Tailgation

Fabricating Hays

Is it not comical that Calvinists like Steve Hays demand "polling data . . . sociological studies . . . [and] scientific stats, to document this 'very telling' claim" that new Christian converts, when given a Bible, conclude with non-Calvinist theology?

Yet, his Calvinist friend, Peter Pike, wrote that "More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification" without the slightest bit of "polling data," "sociological studies," or "scientific stats" to substantiate his claim.

I suppose that's fine with Hays, since Calvinists like him are not interested in keeping their own friends consistent or accountable. It's just Calvinists quoting other Calvinists quoting other Calvinists. Yet somehow that morphs into hard fact.

"Fabricate the evidence you need," as Hays stated. Do you think there is something about Calvinism that fosters this capacity for self-deception?

http://www.williamwbirch.com/2012/01/fabricating-hays.html

William Birch Jan 28, 2012 04:19 PM

SLW,

Oh, you are certainly correct. I usually don't take the time to respond to him. Usually, I just shake my head, sometimes laugh, and carry on with my life. Others times, however, I want others to know -- including his little posse -- what a complete hypocrite with double standards he tends to expose himself to be.

i) Notice Birch’s bait-n-switch. This is what Birch originally said:

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit.

In my response to Birch, I didn’t make a similar claim to the contrary. I didn’t make any comparative statistical claims about Calvinists and Arminians. I didn’t fabricate evidence.

So how does my response to Birch make me a “complete hypocrite with double standards”? Since I didn’t do the same thing I fault Birch (or SEA) for, there was nothing morally inconsistent about my reply.

ii) What Birch is attempting to do is deploy a wedge strategy. But what about Peter Pike?

a) To begin with, Peter was completely upfront about his source of information. He made an overtly qualified observation:

I can think of countless individuals who have converted from Arminianism to become Calvinists—indeed, I am one such individual myself. However, I only personally know one (Billy Birch) and can only think of just a few others, such as Clark Pinnock, who have gone from Calvinism to Arminianism (and Pinnock doesn’t really fit, since he then continued on far to the left of Arminianism, embracing Open Theism). This is not to say that I don’t know of some former Calvinists; just that Calvinists do not tend to convert to Arminianism. Instead, the former Calvinists who I know (other than Birch) are now almost all atheists, with a liberal Metropolitan Church goer (having embraced homosexuality), two Roman Catholics (a married couple), and now, with Dr. Sudduth, a Hindu too. Now, I’m sure that part of this is due to the circles I run in. I know more Calvinists to begin with, so I’m sure some such as Billy Birch would know of more former Calvinists who are now Arminian.

So Peter said all along that he impression was based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence. By contrast, Birch’s own sweeping claim doesn’t contain those caveats. So Peter’s claim is not equivalent to Birch’s. Peter is explicitly testifying to his personal observation.

b) Keep in mind, too, the context of Peter’s statement. What was he responding to? As he said at the time:

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA who have said…

So he was responding to anecdotal claims. Arminians quoting other Arminians quoting other Arminians. So he was merely responding to the Arminian claimants on their own turf.

How is that hypocritical? That’s not a double standard. To the contrary, that’s reapplying the standard of the Arminian claimant to the Arminian.

iii) But let’s shift to the deeper issues. Birch and other Arminians are making a statistical claim about how Calvinists become Calvinists in contrast to how Arminians become Arminians.

My objection was simply that if you’re going to make a claim like that, you ought to furnish suitable evidence to back up your claim. In other words, you should have good reason to know what you say is true before you say it.

Yet Birch thinks that’s “comical”; “Lame-o”; “I laughed after I rolled my eyes ; )”

So, according to Birch, the expectation that Arminians should make a good faith effort to be truthful is “comical,” “lame-o,” and laughable, and eyerolling.

And Birch receives support from Arminian pastors like Rick Frueh and Stephen L. Winters who commented approvingly on his post.

What does it say about the moral discernment of Arminians, including Arminian pastors, who don’t think Christians have an elementary duty to be factual and honest?

iv) How can we account for this ungodly attitude? Arminians who behave this way act as if God doesn’t exist, as if Jesus isn’t real. What’s real to them is their team, and the rival team. Arminians are real to them. Calvinists are real to them. The competitive dynamic is real to them.

This accounts for court preachers like Rick Frueh and Stephen L. Winters. The team chaplain roots for his own team. They preach universal love from the pulpit, but only love their own kind in practice.

Their perspective is entirely horizontal. Manward. The vertical viewpoint, the Godward perspective, is completely out of sight.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Steve Hays is a complete hypocrite with double standards. How does that exempt Birch from his Christian duty to be truthful?

Imagine if Birch was standing before the judgment seat of Christ. If he pointed an accusing finger at me, would that excuse his own conduct? Will he defend himself by telling Christ: “Lord, since Hays is a complete hypocrite, I don't need to be truthful.”

Among many internet Arminians, you have this self-reinforcing code of misconduct–where they automatically cover for each other. God isn’t real to them. Christ isn’t real to them. Their teammates are real to them. It’s all about in-group loyalty.

They aren’t living in the felt presence of God. Rather, they inhabit the Arminian sports bar. Their very own Tailgate Nation. The team is their religion. Like rabid fans with body paint.