That you are taking the occasion of a tragedy and using it for another round of the completely endless Calvinist-Arminianism debate demonstrates to me that “debating theology for the glory of God” is something I’m happy to pass on. Internet Reformed debaters continually blow my pastoral instincts away with their immediate responses to tragedy.
Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 10:16 pm | Trackback
Is the toleration, even the defense, of this point of view in any way distressing to you as a Christian? Does the announcement that NOW- in the aftermath of YWAM/New Life- NOW is the time to debate Calvinism-Arminianism strike you as odd in the least? Is the endless baiting of good brothers and sisters for not believing in God’s sovereignty, not believing in prayer and on and on ever going to make you say enough is enough?
Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 2:39 pm | Trackback
I have no problem saying that, even with increased gun violence, I feel 100x safer on our campus than in any mall or at UK with Clay. A person coming on our campus with the gym bag and the trench coat is going to get a reaction. They’ve gotten it from me before. I was only moderately embarassed :-)
I’m not a gun nut, but I am not in favor of allowing the mentally ill to do these things without stopping them.
Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 5:10 pm | Trackback
In my situation, it’s about people who are blasted on Meth or crazed on whiskey coming onto campus, out of their minds, angry that we have blacks, ranting about God telling them to kill people, etc. Deranged. The only way to LOVE these people is to stop them. The only way to LOVE these people is to stop them.
Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 6:51 pm | Trackback
Is there any astonishment left for the hubris and condescension in these kinds of statements? That Michael is taking the occasion of a tragedy and using it for another round of the completely endless NRA-gun control debate demonstrates to me that BHT is something I’m happy to pass on. BHT debaters continually blow my pastoral instincts away with their immediate responses to tragedy—like attempting to politicize this tragedy.
Is the toleration, even the defense, of this point of view in any way distressing to you as a Christian? Does the announcement that NOW- in the aftermath of YWAM/New Life- NOW is the time to debate the 2nd Amendment strike you as odd in the least? Is the endless baiting of good brothers and sisters for not joining the NRA or attending gun shows and on and on ever going to make you say enough is enough?
Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably a waste of keystrokes to point out that leaving out half the BHT conversation in question, and including only Spencer's posts out of context, is disingenuous at best. Slimy beyond belief at worst.
My impression, by all the self-asssured bombast, is that the average age of your crew is oh, about 24. I can only hope that the passing years with all the attendant trials and challenges will bring with them a dose of humility and intropsection. 3 years in Arabia might also help.
Jerry said:
ReplyDelete"Unbelievable. It's probably a waste of keystrokes to point out that leaving out half the BHT conversation in question, and including only Spencer's posts out of context, is disingenuous at best."
I see that you're a blind partisan.
1.Since Spencer intiated the attack on Peter's post, that is why he was singled out. Sorry you're too clueless to connect the dots for yourself.
2.I'm merely holding him to his own standard. By his own chosen yardstick, Spencer is hubristically exploiting a personal tragedy as a pretext to advance his political views on gun control. Where is his pastoral sense?
How is that any different from Peter taking the occasion to expound his views on God's providence?
It says a lot about Spencer's priorities, as well as your own, that it's wrong to theologize about the tragedy, but okay to politicize the tragedy.
3.You've done nothing to show where I quoted him out of context.
"My impression, by all the self-asssured bombast, is that the average age of your crew is oh, about 24. I can only hope that the passing years with all the attendant trials and challenges will bring with them a dose of humility and intropsection. 3 years in Arabia might also help."
That's an unintentionally comical accusation given the antics over at BHT. Spare us your hollow indignation. Maybe you need to spend 3 years in Arabia.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou've mischaracterized Michael's statements about carrying guns. And then you end with this question:
Is the endless baiting of good brothers and sisters for not joining the NRA or attending gun shows and on and on ever going to make you say enough is enough?
Even allowing for hyperbole, your comments are either uninformed or dishonest.
I think we all know it's the latter.
You may feel justified in smugly dismissing dissenting views as "blindly partisan," but that says nothing about their accuracy.
I expect that Matthew 12:36 includes what it written on blogs as well.
You have a perfect right to promote your own opinions and views. But I would expect any follower of Jesus Christ to do that with integrity and charity.
PASTOR ROD SAID:
ReplyDelete“You've mischaracterized Michael's statements about carrying guns.”
For which you offer no evidence.
“Even allowing for hyperbole, your comments are either uninformed or dishonest.”
For which you offer no evidence.
“I think we all know it's the latter.”
For which you offer no evidence.
“You may feel justified in smugly dismissing dissenting views as ‘blindly partisan,’ but that says nothing about their accuracy.”
To the contrary, I specifically rebutted his claims.
“I expect that Matthew 12:36 includes what it written on blogs as well.”
Next time, why don’t you lead by example.
“You have a perfect right to promote your own opinions and views.”
Spencer would beg to differ. He pretended to take offense at Peter’s post.
“But I would expect any follower of Jesus Christ to do that with integrity and charity.”
Excellent advice. Why don’t you redirect that in Spencer’s direction. And include yourself in your own advice the next time around.
Steve, your comparison/analogy is false for the following reasons:
ReplyDeleteThe moral response to a tragedy of this sort would be expressions of sympathy and desires that such things ought not to be (the latter fitting in with Michael's post).
And immoral response would be to use the tragedy as an opportunity merely to prove oneself right, or to go sloganeering for a cause having nothing to do with the tragedy itself (Pike's "Well at least *I* don't have to despair when such things occur" is similar to how Catholics insert themselves into disputes about doctrine by announcing "Well *I* don't have this problem because I have an infallible magisterium, not like you prots with your 30000+ denominations").
So you are not using Spencer's yardstick, nor are you correct in asserting this is an issue of theologizing or politicizing. It is one of motives.
If Spencer were counseling a survivor of the tragedy who lost a loved one, would he launch into a defense of the Second Amendment? Is that a way of "sympathizing" with the victim? And how do his remarks fall on the ears of the parents of the shooter? Is that this most appropriate *pastoral* response to such a tragedy?
ReplyDeleteSpencer isn't following his pastoral instinct, here. He's simply using this tragedy as an occasion to discuss the importance of arming law-abiding citizens so that they can defend themselves.
I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with his egregious double standard.
Discussing the providence of God in relation to tragedy (a la Peter Pike) is at least as appropriate as discussing the Second Amendment (a la Spencer).
I would be a lot more willing to take the various criticism of my posts seriously if the people who were bashing me for them demonstrated that they had ever read them. Thus far all I've seen is assertions that I've said stuff I never said.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out a truth that is uncomfortable for Arminians in the best of times, and they decided that the appropriate "response" is to attack me with ad hominem. Apparently, my character is maligned because of the timing of when I stated my views. I ask: how is this not a logical fallacy?
Further, I have yet to see anyone actually point out anything that I said factually wrong. Instead, I get claims that it's insensitive. I don't see the truth as ever being insensitive. The truth is reality, and if you're living a delusion the reality can hurt. But better reality that heals than the delusion that kills.
I also appreciate the people who think I had no emotional response to this tragedy, as if I didn't live in the city, as if I didn't know people who were there in the building, as if I wasn't the trainer for one of the people who was actually in the van helping the Works family after the attack. I'm sure that's why I never sent e-mails to other T-bloggers during this time asking for prayer or pointing out my concern at not knowing if any of my friends were involved....
Despite the emotional responses that I do have, the fact of the matter is that emotions aren't valid reasons to conclude anything. Emotion can often override and destroy reason (case in point: I may know that a bridge will support me if I walk across it but that doesn't mean I'm not afraid of heights).
I didn't offer the emotive responses because I have substance to my position. If all I had was emotional responses, I'm sure I'd be just like the idiotMonk.
If a theological response isn't appropriate during a crisis, then when is it? And finally, there is absolutely NOTHING in my posts that can be misconstrued as being insensitive toward anyone involved in the tragedy in the least. My discussion was about Arminians and their reaction to such events. I said nothing about the victims, I said nothing about the shooter. And all the Arminians have done is validate my point with every single response they've made.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you process everything in the paradigm of debate. You want me to offer evidence that you misrepresented Michael's statements. Then you will unleash an assault on each item of that evidence. You will then ask so many questions that I couldn't possible answer them all. Then you will proclaim that your "side" has won.
This may be an excellent way to prevail in a high school forensics meet, but it is not an efficient way to arrive at the truth.
I understand why you hold to your theology. I think it is misguided, but I respect it as a reasonable position.
Your characterization that Michael is using this tragedy to advance some political view is absurd. If you really cared about the truth, you would know this.
(For the record, here's your evidence: http://boarsheadtavern.com )
The Peewee Herman maneuver is not very effective when dealing with adults. Besides, where did I fail to exhibit integrity or charity? I thought your position was that the truth is never insensitive.
But, of course, I don't hold the same view. I think the truth can often be insensitive. Would you walk up to a stranger on the street and say, "You have a huge, ugly wart on your nose"?
You actually wrote "idiotMonk"?
Yep, you've got a firm hold on the moral high ground.
I'm sure, based upon your earlier comments that you are reading all sorts of emotional baggage in my comments. I assure you that I am choosing my words carefully--without any malice or venom.
I am also humble enough to realize that I'm not going to come up with the perfect argument that is going to cause you to agree with me.
God Bless.
I’m not sure where you get “blind partisan.” Pointing out the unsavoriness of your scorched-earth tactics makes me neither blind, nor partisan.
ReplyDeleteYour condescension toward me is misapplied. I had no problem connecting the dots. I understand why Spencer was singled out and take no issue with that.
I did indeed show where you quoted him out of context. I said “leaving out half the BHT conversation in question.” In showing only Spencer’s posts, you give the impression of a monologue on gun ownership, which it was not. It was a conversation between several people, working through an issue. None of them were trying to vanquish an opponent.
Although I eschew labels, I hold to Reform theology, and think that Calvinism is the only system that adequately explains to my finite little mind the wondrous nature of my salvation (no, I'm not going to attempt to prove my Reformed credentials to you). What I don’t understand is the desire to rhetorically bludgeon to death brothers in Christ, burn the corpse, and do a victory dance over the ashes. Great, you won. Another notch in your holster.
I disagree with Michael Spencer on a lot of things, yet I’ve been edified, encouraged, prodded, challenged and convicted by his stuff on internetMonk. In contrast, although I agree in principle with most of what I’ve read here, the obnoxious manner in which it’s presented makes my eyes glaze over (and please don't talk to me about Jesus being obnoxious. Besides being gentle and gracious when appropriate, he also raised the dead and walked on water). So - are you going to do anything with this paragraph besides tear it apart? Will it give you even a moment’s pause for reflection, or will it bounce off your invincible armor like every other criticism?
I’d rather spend a day with a carload of apostate post-evangelicals, wishy-washy emergents and confused and inconsistent Arminians, than five minutes with a bullet-headed, arrogantly self-assured, clanging cymbal fellow Calvinist who is always right and agrees with me on all points of theology. In the first instance, everyone in the car might learn something. In the second, probably neither one of us will.
PASTOR ROD SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, I understand that you process everything in the paradigm of debate. You want me to offer evidence that you misrepresented Michael's statements. Then you will unleash an assault on each item of that evidence. You will then ask so many questions that I couldn't possible answer them all. Then you will proclaim that your ‘side’ has won. This may be an excellent way to prevail in a high school forensics meet, but it is not an efficient way to arrive at the truth.”
Having to actually back up your allegations may not be the most *efficient* way of arriving at the truth—but it’s the only way to establish the truth of what you blithely assert.
“Your characterization that Michael is using this tragedy to advance some political view is absurd.”
“Absurd” is an adjective, not an argument. Where’s the supporting argument to justify the adjective?
“If you really cared about the truth, you would know this.”
If you really cared about the truth, you would document your claims.
“(For the record, here's your evidence: http://boarsheadtavern.com )”
Referring me to everything that’s ever been posted at BHT is yet another mark of your intellectual frivolity.
jerry said...
ReplyDelete“I’m not sure where you get ‘blind partisan”.”
By your refusal to measure Spencer by his own yardstick.
“Pointing out the unsavoriness of your scorched-earth tactics makes me neither blind, nor partisan.”
You’re asserting things which you haven’t begun to demonstrate (“unsavoriness,” “scorched-earth tactics). That makes you both blind and partisan.
“Your condescension toward me is misapplied. I had no problem connecting the dots. I understand why Spencer was singled out and take no issue with that.”
Which you conveniently ignored in your original comments.
“I did indeed show where you quoted him out of context. I said “leaving out half the BHT conversation in question.” In showing only Spencer’s posts, you give the impression of a monologue on gun ownership, which it was not. It was a conversation between several people, working through an issue.”
Which is totally irrelevant to the point I made. There is nothing especially “pastoral” about using this tragedy as an occasion to go yet another round on the gun-control debate. If he were counseling the survivors, is this what he would talk about? Would that be the pastoral approach to take? Would that be the topic of the eulogy?
Instead, he involves himself in a public policy debate over the right to bear arms. That’s fine with me. It’s a natural occasion to bring that up. It’s an equally natural occasion for Peter to discuss God’s providence.
Spencer’s problem is that he’s developed an animus against the “Truly Reformed,” and so he uses the tragedy as an excuse to attack Peter’s post in the name of tolerance and pastoral sensitivity.
Spencer’s one of those people who’s become a professional offense-taker. He takes offense on behalf of others.
But since it’s just an act, he can only maintain the pose for so long before he reverts to a natural, spontaneous reaction to events like this. So he and other Tavernistas use the tragedy as a platform to debate gun control and the right to bear arms.
Fine. But if what Peter did is wrong (which I deny), then what Spencer has done is at least as bad if, not worse.
“None of them were trying to vanquish an opponent.”
It’s a debate between those who support gun control and those who oppose it. No different than a debate between Arminians and Calvinists. And, yes, each side is trying to intellectually vanquish the opposing side.
“What I don’t understand is the desire to rhetorically bludgeon to death brothers in Christ, burn the corpse, and do a victory dance over the ashes. Great, you won. Another notch in your holster.”
You yourself are indulging in a lot of over-the-top rhetoric. And Spencer initiated the attack on the propriety of Peter’s post. So your disapproval is selective and one-sided. Just the way I’d expect a blind partisan to respond.
“So - are you going to do anything with this paragraph besides tear it apart? Will it give you even a moment’s pause for reflection, or will it bounce off your invincible armor like every other criticism?”
I will judge your statement by the merits.
“I’d rather spend a day with a carload of apostate post-evangelicals, wishy-washy emergents and confused and inconsistent Arminians, than five minutes with a bullet-headed, arrogantly self-assured, clanging cymbal fellow Calvinist who is always right and agrees with me on all points of theology.”
For someone who expresses his abhorrence at those who “rhetorically bludgeon to death brothers in Christ, burn the corpse, and do a victory dance over the ashes,” you’ve just done an outstanding impersonation of the very thing you professedly disdain. You could give lessons on scorched-earth tactics.
Pastor Rod, Steve didn't call Spencer idiotMonk. I did.
ReplyDeleteBut since we already knew how difficult it was for you to comprehend what you read, I'm not surprised you made that mistake. (Although, seriously, Steve and I have little picture icons and you could have at least looked at them even if you ignore the name label at the top of the post...)
By the way, everyone who is concerned that Steve was being mean to poor ol' Spencer should note that Steve provided far more context than Spencer provided when he summarized in half a sentence a misrepresentation of my post, and then proceded to pass moral condemnation on it. All Steve did was point out Spencer's hypocrisy, which everyone but idiotMonks and their apprentices saw immediately.
Okay. I'll take all that to mean "bounce off my armor."
ReplyDeleteLook at my original post. It was about two things, 1. your pulling one person's comments out of the conversation that would have provided them the proper context and 2. the lack of humility and introspection (I actually meant to say circumspection) on this blog.
You addressed neither of those, instead fashioning a debate on Michael Spencer's vs. Peter Pike's responses to recent events.
Sorry, not interested.
Now in all this, you directed several valid criticisms back to me. Fair enough. Four fingers pointing back and all that. I'll reflect on your criticisms. Whether you use my apparent hypocrisy as a convenient excuse to write off my criticisms, or instead decide to look for something profitable in them, I'll leave to you.
I just did a search of the whole gun conversation at the BHT. No mention of gun control. No mention of politics. No mention of the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteDon't you guys get it? Steve and Peter are uncorrectable. Everything they say and do is right. If you dare correct them you are putting yourself under their wrath and setting yourself up for destruction!! It doesn't matter how sincere and gracious you are, they'll make you cry! Expect to have your intelligence insulted!
ReplyDeleteYou don't need to correct what's not wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can't insult the intelligence of someone who has none.
On the plus side, eventually you might find an argument.
I remember commenting here (my only comment here I think) on Apolonio Latar's condescending treatment of James White. More familiar with the philosophical blogosphere I was still new to the theological blogosphere and said:
ReplyDelete"Wow. I'm just having a hard time imagining that someone could write this seriously. Speaking as a young philosophy student if I ever take myself that seriously and start talking like that I'll just have to quit studying philosophy altogether. But then again I'm not at a "top philosophy department" so I probably won't have that problem."
I thought at least part of the complaint against Latar was his ridiculous tone. I thought at least part of the complaint was that his sort of discourse may be fine for rapping battles or something but isn't helpful in sober discourse. I think I can see now that Latar's tone was just par for the course around here. I think I can see now that Steve's (I think it was Steve) problem with him was purely with his argument (and rightly so) and not with with a style that easily distracts readers away from the argument at hand and towards the author himself and his smaackdown capabilities (good one liners, clever names for opponents, the ability to generate comments that say things like OWNED or BOOYA). I suppose all that has its place but I still find Latar's and now Triablogue's tone more distracting than anything else.
Alas undoubtedly is my shortcoming.
BILL SAID:
ReplyDelete“I just did a search of the whole gun conversation at the BHT. No mention of gun control. No mention of politics. No mention of the second amendment.”
Bill must be a Martian. He just blew his cover. It’s a bit premature for first contact, but oh well.
Bill, you really need to bone up on modern American history before you leave Alpha Centuri. When there’s a publicized shooting, and earthlings like Spencer begin to debate the pros and cons of putting guns in the hands of civilians, this debate has a cultural context. Keep that in mind the next time you land your spaceship in plain view.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
“Don't you guys get it? Steve and Peter are uncorrectable. Everything they say and do is right. If you dare correct them you are putting yourself under their wrath and setting yourself up for destruction!! It doesn't matter how sincere and gracious you are, they'll make you cry! Expect to have your intelligence insulted!”
And do you think this represents a sincere, gracious, and intelligent comment on your part?
I have added parenthesis to the following comment to aid you in your response.
ReplyDeleteWell, since I was part of the "gun" conversation at the BHT (aha! blind partisan or something similar if you don't want to re-use that one) I have a fairly good idea of what it was about (insult my intelligence here). Since you were not, and since you describe the conversation as being about gun control, politics, and the 2nd amendment then I thought I would correct these misimpressions.(here is where you demonstrate my error or possibly just insult Michael)
Bill said:
ReplyDelete"Well, since I was part of the 'gun' conversation at the BHT (aha! blind partisan or something similar if you don't want to re-use that one) I have a fairly good idea of what it was about (insult my intelligence here)."
Since the BHT debate occurred in the public domain, one doesn't need to be a participant to know what it was about. Or is there some tropological or anagogical meaning which would escape the uninitiated?
BTW, I wasn't the one who framed the issuing in terms of insulting someone's intelligence. That began as a hostile comment from your side, not mine. Try to keep track of who said what.
Finally, it’s not as if BHT is famous for its high decorum. So all the disapproving remarks about the low tone of discourse is pretty amusing given the source.
Mike Dagle said...
ReplyDelete"I think I can see now that Steve's (I think it was Steve) problem with him was purely with his argument (and rightly so) and not with with a style that easily distracts readers away from the argument at hand and towards the author himself and his smaackdown capabilities (good one liners, clever names for opponents, the ability to generate comments that say things like OWNED or BOOYA)."
Thanks, Mike. You sound like a reasonable guy. And it's easy to reason with reasonable people like yourself. The trick is how to reason with unreasonable people.
Well I wasn't insulted or corrected so I'm doing ok.
ReplyDeleteThe low tone of discourse isn't my concern. Accuracy is.
You are (I think) suggesting that any discussion about the appropriateness of using armed security measures in a school, home, or church, is a defacto argument about the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I disagree. I have a great many rights that at certain times (or any time) might be inappropriate or unwise to exercise. I think that reasonable people can discuss the appropriateness of the exercise of those rights without ever questioning whether the right should legally exist.
If you had taken Michael to task for participating in a discussion (which I don't believe he started) on a group blog about the use of armed security in the aftermath of the tragedy, equating it to his criticism of PP's posts then I think would have at least been accurate. I might disagree with your conclusion (I am a partisan after all, although I hope not blind) but not with your facts.
Bill said:
ReplyDelete"You are (I think) suggesting that any discussion about the appropriateness of using armed security measures in a school, home, or church, is a defacto argument about the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I disagree. I have a great many rights that at certain times (or any time) might be inappropriate or unwise to exercise. I think that reasonable people can discuss the appropriateness of the exercise of those rights without ever questioning whether the right should legally exist."
I guess BWIII didn't get the memo:
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/deck-malls-with-guns-and-gory_12.html
Steve said
ReplyDelete"And do you think this represents a sincere, gracious, and intelligent comment on your part?"
C'mon Steve, that was the use of sarcasm to make a point. What are you, a Martian? Did you just fall off the turnip truck or something?
This is the level we get from you sometimes (way too often, actually). And it's a shame because you're gifted and very intelligent. Your kingdom service would be greatly enhanced with some Christian humility and graciousness. Sadly, Peter is shaping up to be your "mini me".
Wait...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous can use sarcasm to make a point, but Steve can't use satire to make a point?
From Steve's profile:
ReplyDeleteI’m a native of the greater Seattle area. I’m a TA at RTS. In theology, I’m a Calvinist, creationist, inerrantist, cessationist, classical Christian theist, and amil (with postmil sympathies). I'm a low churchman with a sympathy for a certain amount of high church symbolism. I’m a pragmatist about church polity. On the sacraments, I take them to be symbolic. I regard other issues in sacramentology as secondary to this primary position. In philosophy, I’m an Augustinian exemplarist. I’m a Cartesian dualist. I’m an alethic realist, but scientific antirealist. I believe in innate ideas, sense knowledge (I'm an indirect realist), and the primacy of divine revelation in Scripture. In ethics, I subscribe to traditional Christian morality, rooted God’s revealed law as the source and standard of personal and social ethics. I also subscribe to a supralapsarian theodicy. Although I’m not a Lutheran, a traditional Lutheran service suits my taste in the style of worship.
But I thought traditional Christian morality had something about loving people. You spew only disdain. I can't listen to you anymore.
Of course, "traditional Christian morality" does not mean you treat everybody the same or "lovingly." Scripture is laced with many taunt songs. Indeed, Jesus own words are not always "loving." Paul's words about some people aren't exactly "loving" either. The problem with people like Anonymous1 and 2 immediately above here is the imposition of unScriptural speech codes onto others in a legalistic fashion.
ReplyDeleteBut I thought traditional Christian morality had something about loving people.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, this smells like possible equivocation. How do you define 'love'? Ever read Lev 19:17-18? Ever read the Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis?