Tuesday, June 09, 2020

My Friend, Steve Hays

NOTE: The following is something I wrote on Facebook.  There may be typos, but I'm going to leave everything as it was. For the record, I tend to keep my Facebook settings private and only friend people I either know directly or through another friend.  Some of my friends already asked if they could repost my thoughts on their own Facebook pages, and I said they could since this was intended to be public anyway.

- - -

This is very difficult for me to write. When I think of who has shaped me most into the person I am today, the obvious first examples are God and then my parents, but immediately after them would be the various thinkers who I’ve read. I could easily list out famous names like Augustine and John Calvin, or Jonathan Edwards and Blaise Pascal. Even Aristotle and Plato fit in there. I could spend a long time talking about the authors who I’ve spent years reading and processing, agreeing and disagreeing with certain turns of a phrase. But I never interacted with any of those great minds.

Somewhere around 2007 or 2008, I don’t even know how it started but I stumbled onto a little blog called Triablogue. My first thoughts of it were that I could never remember how to spell the name. It had several authors, but the most prolific writer was a guy named Steve Hays. And I soon learned that it was really his blog, but that he had invited some other writers as well. The first thing I noticed was that Steve was incredibly intelligent. He had a gift at pulling apart an argument and exposing every unfounded premise or unforeseen consequence. Not only that, but he could build up his own position by reinforcing it with every logical argument needed to make it sound. I think most people who’ve interacted with him would agree that his intelligence was obvious.

Somewhere along the line, Steve also found me to be useful in the way that I thought and he invited me to be a writer on Triablogue too. It was astonishing to me, and I gladly took it up. There I met several friends who I still have to this day: John Bugay, Jason Engwer, Paul Manata, and above all Patrick Chan. While there was plenty that went on within the forum of Triablogue, there were endless emails behind the scenes where we would talk with Steve, bounce ideas off him, ask for prayers and encouragement, and the like.

That’s not to say we always agreed on subjects. I had numerous occasions to experience what it was like when Steve’s brilliant analytical mind was set against one of my own positions, and to feel the unbearable weight of trying to defend my own views against that onslaught. I didn’t always change my mind about what I thought, but after going a full round with Steve without crumpling I would know my argument was strong.

Which of course brings us to some of the controversy around Steve. Because Steve was sure of his positions and because he had intellectual weight behind them, those who found themselves opposed to his viewpoint would often feel that Steve’s tactics were too brutal and condescending. He did not put up with sloppy thinking and would point out every single logical error you made, even if it seemed trivial to you. Steve was concerned with the truth of the matter first; your feelings on it were a distant second. This led to many confrontations, to say the least, as a lot of people felt downright insulted by Steve. Throughout it Steve would maintain that perhaps he was not the best suited to being a representative for any particular viewpoint, but he was still needed for the edge cases where he applied.

My own view is that he was far more needed than even he realized. I never felt Steve’s “insults” toward me when we disagreed on a topic were actually insults at all once I examined them. For example, he once asked of me during a debate on a topic, “Are you being intentionally obtuse?” The question stung because at first it looks like he’s insulting my intelligence. But it really wasn’t. The question relied upon me being intelligent in the first place. It was predicated on the notion that he believed in my mental capacity and was frustrated that I couldn’t see the connection he was trying to draw. I took it as his way of saying, “I don’t understand why you can’t follow this.” But of course, I knew that was his intent because of the personal connection I had with him, and many people never got to see that side. They were left with the initial impression and the perceived insult.

For those who could see past their feelings on an issue, Steve’s reasoning was precise and on point. Indeed, many people who said they were insulted by Steve would return repeatedly. These were not masochists. They recognized that Steve was a worthy opponent to their views. And many of them were even convinced to change their minds via those interactions.

Because of all of that, what I’m about to say may strike you as being very odd. But the fact is that despite all of Steve’s vast intellect…he had a beautiful heart. When my wife left me and then divorced me, I was left in a very difficult spot, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. I could talk to some extent with Christian coworkers and even did counseling—which I actually still do—to try to recover from the pain. But through it all, the person I could talk most freely to about what I was going through was Steve.

Steve and I agreed on a lot about the nature of God, the nature of good and evil, and our responsibilities to God. I couldn’t discuss my struggles freely with most of my Christian friends, and not any of the Christian counselors that I had, because most of them fundamentally disagreed on certain aspects of God’s sovereignty in particular. Steve and I shared those same views, so I was able to voice my complaint without having to argue against someone’s belief system just to get heard. The response back didn’t start with, “You’re wrong about this, therefore platitude.” Steve would instead respond, “Yes, that sucks. I feel the same way. But we know intellectually what the truth is. Even if it hurts, we can’t deny it.”

I found out over the past five years that my struggles are nearly identical to what Steve struggled with too. In him I felt a genuine kindred spirit because of that. We could be honest and open, and we knew the limits of our intellects and that there were certain things that just would never be resolved this side of heaven. And most of all, we understood the firm foundation of our shared faith in Jesus Christ—the one thing that made everything else intelligible, without which there was no truth or reality.

I’ve known now for about a year that Steve’s time was short. There were a handful of us who knew, and he swore us to secrecy. But as he prepared for his departure, he spent the time counseling us. Caring for us. So I’ll leave you with some words Steve wrote to me and other Tbloggers via email, except the last quote which is from his memoir.

“The more precious the thing you lose, the more you suffer the loss. But it's better to lose something worthwhile then never having anything worthwhile to lose in the first place. And it's better to suffer the loss of a greater good than to suffer the loss of a lesser good. Even though you suffer less or hardly at all, you miss out on the experience of having had the greater good. Many people lead wretched lives from start to finish. They never had the blessing of something precious to begin with.”

“There's a problem when we know all the right words, all the right answers, but it's like we're standing out in the cold, peering through a window to see a living room with a happy laughing family basking in the warm, cozy festive light of the fireplace. We hunger and shiver for what we need but we're sealed off by that pane of glass…. In the providence of God, I think some Christians are called upon to be buffers for other Christians. We take [the abuse] to shield them.”

"For Christians, a fatal disease is a gift. A friend. A doorknob out of this world into a better world. What is dreadful is not the prospect of death, but a world without a doorknob."

30 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing I appreciated about Steve was that he was willing to face difficult problems head-on with intellectual honesty. There was no sugar-coating in his writing when it came to difficult problems (like the problem of evil), and so far as I know he had the intellectually rigorous position that while Christianity had problems and things that were hard to explain, so did the other worldviews in greater profusion. This avoids the criticism that Christianity is simply a pie-in-the-sky exercise in wishful thinking.

    Also, his little biographical sketch mentioned in the earlier post was a very interesting read. I found this section, starting on page 43, very interesting and humanizing. The rest of this is a copied and pasted quote:

    This was my first personal encounter with the problem of evil. Having become a Christian about two years prior to the assault, I had no theodicy in my back pocket to whip out. Yet it had no impact on my faith when it happened. That was a more resilient time of life. However, watching what happened to my grandmother, and later to my aunt Grace, had a delayed effect as well as a cumulative effect–after watching what happened to my mother.

    Over the years I've devised a number of theodicies which -- in addition to some stock theodicies–address the intellectual problem of evil to my own satisfaction. But regarding the emotional problem of evil, seeing what happened to those I most care about has had an alienating effect. I can't recover the youthful reverence I used to have. That's gone. My basic belief-system remains solidly intact, but my theology is darker. There's far too much evidence to doubt God's existence, yet his benevolence is harder to celebrate.

    But interestingly, that parallels Scripture. In Scripture, God's existence is never in doubt. But prophets and psalmists express misgivings about his benevolence. Everything that happened to my mother, grandmother, and my aunt Grace is consistent with
    biblical theism. To be expected. It's just that we wish God's goodness was kinder.
    There can be a good reason for everything that happened to them, but if so, they suffered for the sake of others. And that's the sticking point. It's natural for us to be partial to our own.

    Practically speaking, it's hard to see how God can share our partiality, since there are so many competing interests to balance. What's best for my loved ones may not be best for yours–at least, not in the short-term. So that's understandable and justifiable, but the estrangement remains.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve also exemplified the attitude that wishful thinking doesn't change reality, and that Christianity is not a Hallmark card. Here is another specimen, from an Aug 23 2015 post. Whether or not one agrees with the theological point is not important here; it is just a specimen of Steve's willingness to face up to difficulties and the seeming harshness of the world. Whether or
    not one agrees with his point, he still takes reality as it is, rather than viewing it through a ssoft-focus lens.

    The rest of this comment is an extended quote:

    i) I think there's extensive, compelling evidence for a God who is active in human affairs. But the pattern of God's activity is perplexing.

    ii) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the God of Arminian theism is nicer than the God of Reformed theism. Problem is, having a nice God on paper doesn't make real life any nicer.

    You can say all the warm and winsome things about God that Arminians are wont to say. You can contrast that with the "stern" God of Calvinism. But as this erstwhile Arminian blogger discovered from painful personal experience, the loving, fatherly "relational" God of Arminian theology is a paper God. A God that only exists in the mind of the Arminian. A verbal construct. You can say the Calvinist God is harsh or "morally monstrous." You can contrast the Calvinist God with what you deem to be the superior character of the Arminian God. But switching from Calvinism to Arminianism doesn't make the world any different. Believing in a nicer God doesn't make the world a kinder gentler place than believing in a "harsh" God. Does nothing to sand off the jagged edges.

    In the Arminian lodge, you have hot chocolate and chestnuts roasting on an open fire. But when you have to get up and go outside, the dark arctic bast slaps you in the face. The world you must live in everyday is just the same whether you're Arminian or Calvinist. Believing in a softhearted God does nothing to soften the world. It changes nothing. The toasty, climate-controlled environment of Arminian theology doesn't survive exposure to the elements. It fosters expectations that are dashed by brutal experience. The glib, fact-free bromides of a Jerry Walls didn't prepare him for his ordeal. Reality is unforgiving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is brilliant! Thank you for posting!

      Delete
  4. Peter wrote:

    "he had a beautiful heart"

    Yes!

    And getting emails from him for so many years was like having another Triablogue. There's so much he did in private, as well as in lesser public settings, that few people know about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And many of us are robbed of that privilege... :)

      I didn't knew him in this world, but I hope to know him in the next...

      Delete
  5. Thank you for sharing this Peter. I came across Triablogue a decade or so ago through a link, as best I can recall, at Pyromaniacs embedded in a post by Phil Johnson.

    I was an aspiring Christian blogger/apologist at the time laboring along with a small team using a format similar to T-blogue. Our blog has since gone defunct and the domain name, ironically, is now in the hands of a dedicated gambler. At least it was the last time I checked.

    In my blogging zeal I found myself tangling with steve on a few separate occasions, much to my chagrin and frustration due to his superior intellectual firepower, but I always learned something from our exchanges and he sharpened me "as iron sharpens iron".

    More often than not I found myself in agreement with steve and found his raw honesty and blunt directness very refreshing.

    There have been very few days throughout these many years since first discovering T-blogue that I've not checked in to see what the team, but especially steve, had to say on the topic du jour.

    I came to "know" steve and the team as much as one can in cyberspace, and I've felt a distict sense of loss and grief that's hard to explain since learning of steve's passing. Not the grief as those who have no hope, but the grief of the loss of a friend whose company I miss, even though we never met.

    I do hope the team will continue steve's legacy at T-blogue and continue fighting the good fight of faith online.

    Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter--

    Maybe you could help me understand Steve a little better. For my experience was not the same as yours.

    Every single time I tried to engage with him, he was cold and dismissive. It didn't even feel like he had read what I had to say. Not only did he give no counter argument, he didn't rightly understand my major points.

    Quite honestly, I didn't like him as a person. He wouldn't give me the time of day. But I deeply, deeply admired his insight and his intellect. So much so, in fact, that TB is not the only blog I read regularly. It's the only blog I read!

    I did not find him too brutal or too thorough, but quite the opposite. Perhaps, like other scholars I have encountered, he was far more comfortable with polemics, with dealing with those who were his polar opposites. Dealing with nuance, with those within your paradigm, is more difficult. If you lose the argument, you might actually have to change. And brilliant folks are not used to even considering modification of their ideas. They've had to do so, so infrequently.

    It's a weird place to be in: I didn't really like the man personally, but I grieve his loss in a very personal manner. He meant a lot to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Every single time I tried to engage with him, he was cold and dismissive. It didn't even feel like he had read what I had to say. Not only did he give no counter argument, he didn't rightly understand my major points."

      Would you have any examples you could provide? If it was public, any links? Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Hello Eric,
      I'm not sure how much help I can be, because individual experiences depend on the individuals involved. But I can give some general opinions that may or may not be applicable.

      You wrote:
      ---
      Every single time I tried to engage with him, he was cold and dismissive. It didn't even feel like he had read what I had to say. Not only did he give no counter argument, he didn't rightly understand my major points.
      ---

      I would first ask what topic were you interacting with him on? Some topics are more interesting to people than other topics. It could be that the topic as a whole just wasn't as interesting to Steve as other topics, so he wouldn't have engaged with it.

      Alternatively, if it's a topic that a lot of people were engaging in, people also have limited time and it could be that he thought other responses needed to be addressed more than yours. This could be closer to why he might have been dismissive of you because, as you said, you were not his polar opposite.

      Then there's the fact that some people just don't "click" with another person, for reasons that may not even be possible to explain by anyone involved.

      And finally, it also depends on when you were interacting with him. Steve was going through a lot of pain. If you read his memoirs, you'll see that he was the only caretaker for his mother while she slowly passed away. After she died, Steve had to deal with the emotional and spiritual pain that came along with that loss as well, and then his own health began to deteriorate. So it could be that you got him on a day when he was too tired to engage so he brushed you off. Even if that only would have happened at one particular point in time, it can easily snowball (i.e., if the last time we interacted it was a poor experience, odds are the next time we interact it will also be a poor experience because both of us remember the previous poor experience, etc.)

      Again, I don't know which, if any, of those may have been the factor in your particular case. Steve and I rarely talked about other people directly from the comments, and when we did, it usually involved all the writers of Triablogue because it was almost guaranteed to be in the context of whether or not someone needed to be banned for bad behavior.

      Delete
  7. Peter--

    I understand all those things, and I really bear him no ill will. He stated that he did blog work more out of a sense of duty than personal interest.

    And besides, it is not as if it's a behavior exclusive to Steve.

    It is common on many blogs for there to be a clique of insiders and batch of interested outsiders who, for all intents and purposes, "need not apply." I honestly don't think it has much of anything to do with "clicking." There's no way Steve could have known whether he clicked with me or not. (If C. S. Lewis rose from the dead and wrote in anonymously, my guess is that a lot of blogs would completely ignore him. It is what it is.)

    But enough of this. This moment should be about Steve. Not about me. I was just trying to understand why my experience didn't match. Please pardon the intrusion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm quite envious of the people who said they could email Steve questions and talk with him. I wish I would have done that. I just ran across an article saying that a lot of the OT uses names from the time of First Temple Judaism, and I thought Steve probably would have something on the topic. I'm also envious of having such a friend. It's partially my fault, for sure, but finding someone you an trust like that isn't easy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric, Peter, et al.,

    Just a quick response concerning Eric's point/charge against Steve. I have not read Peter's post yet though I intend to. It is late here, and Peter's post will require all one's emotional strength. One wasn't friends with Steve, nor even an acquaintance, but bloody hell this has hit one hard. He was a soldier in our cause.

    I interacted with Steve a couple of times concerning several issues. I did not know Steve, nor were we acquainted in any meaningful sense of the term. When Steve replied to my e-mails, you could indeed interpret his replies as 'cold' if you were so inclined. He was abrupt and to the point, and as far as I remember he never addressed me by name.

    Now, perhaps it's the staunch Calvinist in me but, while I recognised the abruptness in Steve's replies, I also recognised that, given his prolifacy, his level of correspondence with numerous others, and whatever circumstances one could not foresee, it would be foolish to read too much into such a relatively trivial issue.

    Put simply, employing a type of principle of charity, one recognises that our dear brother was doing nothing wrong if he was terse with those with whom he was not acquainted.

    Steve gave us his all. He gave us so much. I can say that he refined some of my beliefs. He was a monster. An absolute giant.

    The giant rests with our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hawk--

    I'm not a glutton for punishment, so my exchanges with Steve were few and far between. I don't care to dredge them up and have them evaluated for overreaction on my part. I'm sure I did overreact, and I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Moreover, please don't construe my comments here as criticism of Steve. The fact of the matter is, his death stunned me. And I feel gypped by our lack of interaction.

    I had no idea he was sick. He had no "footprint" anywhere. A genius fell from the sky and no educational institution felt the need to entice him into service. I half wondered if he were a "Norwegian bachelor farmer" still living in his parents' basement. (I have an agoraphobic brother who knows more history than anyone else I know because he can sit and read 24/7/365.)

    On a lighter note, you yourself have always been most generous with me. I thank you for that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eric! That's fair, and understandable, and I thank you for your kind words too. I'm also stunned by his death, though I knew it was coming. I'm sure Steve would be the first to admit his flaws, but like others I'm grateful for all he was able to accomplish for the kingdom with the time God gave him.

      Delete
    2. The capacity for profound insight is a mixed blessing. As Christians, we recognize that all creation groans under the pain of sin, that there is much darkness in this world; much to be redeemed. The brightest among us see more deeply into that darkness, and that, I would think, is challenging...
      David Foster Wallace, who committed suicide in 2008 at age 46, achieved nearly unparalleled critical acclaim among writers of his generation. By all accounts a prodigious talent, Wallace was described in the New Yorker as “a prisoner on the island of himself.” Mary Karr, acclaimed memoirist and David’s former girlfriend, said he “was violent.”
      Wallace penetrated the darkness, despaired, and reached for oblivion. Hays saw into the darkness and reached for the light that the darkness cannot overcome. Wallace was homo incurvatus in se; a violent solipsist who degraded humanity. Hays was a tireless servant of the cause of Christ, a bulwark who wielded tong and hammer against atheism, provocateurs, and false doctrine. Along the way, Steve taught and encouraged many. If at times, he seemed distant, let us not judge him too harshly. I trust the good responses to your question that those who knew him have provided. Eric, you have the wisdom to look past the disappointment you described, a mind that appreciates Steve’s many contributions, and the inclination to honor his memory. Good on you!

      Delete
    3. CWB--

      Thanks for the mercy. You're correct, I was hurt by him at times. But I was drawn right back here, over and over again, to pay homage to a beautiful mind.

      I don't know why this fled my memory. But on one occasion, somewhat recently, Steve took on a more comfortable tone with me. The conversation involved coronavirus, and it took me a couple of attempts to get my point across. Once he got it, he immediately capitulated, goodnaturedly, even a bit humorously.

      I'll take that as the real Steve Hays....

      Delete
  11. You know what's funny? When I think of Steve now, the only things that I think of to "qualify" all the positive things I want to say are the things I disagreed with him on! That is to say, the fact that he got mad at me and was difficult (and that I got mad at him and was difficult--we really were and are quite similar in personality) is not what I feel I have to think so much as, "Well, I *really* disagreed with him about *that* thing he once said, and *that* thing--how could he say that?? That's *got* to be wrong!" Etc. Etc. Which I think in a way is a fitting tribute to our friend who is with the Lord. That instead of thinking about his personality so much, I'm thinking about issues and ideas. And then thinking about what others have said and the way he bore what he had to bear for the Lord and "finished strong" in so many ways. And also being glad that we weren't ticked off at each other in the last few years. Because that would really stink--having to wait until heaven to feel like that was sorted out. (Which, I have to say, has happened to me with another on-line friend.)

    Steve's passing has brought a sense of eternal perspective to a crazy time in the world. I do not mean it in any way as callous, and I often thought of him and prayed for him in what he went through at the end. But his going to heaven and leaving behind his memoir and his last thoughts has been one of the most encouraging things to happen in the last six months. Which I think he would understand and would want to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The first time I came across Steve is also the first time I came across you, Peter. :) It was during the 'Islamicize Me!' controversy (White vs Wood/McCray/Malone). I still fondly remember the interactions I had with you, and the rest here.

    While I have since not been very frequent on Triablogue, and my interaction has been even less frequent than my visits - I still held Steve in very high esteem. Here was a guy I knew for a fact I could learn truckload from, and so every now and then I would check up on this blog almost fully certain that most of the content would be authored by Steve ---- for after my first visit, it soon became apparent who dominated this blog, and for good reason.

    All writers on this blog are intelligent folks, but Steve was in a league of his own. It was not just the depth of his knowledge but also the breadth of his knowledge that was the most astounding to me.

    I was very shocked (and saddened) to hear about his demise, but its not like this is the end of the road for him or me. :) We shall all meet in his banquet. And I hope to know all of you there, if not here.

    God bless

    Neil / James McCloud

    ReplyDelete
  13. That was beautiful, Peter. As someone who never knew Steve personally, it is nice to read about him 'behind the scenes' from those who knew the man.

    'I never felt Steve’s “insults” toward me when we disagreed on a topic were actually insults at all once I examined them. For example, he once asked of me during a debate on a topic, “Are you being intentionally obtuse?”'

    This made me laugh out loud and smile a broad smile. How many times did Steve ask this question of opponents during debate? To think he would be the same with friends privately only reinforces one's admiration for the man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One time, while another apologist (who I won't name--and even if you know who it is, please don't add that here as it's not the point) was spending time insulting me and some of the other Triabloggers, I commented to Steve that I much preferred Steve's insults to the other person's, because at least Steve's insults treated me like a man. In fact, I pulled up the old email and this is what I wrote to Steve (and a couple others):

      ---
      I guess the main difference, then, is that [XXXX] seem to respond to people along the lines of, "Why are you attacking me?" whereas Steve responds to people along the lines of, "How can you be this dumb and still live?"

      To be a bit more serious about it, [XXXX] seems focused on himself; Steve on the topic. [XXXX]'s insults and impolitic language come across as self-aggrandizing, whereas when Steve uses that type of language it's promoting ideas, not his ego.

      I'd never really sat down to think it out before, but it makes sense why I'd prefer Steve to [XXXX] if either of them disagreed with me on a topic. Perhaps that's why I've run into more people who will still listen to Steve even when they hate him than people who listen to [XXXX] when they hate him.
      ---

      Delete
    2. Thanks for sharing that, Peter. I think I know the apologist to whom you are referring. He has been a blessing to me since I became a Calvinist (late 2011), and I have a lot of respect for him. However, I'm surprised he has not mentioned Steve's passing on the platform where I follow him. I am not on Facebook nor am I on Twitter, so he may have said something on those platforms, but, unless I have missed something, he has not yet said anything on the platform where I follow him.

      He and Steve did not see eye to eye on some issues, and Steve critiqued several of his positions (minor positions in the great scheme of things). Our apologist friend 'took offence' at Steve critiquing him. I would be deeply saddened and disapppinted if this brother held such a grudge that he would not pay tribute to someone I know he acknowledged (before he was on the end of Steve's critiques) as a heavyweight apologist and a great thinker.

      On another note, Peter, and I sincerely hope this is a silly question, do you and the boys intend to continue running Triablogue? Will there be any changes made?

      Delete
    3. Hello Danny,
      Odds are good that most people who read this discussion with any familiarity of topics will know who the apologist is too. But, again, that's not the point of me bringing it up. Rather it was to show that I think we all knew Steve could get in good one-liners, but there was an objective difference between the way he did it and the way others did. I think it's because the underlying motive was different.

      In any case, whether this other individual does say anything or pay tribute or just ignore it all, it matters little in the grand scheme too. They're all believers, all accountable to Christ alone.

      As to your final questions, yes I imagine the blog will continue for some time. I think that's why Steve always asked people who he thought were useful to join the writing staff, so the blog would be bigger than he was. Nevertheless, it will be impossible to lose Steve and have the blog go on exactly as before. He was the major brain, and none of us can fill his shoes individually. But collectively, I am prayerful that God would use us all to continue the ministry Steve built via Triablogue.

      Delete
    4. Hi Peter,

      'Rather [the point] was to show that I think we all knew Steve could get in good one-liners, but there was an objective difference between the way he did it and the way others did. I think it's because the underlying motive was different.'

      Indeed, and I understand and agree with your point. I'm sorry I decided to focus somewhat on the apologist mentioned to illustrate your point, but I had already been thinking of them and the fact they had not said anything.

      'In any case, whether this other individual does say anything or pay tribute or just ignore it all, it matters little in the grand scheme too. They're all believers, all accountable to Christ alone.'

      Of course, but I cannot pretend that their ignoring it would not have any impact on my estimation of them.

      'As to your final questions, yes I imagine the blog will continue for some time. I think that's why Steve always asked people who he thought were useful to join the writing staff, so the blog would be bigger than he was. Nevertheless, it will be impossible to lose Steve and have the blog go on exactly as before. He was the major brain, and none of us can fill his shoes individually. But collectively, I am prayerful that God would use us all to continue the ministry Steve built via Triablogue.'

      Thank you, Peter. Of course it could never be the same, but you are all big enough theologically and philospohically to continue the blog while doing yourselves and Steve proud.

      One wee idea. Perhaps once a week or fortnight you could reproduce one of Steve's articles.

      Delete
    5. Danny said:
      ---
      Perhaps once a week or fortnight you could reproduce one of Steve's articles.
      ---

      That's not a bad idea. I don't think we've yet decided on the exact details of moving forward, but I know one of our top priorities is to get the ebooks Steve wanted made. It may be pretty straightforward to add in some of the older articles from Steve like you said here too though.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Peter. I look forward to all of that.

      Delete
  14. Thanks so much for posting this, Peter. I went back and looked at all the emails I had from Steve and I recognized exactly what you wrote - he had a pastor's heart. He checked in on me and my wife via email. He answered my amateurish questions. Without a doubt, he was one of the most brilliant men I've ever read. I will miss reading his emails, his humor, and his colossal mind. Thanks again to you and all here at Triablogue for blessing so many!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. My favorite exchange was on New Years Day this year. I had been staying away from my email and he sent me a Facebook message: "You've been pretty quiet email wise lately. Is your life going reasonably well under the circumstances."

      That's also when Steve gave me one of the quotes above (the bit with "There's a problem when we know all the right words, all the right answers"). I responded by telling him: "Honestly, some of the difficulties I have in sending any sentiments your way is that you've been a very good and supportive friend through some of my darkest times, and I would really just be echoing you back to yourself. Plus it would mean I'd have to face the reality of what you said regarding hospice, etc. I'm going to miss you, Steve. And while it sounds like platitude, the world genuinely will be worse off without your insights. Not to idolize you, of course. But even some traits you had that others say are 'character flaws' were necessary to get through some of my mental barriers. Those very 'flaws' gave the realism I needed to listen to the content you presented, since I automatically reject everything that comes packaged with the Pollyanna delusions. Harsh truth at least still has the comfort of you knowing you're not lying to yourself."

      Steve completely understood not only what I said but between the lines: "Thanks so much, Peter. I love you too."

      Delete
  15. "The more precious the thing you lose, the more you suffer the loss. But it's better to lose something worthwhile then never having anything worthwhile to lose in the first place. And it's better to suffer the loss of a greater good than to suffer the loss of a lesser good. Even though you suffer less or hardly at all, you miss out on the experience of having had the greater good. Many people lead wretched lives from start to finish. They never had the blessing of something precious to begin with.”

    Wow 🙌 Steve definitely my thinking so much the past 2-3 years. And he was always willing to answer my questions with meaningful answers. I'm 24 now. I wish I discovered his stuff much sooner.

    ReplyDelete