Pages

Thursday, March 06, 2008

"Fanboys"

JAGIS SAID:

“I don't even know where to begin. I have been reading your posts and can not believe how it seems that your desire above all else seems to be to degrate another brother in Christ.”

I’ve been over this ground before, but I have to repeat myself every so often. This is my motto:

If you want to be treated like a Christian, then act like one!

I do not equate a profession of faith with a consular passport which confers diplomatic immunity on the holder of so that whenever he begins to misbehave, he can wave his “Christian” passport in our face to escape accountability for his misconduct.

There’s a pattern to how these debates generally progress—or perhaps I should say, regress.

A critic of Calvinism gives his putative reasons for rejecting Reformed theology. We (at Tblog) respond to him on his own grounds.

Now, if the reasons he gives were his real reasons, then he should either show where our counterargument is defective or else withdraw his original objection.

But what usually happens is that our opponent then becomes evasive and/or abusive. At that point I change my tone. He is no longer dealing in good faith.

“This is so baffling to me. refering to the person that you are discussing Christ centered things with as a ‘little girl’ is so out of the realm of seeking to be of one achord that it saddens me.”

i) I’m simply following the precedent of Scripture. For example, when Jeremiah compares warriors to women (48:41; 49:22; 50:37; 51:30), that isn’t meant to be a compliment.

Likewise, when God tells Job to gird up his loins like a man (38:3; 40:7), God is using a macho-man simile drawn from the ancient world of wrestling.

So, yes, it’s possible for a grown man to act like a girly-girl. Scripture itself employs these comparisons. And I’m not saddened by the usage of Scripture.

I did a very dry, dispassionate post in which I distinguished between affecting an outcome and changing an outcome. Instead of addressing the substance of the post, Kangaroodort launched into very hand-wringing post which was, by turns, accusatory and larded with self-pity.

That’s frankly effeminate. And I said so. There are times when it’s perfectly appropriate to tell a grown man to act like a man.

The Bible isn’t Emily Post. Too many Christians have a very dainty and decidedly unscriptural notion of Christian etiquette. Not only is this false to Biblical manhood, but it’s not as if the Scriptural heroines of the faith were far from fainting violets either.

ii) In addition, there’s something a bit hypocritical about how saddened you are. You’re very lopsided in what offends you. This is the sort of thing I was responding to:

“The gentlemen at Triablogue are apparently hurting for material…Why do they feel like they need to addrsss my arguments if they are not a threat to their position…Just what has gotten these gentlemen so freaked out and rattled?…The games continue as Steve Hays chimed in with his own post…It makes me wonder. Why are they still so insecure about their position?I am amazed that I have somehow managed to get them so riled up…They have already convinced their fanboys…For now I am leaving the playground so Paul and Steve will have to figure out some new ways to entertain each other.”

Ben’s characterizing of his own opponents is littered with denigrating asides. I don’t see you expressing the same anguish where the other party is concerned.

Remember, this is your yardstick, not mine. Why aren’t you more equitable in the application of your own yardstick?

iii) Finally, comments like yours, while well-meaning, simply contribute to the very problem you say you deplore—for instead of discussing the substantive issues, you shift the question to subjective, touchy-feely matters of tone and style and body language.

“This does nothing but discourage me into thinking that we as christians will never be able to unite under the cross.”

I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Were you expecting all Christians to agree with each other? If so, then I suppose you have good reason to be discouraged inasmuch as that will never happen in this life.

“I guess I would ask you if you and Ben were sitting in a room discussing this with Christ would you be willing to say these same things to Ben or me for that matter?”

This comment wasn’t directed at me, but it’s worth addressing:

i) If Christ were in the room, I’d let him do all the talking. I’d be there to listen and learn.

ii) If I were speaking face-to-face with someone, I might well take a different approach—but it’s not as easy for your opponent to be evasive in a live, face-to-face encounter than it is on the Internet.

iii) Finally, there’s nothing inherently wrong with treating someone we know rather differently than a perfect stranger. That’s the basis of friendship.

9 comments:

  1. I think part of the problem is that many people thing Christianity is defined as 19th Century white European Passifism and if you do anything that doesn't fit that mold, you're being too mean. It's amazing what you find if you examine other cultures, such as the ANE.

    Another problem is the fact that people these days abhor shame so much that they do not realize that a shame culture, such as the culture in existence throughout the entirety of Scripture, took insults much more seriously than we do these days. As a result, even what we would consider "tame" insults in today's world were nuclear bomb level insults back then.

    Consider the fact that Jesus compared a Samaritan to a dog at one point. We don't consider that to be a big deal these days (indeed, modern music, especially rap, goes out of its way to compare people to female dogs all the time), but at the time this was huge.

    We even miss how horrific it is to be labelled a tax collector and sinner in those days. Yet during times when insults held far more "damaging" impact, the Biblical authors never shied away from employing them when necessary.

    These days, people go out of their way to be offended about everything, as if offense was a valid reason to ignore a response. Sometimes, you ought to be offended because your position is itself offensive. But most of the time, people find the littlest things to be offended over. Rather than be offended at something of substance, we read a "tone" into a piece and reject it immediately as being "mean spirited."

    In reality, claiming others are simply being mean is, these days, nothing more than a conversation stopper. It's like liberals who say, "You're a homophobic, sexist, racist!" Labels replace substance, and it's all designed simply to get the other side to avoid the issue. If you can find offense you don't have to deal with the actual issue. You can skirt it.

    Jesus said things that got people ready to stone him...but His followers are not allowed to use harmless satire? Yeah, right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "So, yes, it’s possible for a grown man to act like a girly-girl."

    I'm no girly-girl, I'm a girly-mahn.

    This made me think of "The Godfather" scene where Johnny Fontane is whining about not getting a movie role saying, "I don't know what to do, what to do", and Vito smacks him, and says, "You can act like a man!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Steve,

    I am not sure what the title of your post means?

    Please understand that my comments are not being delivered in a sarcastic tone, but one meant out of respect for our creator.

    Before I respond to some of your comments let me clarify that I have not taken a stance publicly on where I fall on the spectrum of calvinism. I have not done this in the hopes to remain open to both sides and in a desire to seek out Christ and scripture on this matter. I have in previous posts responded in question to things I have read but I believe that your fellow posters would all agree I have always done so in a respectful manner. I have done this for the simple reason that I am interested in learning more about how you and your fellow bloggers go about practicing your faith. As with all things I believe that my ultimate responsibilty is to follow Christ and His word and my desire is to know His word on a deeper and deeper level so that I can live out my faith on a stronger level every day.

    That is to say I believe that I have acted like a christian as you have requested although I do not claim to be perfect and know I continue to fall short.

    I have to say (again I request that you read my comments understanding that my tone is not one of sarcism) that no where in NT Christianity do I see God saying treat other Christians how they treat you. I understand that you have through your own admission taken the stance that you will treat others how they treat you (at least in the context of this discussion) but my plea to Peter was one of true sincerity and not an attempt simply to join in the attacks from one side or another.

    I have responded to the challenge that I might not be treating both sides fairly and I would say that this probably has truth to it although it was not a diliberate act on my part. I began reading your blog for the hopes of better understanding your views and in that way to strengthen my faith. When I realized that there was a certain blog in paticular that you were debating with in fairness to the process of learning I started to check out their blog also. I have to admit that my viewing of the other blog is very limited as I have just begun to do so. I say that to say if I have been unfair in my plea for civility it has only been by circumstance.

    I also would agree that there is a time to call a man to manhood. Polycarp was a great example of this in his plea to his fellow martyr to "play the man", however in the references to scripture that have previously been provided they were not instances where one brother in Christ was disagreeing with another brother in Christ.

    I do not doubt the educational prowess (sp) of you and your fellow bloggers so I continue to believe that when as brothers in Christ we are in a position to take the high road (if you will)we should, and if some one through verbal assualt sins against us we should continue to forgive.

    We as christian do not have to agree with one another at all times by any means, but I do think we need at all times to keep in the fore front of our minds that we have Christ living inside us and our His body and vessel. Others are watching, we have a job to do, and we are to be Holy because God is Holy even if the fellow believers are not, even if fellow believers revert to a lower standered of acting, and maybe especially in those instances.

    Lastly, I would like to humbly say a word about what I have (maybe misguidedly) viewed as critisism against me for being what I have been called a touchy-feely man. I realize that any time I step out in an attempt to discuss sacraficial attitudes or not taking the aggressive approach of retort, that I will be accussed of be a softy and therefore weak in confidence. I will not be able to prove otherwise without you personally being able to view my walk on a day to day basis so I will not attempt to, all I know is I have assurance in my salvation. I know Christ has given me His Spirit and I have to answer to Him with how I act. There is a time for me to be bold and there are times to be soft, I try to carefully to choose wisely in how I act knowing I fail more times than not. I also know that it is possible that I will be easily dismissed because I am not willing to engage in side bars of aggression and name calling and I have to live with that. For me and what I believe to be the convictions that Christ has given me, I would rather error in these instances and take the chance of being viewed weak rather than what I view to be the flip side. Fore truth be told I am weak, only through Chirst am I strong.

    I am not sadden by scripture and allow it is hard to read that post with out assuming you were attempting to say that maybe I am, I want to fight that urge so I do not fall into the same trap as I am passionatly pleaing against. I believe in the word of God. Christ has redeemed me and given me His word and I treasure that, I clutch it tightly.

    As for the topic of free will, I have been outgoing in my attempts to discuss it camly and from a commitment to scripture and with a heart eager to be faithful to God more and more, and my heart fealt assumptions are that you all want to do the same. That was my point.

    I realize that division will happen and are necessary at times and that I can understand, the part that saddens me is what I view as unnecassary ones that serve no purpose but to further push believers farther apart.

    I don't strive to only see God as a softy nor do I only view Christ as a man's man.... I strive to view Him (as we all do) as everything He is in His divine, Holy completness. I am a work in progress so I might slouch one way or the other at times, but please know that it is not my desire to be one sided in that matter.

    in hopes of better understanding,

    Joshua

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jagis said:
    ---
    Please understand that my comments are not being delivered in a sarcastic tone, but one meant out of respect for our creator.
    ---

    I think the disagreement between us comes about from the presuppositions underlying this sentence. I believe it's possible to be sarcastic while also writing "out of respect for our creator." That is, the entire disagreement between us hinges on the fact that you think sarcasm is inherently "tainted" (not necessarily sinful, since you've said it wasn't in other comments, but it seems you still think it is somehow not as "good" as "serious" talk) while I think sarcasm and satire are valid and quite useful communication techniques.

    Not all sarcasm is good, of course; but then, not all "serious" talk is good either.

    I suppose the way that you rubbed me wrong, just to speak personally here, is the fact that you assumed that because I wrote a satirical piece I was automatically being mean spirited toward JC and Ben. But I was merely trying to insert a bit of levity into the situation, as well as demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. Given that these guys have their own satire page, and also given the fact that none of them have complained about my satire, I assumed (apparently rightly so) that they were not offended by the satire anymore than I am offended by their use of it.

    What did offend me was your instant judgement of my satire as being unChristian. I do thank you for explaining yourself more fully here as now I do understand your point of view more, but it did honestly bug me more that you were offended on behalf of JC and Ben than it bugs me when I read their satire page.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Peter,

    thank you for you comments.

    first off, let me apologize for my comments being received as an attempt to call you unchristian. As I think about it I can see how I had fallen to a degree into the "either, or" camp when replying to your posts. I regret that and do ask for forgiveness.

    I do apologize also for my assumption that you were being mean spirited because as I read your post that was what stuck out to me, and as you have stated that was an error.

    I don't think I tried to focus specifically on the "who" of your post as much as the "what" of your post, which I understand is a slippery slop.

    I just think as some what of an outsider in regards to this "debate" I found myself so turned off by the delivery (which is stylistic and different for everyone) and frustrated because I had come with hopes of witnessing and participating in a discussion that I hoped (and continue to) would serve to strengthen my understanding of your views. Instead admittedly I found myself thinkng "is this what we have reduced ourselves to?" more guilt probably lies on the fact that somewhat inocently I ended up effectively walking into the middle of what appears now to be a long on going discussion.

    At the end of the day, regardless of what I feel towards the approach of your posts, it is in many respects not my place to comment on these things (regardless of how true I stand to the conviction of my heart) because of the fact that I do not know you personally and I should allow you the same benefit of the doubt as it relates to what is and is not the use of appropriate sarcism as I am requesting you to extend to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jagis,

    "and frustrated because I had come with hopes of witnessing and participating in a discussion that I hoped (and continue to) would serve to strengthen my understanding of your views."

    You shouldn't be frustrated because in those threads we (nicely)answered all your questions. You should be able to be strengthened in your understanding of our views.

    If you're talking about seeing a discussion between us and them, as I said, that's probably not going to happen. They don't want one. I'm not even trying to go back and forth with them, per se. As I noted, I post for other Calvinists, and for those who sincerely want to see how we can answer various challenges.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JAGIS SAID:

    “Hello Steve.”

    Hi Joshua.

    “I am not sure what the title of your post means?”

    It’s an allusion to a phrase that Kangaroodort likes to label and dismiss his theological opponents.

    “Before I respond to some of your comments let me clarify that I have not taken a stance publicly on where I fall on the spectrum of calvinism.”

    I never questioned your theological credentials.

    “I have to say (again I request that you read my comments understanding that my tone is not one of sarcism) that no where in NT Christianity do I see God saying treat other Christians how they treat you. I understand that you have through your own admission taken the stance that you will treat others how they treat you (at least in the context of this discussion).”

    That’s a caricature of my position. It disregards my qualifications.

    Take the prosperity preachers on TBN. Should I treat them the same way I’d treat John MacArthur or Charles Stanley? No.

    I’d add that my Bible isn’t limited to a few phrases from 1 Peter or the Sermon on the Mount. My Bible in the whole Bible, including the OT.

    “I do not doubt the educational prowess (sp) of you and your fellow bloggers so I continue to believe that when as brothers in Christ we are in a position to take the high road (if you will)we should, and if some one through verbal assualt sins against us we should continue to forgive.”

    To say that we should forgive assumes that we’ve been offended. That personalizes this debate in a way reads a whole lot more into than is the case, at least where I’m concerned.

    “Others are watching, we have a job to do, and we are to be Holy because God is Holy even if the fellow believers are not, even if fellow believers revert to a lower standered of acting, and maybe especially in those instances.”

    You’re begging the question of what the standard is. You seem to be fixated on matters of tone. What about the standard of Intellectual accountability is another standard.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Steve,

    "I’d add that my Bible isn’t limited to a few phrases from 1 Peter or the Sermon on the Mount. My Bible in the whole Bible, including the OT."

    The bible I read also includes both the OT and NT. I try to take the Bible into account in my understanding of God as I believe so do you.

    Just because I do not limmit myself to certain verses does not mean that I disregard them as I would trust you would not either (no sarcism intended).

    see the thing is Steve you could counter my comments all day and night and you probably are better at it than me (in fact I am sure you are). you could prove to me over and over how the intended recipients of your post deserved what they had commning, or you are only playing by their rules, or it is their lack of understanding or knowledge which causes this problem or whatever. That was never my point and remains to be not what I was getting at.

    maybe it is my narrow view that is causing the problem and I am ok with resigning to that fact.

    I apologize if I have wasted your time with my comments or by voicing my concern. If you have missed the points of my comments I find that unfortunate but again I am willing to chalk it up to an inability on my part to properly communicate my message.

    I will stop bother you as my intent was never to be an annoyance.

    Joshua

    ReplyDelete