowledge and ignorance? Does Jon bother to reread his own words?

<< The substance of our difference is this: Steve sees the need to assume the worst about people. >>

No, the actual substance of our difference is this: Steve sees the need to back up a criticism with a supporting argument. That’s a necessary condition of moral and intellectual responsibility.

<< I see the need to exercise Christian charity in my interactions with others. >>

Unfortunately, a number of “Reformed-Catholics” appear to wield a rather self-serving definition of “Christian charity.” Is it charitable to brand the Reformed-Baptist tradition as oxymoronic? Is it charitable to say that Luther is a genuine representative of Reformational theology, but a Reformed-Baptist is not? Christian charity begins with a capacity for self-criticism.

<< His historical errors I will not address. >>

How convenient—and how very typical! Level a charge, then retreat.

<< By the way, Steve, the name “J-Bo” was given me by a friend, and it takes a particularly condescending tone when you use it in attempting to interact to interact with my words. Out of courtesy, I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as either Jon, or “Augustinian” in the future. >>

This is what Jon has posted in the top upper left-hand corner of his blog:
<< Welcome to the Web Log of Augustinian (aka Jon Bonomo, or J-Bizzle, or Bones, or J-Bo, or Benomes, or Jonny Blaze, or whatever else you want to call me. >>

Okay, when I make the mistake of believing what he says, and refer to him by one of the options he himself offers a reader of his blog, he takes umbrage.

Once again, this is symptomatic of how some members of the “Reformed-Catholic” movement react. When you take them at their word, they act offended--as if it’s ungentlemanly to hold them to what they say. Can anyone explain this to me?

All I’m attempting to do—admittedly with little success--is to treat members of the Reformed-Catholic movement as rational agents with whom it is possible to enter into an intelligent, grown-up discussion over the intellectual merits of their case. Do they not want to be treated as adults? Do they not want to be treated as reasonable agents capable of engaging in an intelligent conversation over their views? If not, I can accommodate their preference and move on to other folks.

And if they don’t like me, they could at least respond to Frank Turk.

3 comments:

  1. I can't speak for anyone else in the Reformed Catholic viewpoint, but if you want an intelligent conversation with ME and expect ME to take your criticisms seriously, then the first thing you need to do is demonstrate some familiarity with the background of my work. I don't just blog things off the top of my brain willy-nilly and with no ability to support them with substantive argument. The subjects I blog about are generally too complicated to have to repeat the basics every single time, especially not merely because there is an off chance that some very low-Church, extremely baptistic, very immoderately anti-Romanist TA from RTS is going to stumble across a blog entry the brevity of which he wrongly thinks to be indicative of the quality of my entire viewpoint and of which he then issues a hack-and-slash criticism while complaining that I don't provide any interaction or substance.

    My website is far more than a blog, Mr. Hays. If you care to examine my position in detail, you can find a great deal of material on it, particularly in the Encyclopedia section. I'll give you a list of relevant articles I've written in support of my more general theses if you wish. In addition, I have compiled a list of many of my relevant shorter blog posts

    Like Augustinian said, you shouldn't talk about things of which you are ignorant. You only make yourself look bad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oops, the link didn't come through in the last post in the second to last paragraph. It should be http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Original/ChurchMilitant.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Argh, one more thing. I've responded to Frank Turk quite often, and sometimes he's actually helped me see some things in a better light. Pretty sharp guy. But here lately he's just been bitter and angry at me for some reason, and it's really affected the quality of his criticisms negatively.

    I almost want to laugh at a REFORMED BAPTIST, a member of a tradition that prides itself on how it's always persecuted for the sake of the truth, himself arguing that some kind of external authority needs to clamp down on dissent to prevent heresy from spreading! What delicious historical irony!

    ReplyDelete