Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Moving up the pecking order

Justin McCurry has made an interesting observation about the Tullian Tchividjian controversy:

Okay, I understand challenging Tullian to debate, but why not challenge someone else, like from Escondido? Tullian is a popularizer, why not challenge a scholar. Why go after low hanging fruit?

Ian Clary
Well, seeing that Carl Trueman offered to ride shotgun, Tullian could get R. Scott Clark to join him. That would make it all the more interesting.

Justin K. McCurry
Yes Tullian is wrong, but he just repeats himself. It would make more sense to move further upstream, and remove the dead deer from the water supply. 

Tullian is just reading the cue cards. Why not talk to the people writing them?

Justin K. McCurry
". Again, Tullian stuck his neck out and got called on it. "

Yes, but Escondido has been saying this for a long time, and there has been back and forth discussions all along with no debate challenges. (Except for the Tipton/Horton discussion on Reformed Forum). 

"Why would you not flock to him?" 

White Horse Inn has been on air for a long time, with folks like Horton, who has been the subject of complaint. People probably flock to Tullian. But I think folks at WSC get way more mentions, and are way more nuanced than someone like Tullian. I'm not saying don't debate Tullian, I'm just wondering why hasn't this happened with someone from the HQ.

"Second, he's the popularizer and a debate against him would show the people at the popular level why he's wrong"

To me, it's like an adult arguing with a child, to show him that he's wrong. But Tullian isn't the hinge of the issues going on in this whole discussion. By all means debate him. But this should have been done a long time ago, with someone else. It just doesn't appear to be the obvious solution at this point. 

"Plus, the academics won't debate--at least, not as easily as Tullian will."

I haven't seen anyone try. I've just seen books written from long distances.

Joshua Gielow
Scott Clark has said Tullian is freeing the masses with his law/gospel perspective.

Justin K. McCurry
I think if a couple of folks from WSC like Clark, Horton (Perhaps Hart?) would join and they discuss it in a forum setting, there would be something beneficial in it. Maybe a part 2 in The Future of Protestantism

Joshua Gielow
John Frame dealt with these guys and they just him off. It would be the same in a debate.

Joshua Gielow
And VanDrunen.

Justin K. McCurry "I think a much larger crowd would get interest because of a debate with Tullian rather than anyone else"

Why would it matter if more people got interested in a debate with Tullian? Is the goal to have a popular debate? Or is the goal to get to the truth of the matter? Do you really think Tullian would be the best representative of his law/gospel views? It just seems equivalent to swimming in the shallow end of the pool.

"but at least a debate needs to occur with him."

Again, I am *not*, I repeat *I am not* saying the debate shouldn't happen. 

I am *not* defending Tullian. 

My questions were meant to highlight what hasn't been done. There have been *no* debates, or attempts to debate with professors from WSC. Which as far as I've seen from constant criticism, is the center of the problem. 

Repeating "but it should happen" or "this will get more attention" doesn't address the thrust of my questioning. lol

No comments:

Post a Comment