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.