Parchment and Pen » Criticism from a Reader

Criticism from a Reader

This is a well articulated criticism about my style from a reader of Parchment and Pen.

“Michael,

One thing that I have noticed over the year that I have been reading your blog is that I never perceive a real strong sense of the damning character of error in your writings. I know that you’re orthodox, and that you truly believe these things (e.g. the Gospel), but you rarely seem to communicate how dangerous UNothodoxy is.

I sense, and maybe this isn’t how you intend to communicate yourself, that you are, in a strange way, postmodern in your methodology. What I mean is this: I gather that for you, methodologically, it’s not so much about the destination (i.e. the ideas upon which one should settle), but the journey (i.e. as long as you are thinking critically). Now I’m not saying that you don’t have truth as the end or goal of your methodology. I am trying to say that this doesn’t come across to me, aside from the occasional explicit statement – which is the only way I know it.

I agree that real interaction with the issues is extremely important. But your methodology seems out of step with Paul’s, for example, who said at one point ‘They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.’ (Titus 1:11). To put it another way, your approach has a lot of positive points but it seems to me to be just too out of step with the tone and approach in the N.T.

I like that you’re not afraid of deconstruction. I seriously love that you want people to believe things for the right reasons – I am right there with you. But I really don’t like that I rarely leave your writings with a sense of the magnitude of the importance of truth and the devastation of the alternative.”

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]

Print This Post

52 Responses to “Criticism from a Reader”

Wonders for Oyarsa on 01 Oct 2008 at 12:40 pm #

I will say, Michael, that for me as a non-Calvinist, your civil and respectful tone that shies away from the polemic has helped keep me from going to the opposite extreme – lambasting Calvinists as heretics who consider God the source of all evil. Has your critic heard “a gentle answer turns away wrath?”

I’ve seen very little shortage of righteous indignation on behalf of Calvinist bloggers on anything in the world not being Calvinist enough for them. If you want my advice, reserve your furious anger for true evil, not theological squabbles on some fine point of systematic theology rooted in the cascading conflicts of the sixteenth century.
Jim on 01 Oct 2008 at 1:20 pm #

you’re not mean enough??????

if you want lessons, i know a guy….
Luke on 01 Oct 2008 at 1:56 pm #

I’m totally with Wonders on this one. This person sounds like a fundamentalist who needs to go back to living in the 50s or in the Reformation era where they burned “unorthodox” people at the stake. I’m really sick of people putting Paul on a pedestal, universalizing a couple of harsh words he had, and expecting that this should be the norm for all people who preach “truth.” CMP is not Paul, I’m not Paul, there’s only one Paul. CMP is preaching the truth in love, and we already have too many hateful jerks out there who think if you don’t preach the 5 points of Calvinism you’re a heretic.

Thanks for what you do CMP. I am a non-Calvinist that very much respects your opinion and considers you a true teacher. The last thing I would want to see this blog succumb to is criticizing and slandering and calling out by name every individual who doesn’t think like you do.
rick on 01 Oct 2008 at 2:27 pm #

I too am an non-Calvinist, and found the letter interesting, and yet also a little harsh.

However, I did not necessarily read “Calvinism” in the letter. It is interesting that Wonders and Luke did.

Perhaps the writer was simply referring to historic orthodoxy (Nicene)?
Mike J on 01 Oct 2008 at 3:20 pm #

Hey CMP – I really appreciate your consistency in applying your irenic method. I don’t ever feel that you’re a hypocrite in the way you defend using the irenic method. You irenically defend the use of irenic methods.

On the other hand, I’ve heard of some people using invitriol and hastily proceeding to wrongly represent the view of the one they criticize, and employing insulting, condescending, and rude language to do so.

I have an idea. Let’s read something:

“I know that you’re orthodox, and that you truly believe these things (e.g. the Gospel), but you rarely seem to communicate how dangerous UNothodoxy is.”

Now let’s read something else:

“Perhaps the writer was simply referring to historic orthodoxy (Nicene)?”

No connection there…

This critic must be a funless-fundamentalist-jerk-non-elect-hating-apostle-worshiping-meany who wishes he grew up in the day he could burn people at the stake. I can totally see how you get that from the criticism.
Mike J on 01 Oct 2008 at 3:59 pm #

“I’m totally with Wonders on this one. This person sounds like a fundamentalist who needs to go back to living in the 50s or in the Reformation era where they burned “unorthodox” people at the stake. I’m really sick of people putting Paul on a pedestal, universalizing a couple of harsh words he had, and expecting that this should be the norm for all people who preach “truth.” CMP is not Paul, I’m not Paul, there’s only one Paul. CMP is preaching the truth in love, and we already have too many hateful jerks out there who think if you don’t preach the 5 points of Calvinism you’re a heretic. ”

Here is someone extolling ‘preaching the truth in love,’ and at the same time proceeding to make a rather hasty judgment that this has something to do with Calvinism, reading a requirement into the critique (that isn’t there) to ‘call out by name every individual who doesn’t think like you’, accusing others of being ‘hateful jerks’ (in the same sentence as ‘preaching the truth in love’), and pejoratively throwing the term fundamentalist into the mix. All, ironically, in the defence of another who is trying to maintain an irenic method, and who – I think in humility – doesn’t seem to feel the need to defend himself. (see here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/theological-conversation-to-the-glory-shame-of-god/ )

It would appear that one who has a problem with someone saying that he has a problem with the lack of a clear sense of the damning character of error has NO problem rudely assaulting others.

Luke, invitriol aside, I am glad that you don’t have a problem contending against what you see to be the character of error. That’s good. A little wisdom before pressing ’send’ wouldn’t hurt your method, though.

The ‘harsh words’ that quoted from Paul were actually a command to be implemented by a local pastor against a dangerous error. Those particular words are quite relevant when pastors and teachers are working hard to discern how they should deal with particular damning errors of our own day.

I don’t mind harsh, blunt language persay. But I think going on and on about it points to the emotional fragility of our day.
dac on 01 Oct 2008 at 4:17 pm #

As a long time supporter of CMP, I think that the criticism has some truth in it, yet in the end the author displays a lack of understanding, or perhaps a lack of familiarity with the depth of CMP’s posts.

It is easy to “read into” someones posts based on your own presuppositions – for example if your experience with Calvinists is of the hyper Calvinist brand, you may have a tendency to see all Calvinists in the same light, even if they are not of that vein.
Jugulum on 01 Oct 2008 at 6:03 pm #

“But I really don’t like that I rarely leave your writings with a sense of the magnitude of the importance of truth and the devastation of the alternative.”

Michael,

I love your ministry. I love your irenic approach. And I love your emphasis on right reasons–looking at the journey, not just the destination. Looking at the reasons we ought to believe, not just what we ought to believe. And as for myself, when I err, I usually err on the side of being too irenic/polite.

That said, the reader may have a point. When you discuss the various alternatives on an issue–well, the danger is that you’ll be so even-handed that you don’t communicate the urgency of ending up in the right place.

I haven’t been evaluating your posts on that basis, and I’m not going to look back to try to weigh in on your performance. But certainly, if you err, you err in the direction pointed out by the reader. So, watch out for it. (My guess is that you’re already approaching his criticism that way. These words are more for other people.)

For those of you reacting like Luke & Wonders–please, be more consistent in being irenic. There is a sad trend of lip-service to being irenic–being rather ungracious & uncharitable in how you interpret other people. Charity police can be some of the least charitable people on the internet.

Mike J–great observations.

Mark Driscoll’s message at the recent Desiring God conference would be good food for thought, for those of us who tend to emphasize being irenic. There’s a place for hard language. (And finding the balance here is extremely difficult. So let’s try to correct people who don’t hit the mark–but be gracious & loving & hopeful toward them.)
How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words by Mark Driscoll
Mike J on 01 Oct 2008 at 6:38 pm #

“When you discuss the various alternatives on an issue–well, the danger is that you’ll be so even-handed that you don’t communicate the urgency of ending up in the right place.”

Jugulum – thank you.

That is the thrust of my critique. Very well said.

I’ve read every post since summer of 2007. And I’ve taken notes on every one since April 2008. With that said, I would really love to be wrong about this.

I have also been watching Patton’s later posts with this especially in mind. I have been looking FOR statements of the danger of error, rather than looking for the LACK of them. For example, here is a snippet that I think avoids my criticism well:

“Having said all this, we all need to recognize the utter sinfulness of sexual perversion. Homosexuality is a sin, and a terribly destructive one at that. But we need to be careful and gracious with those who struggle with this sin, understanding that the struggle against sin is in the plight of us all. The solution is for us to be non-compromising to the political correct agenda of our culture to turn all sin into a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice, but at the same time to be gracious, knowing that the only hope that anyone has is to be covered in Christ’s righteousness, not our own..” [only is emphatic in the original]

This Christ-only Christ-centred Christ’s-sufficiency-exalting statement over and above the damning nature of error is FANTASTIC.
Mike J on 01 Oct 2008 at 11:04 pm #

I have briefly commented here…

http://alwaysonenote.blogspot.com/2008/10/receiving-brotherly-criticism-to-glory.html

Caution to trolls… I show no mercy
bethyada on 02 Oct 2008 at 12:03 am #

Charity police can be some of the least charitable people on the internet.

Just thought that needed repeating.
YnottonY on 02 Oct 2008 at 3:20 am #

Mike J,

I happen to agree with your criticism, and I further appreciate the manner in which you gave it.

Here’s what I have thought for some time. Michael Patton [like some of his friends] has a background in fundamentalism. He has been strongly recoiling from that for some time now. It’s a source of embarrassment and shame now, and rightly so. Consequently, the errors of fundamentalism are presently seen as some of the greatest evils to be avoided.

Fundamentalists have these kinds of qualities:

1a) Bigotry
2a) Anti-Intellectualism
3a) Judgmentalism

If one were to overreact against these qualities, what would they be like?

1b) Overly tolerant/compromising
2b) So admiring the academicians such that the views/arguments of non-scholars are despised/ignored
3b) Not condemning of [or warning against] doctrines that ought to be forthrightly condemned

Now, don’t get me wrong. I do not think 1b, 2b, and 3b are definite or regular characteristics of Michael Patton. Nevertheless, they seem to be his inclinations since his background is that of 1a, 2a and 3a.

It seems to me that Mike Jones has observed the 3b quality in his above criticism of Michael. I think I have observed the 1b quality at times and to a degree [on the issue of sola fide], and I think others have observed the 2b quality. If I were to explain this, I would say that it is due to his recoil against his fundamentalist past. It’s a sensitive bruise that still hurts him, hence the opposite tendency.

All of us tend to swing back and forth between opposite vices [distorted or exaggerated virtues] such that we lack godly balance. What we need is to take on various Christian virtues in their proper proportion and place as they are found in the character of Christ. Sometimes to straighten a stick, you have to bend it in the opposite direction [says Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics]. Michael may be bending toward 1b, 2b and 3b now, only to later bend back to a straigher position

Grace to you,
Tony
YnottonY on 02 Oct 2008 at 3:41 am #

The last sentence might be more thoroughly put this way:

Michael may be bending toward 1b, 2b and 3b qualities now, only to later bend back to a straighter position that also avoids the errors of 1a, 2a and 3a.

NKJ Psalm 119:104 Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
Eric S. Mueller on 02 Oct 2008 at 6:40 am #

Michael, I honestly never gave much thought to your style. I obviously enjoy reading it, or I would have purged Parchment and Pen from my Google Reader feeds long ago.

Considering the wealth of gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to believers, and the amazing personality differences among believers, is it truly effective for every single writer and teacher to communicate error with that kind of urgency? I honestly get tired of reading and hearing that kind of message from each and every source. I like your style because you seem to assume that your readers are intelligent and educated enough to read your analysis and come to the proper conclusion. It seems to me if you had to write about error from the perspective of “This doctrine is wrong and demonic and you need to run from it with all urgency!” that would take the assumption that your readers cannot process and analyze the information for themselves.
Jonathan Enns on 02 Oct 2008 at 6:52 am #

I think I agree with the critique in part. I love reading the blog & the discussions, but I don’t usually get the feeling of “we need to stand up for this truth” but rather, “we need to be more open to other points of view, and realize they are christian views too”.

Now I fully believe that the Gospel is simple, and that many heretics are saved! But it is interesting that the PRIMARY warning in the NT is against “false teaching”. So although there may be many points of view, I think it is important to take stands on “true teaching” when addressing important and/or semi-essential issues.

The farther we narrow down our list of essentials (in the sense of an important doctrine we should divide over), the more postmodern we become.
Brian on 02 Oct 2008 at 8:00 am #

The author of the criticism obviously never had Michael as a teacher in the Theology Program!! Just kidding.

I think what is refreshing about Michael’s approach is that rather than just telling everyone what to think, he helps us understand how to think. There are enough out there who tell you their take on a topic and say that all the wayward souls who believe otherwise are bound for Hell.

There are only a few essentials for salvation, all else is only affecting orthodoxy, fellowship, or other tradition. Of the things I got out of the Theology Program, the need to strive for consistency in my beliefs is one of the best.

I know many people who believe what they have been told is truth. They don’t always see that their “truths” don’t line up with each other, and when they are faced with that, they freak out.

It is impossible to silence everyone who is spreading error. And whining about their error only turns off everyone else. Teach truth and how to think, people will get it.

Brian
Chuck F on 02 Oct 2008 at 8:32 am #

I think this letter raises a great point. And perhaps Michael’s best response to it is the constructive, mature way he posted it! The letter really strikes a nerve with me because, though not nearly as learned as Michael, I strive for the same balance. On the one hand, as the letter comments, the apostles and prophets unflinchingly proclaim the unique glory and greatness of their God and his message through them. Perhaps the answer is that, though we share the same God and message (and I am an exclusivist), we are not apostles and prophets. We live in a globalized, modernized, post-modernized, pluralistic world. In the interest of assuring ourselves and others that we are not cultists or fools, we seek intellectual virtue and honest inquiry. However, the letter writer is right (at least it is my take away) that we need to make sure that, on a regular basis (hopefully with the same intellectual virtue and good thought) we focus on the uncontested greatness of our Lord and the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints.”
Jugulum on 02 Oct 2008 at 9:21 am #

Eric,
“is it truly effective for every single writer and teacher to communicate error with that kind of urgency?”

A fair question… People should consider it.

And one factor to consider is this: Sometimes, the failure to communicate urgency means that effectively, you are communicating non-urgency.

That’s the danger to keep an eye on.
Mike J on 02 Oct 2008 at 9:38 am #

“Perhaps the answer is that, though we share the same God and message (and I am an exclusivist), we are not apostles and prophets.”

As I wrote before regarding my select example in Titus, it was a command written to a local pastor. What I think we see there is a principle of dealing with damning error. Yes, the details of sorting that out in day to day life are often foggy, and discernment is necessary for applying this principle appropriately.

Those who TEACH Christian pastors must be held to at LEAST the standard of Christian pastors. It is nonsense to have those who equip operate at a lower standard than the ones they equip.

“is it truly effective for every single writer and teacher to communicate error with that kind of urgency?”

Yes, every teacher is called to the standard of Titus 1:9.
Mike J on 02 Oct 2008 at 9:50 am #

CMP – While I appreciate the thoughts of the other commentators, I hope you don’t feel too much like you’re on the psychologist’s couch!
Chuck F on 02 Oct 2008 at 10:43 am #

“As I wrote before regarding my select example in Titus, it was a command written to a local pastor. What I think we see there is a principle of dealing with damning error. Yes, the details of sorting that out in day to day life are often foggy, and discernment is necessary for applying this principle appropriately.

Those who TEACH Christian pastors must be held to at LEAST the standard of Christian pastors. It is nonsense to have those who equip operate at a lower standard than the ones they equip.”

Mike J,

You make a very good point that we don’t need to be apostles or prophets to be resolute about gospel truth and urgent against error. 2 Tim. 2:2 makes it clear that we are faithfully passing on the apostolic deposit to elders and pastors who will pass it on to others.

I am someone who teaches pastors in a society that is hostile to Christianity. While seeking to clearly teach orthodoxy and refute error, I have an additional concern: the intellectual integrity of believers and especially leaders. In Titus 2:8 Paul tells Titus to use “sound speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.” In the country I work in, polemics, apologetics and partisan diatribes against Christians and the gospel are many and harsh. I spend time teaching (and try to model) critical thinking and intellectual virtue so that we do not make the same mistakes our opponents do: careless thinking (which includes misuse of scripture) and unsound speech that primarily functions to shout: I’m right and you are evil!

So maybe I’ve become a little too soft in my desire to be moderate and fair-minded. I am presently in the middle of writing what is turning out to be a long evaluation of someone I consider a false teacher. I am giving him no quarter, but I am trying to model sound speech and avoid vituperation… Paul did say at one point that he wished the Judaizers would “go all the way and castrate themselves”… But he also taught Timothy to “pursue gentleness.”

Blessings,

Chuck
Jugulum on 02 Oct 2008 at 11:07 am #

“Paul did say at one point that he wished the Judaizers would “go all the way and castrate themselves”… But he also taught Timothy to “pursue gentleness.””

Chuck,

I highly recommend that you listen to Mark Driscoll’s message at the Desiring God conference this year:
How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words by Mark Driscoll

Not to imply anything about how well Driscoll himself does–but he raises some very thought-worthy points about gentleness, humility, love, satire, mockery, & sharp, stinging rebuke.

One thought is this: You feed the sheep. You shoot the wolves. Love requires both. (And humility & care as you try to distinguish who’s a wolf, and who’s a confused sheep.)
Chuck F on 02 Oct 2008 at 12:43 pm #

Jugulum,

Thanks very much for good comment and the link… I’ll look forward to listening to it “after the rush is over”!
Susan on 02 Oct 2008 at 12:51 pm #

“hummmm…..” it’s always a good discussion when Jugulum jumps in!
Jugulum on 02 Oct 2008 at 1:34 pm #

Susan,

Awww, shucks. Thanks.

Another recommendation: A panel discussion from the same conference, with Driscoll, Piper, and Sinclair Ferguson. Near the beginning, someone asks Driscoll about what he has learned from his critics, and he talks about “the wounds of a friend are faithful“.

He says that he regards a friend as someone who—in the midst of criticism—has love for you, and hope for you. They criticize out of hope, to build you up and help you along.

Mike J’s comments were the wounds of a friend.

Piper & Ferguson chime in with something like, “A friend says, ‘You are this, but you will be this.’”
Chaz on 02 Oct 2008 at 1:35 pm #

Michael

What do you think about this criticism? How do you feel about it/what is your response to it?
YnottonY on 02 Oct 2008 at 3:47 pm #

Chaz asks:

“Michael

What do you think about this criticism? How do you feel about it/what is your response to it?”

He thinks we are all damnable heretics and that people should be perpetually warned against being involved with us LOL

Just kidding!

Give him some time to respond. He’s on a couch in the fetal position and still contemplating our diagnosis.
Jugulum on 02 Oct 2008 at 4:15 pm #

“He thinks we are all damnable heretics and that people should be perpetually warned against being involved with us LOL”

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
C Michael Patton on 02 Oct 2008 at 4:24 pm #

You all are awesome. I am just soaking this stuff in right now (and weeping here and there )

I will join later, but I think you all have some great points that should be instructive to all of us.
Mike J on 02 Oct 2008 at 4:38 pm #

> “Give him some time to respond. He’s on a couch in the fetal position and still contemplating our diagnosis.”

Oh awesome.

> “You all are awesome. I am just soaking this stuff in right now (and weeping here and there )”

Ouch. It is hard enough for me to sleep due to my caffeine intake and university-obliterated sleep pattern… now my insomnia can add a troubled conscience its arsenal.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Oct 2008 at 5:42 pm #

“But I really don’t like that I rarely leave your writings with a sense of the magnitude of the importance of truth and the devastation of the alternative.”

I read this comment when it was first posted on a previous thread. I commend CMP for resurrecting it and giving it prominence on its own thread.

The commenter has irenically critiqued CMP, and CMP can incorporate this as helpful feedback or not.

Here’s excerpts from something that might be useful in receiving feedback. It’s from Bishop Jensen regarding Pastor Driscoll’s critique:

“Mark was hard-hitting and critical. He said things that made us feel very uncomfortable, and he said them with force and vigour. He was calling upon us to change our ways. All of this can create defensiveness within us, and it makes us want to argue with him and explain ourselves. There are many ways in which we can defend ourselves: we can find fault with his manner or his choice of words; we can look for holes in his logic, or point out the minor errors of fact—especially about Sydney; we can qualify what he has said—to the point where we have domesticated his main points; or we can complain about what he failed to address (e.g. some found fault in his attack on young men because he did not speak to young women—as if he was supposed to say everything). We could also find fault with his rhetorical use of hyperbole, generalizations, stark contrasts and lack of nuanced discussion. But in all this, he is not dissimilar to Jesus’ preaching. He is a man who confronted us with hard questions, and we must be very wary of our own defensiveness.”

From: Phillip Jensen Response to Mark Driscoll’s Critique
Jugulum on 02 Oct 2008 at 6:04 pm #

TUaD:

Ooooh, good catch. My sinful, praise-seeking pride flares up in objection–I should have thought of that.

Oh well.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 02 Oct 2008 at 6:55 pm #

I humbly confess that Jugulum’s own confession of sinful, praise-seeking pride has ….

fueled my own sinful, praise-seeking pride!

D’oh!

But really, that’s a solid compliment coming from Jugulum. Thanks bro’.
C Michael Patton on 02 Oct 2008 at 9:44 pm #

Mike, sleep sound my friend.
minnowspeaks on 03 Oct 2008 at 3:06 am #

Read only the first 10 or so comments so this may have been said later. I find it ironic that one of the criticisms of your posts is that you are too even handed that getting to the right answer might not happen. Perhaps that is because the “right” answer is not as certain as some would like to think.
Mike J on 03 Oct 2008 at 10:53 am #

“Perhaps that is because the “right” answer is not as certain as some would like to think.”

A few things:

1) I don’t think the majority of the commentators here agree with this as regards the message of salvation. And I’m pretty sure that CMP wouldn’t think the right answer to how one is saved is “not as certain as some would like to think.” Same with the fact that there are dangerous errors that threaten to destroy churches. I think this may be the wrong conversation for that idea.

Which leads to the next thought…

2) My critique is written to someone who I believe does indeed clearly see the danger of error. It is written to highlight what I perceive is an inconsistency between that belief and his writings, namely, that generally the urgency of avoiding and overcoming error is not communicated. See Jugulum’s comment (#8) In other words, I wrote this not claiming that Patton doesn’t think error is deadly serious or that he doesn’t see obvious dangerous errors (one is anti-intellectualism, against which he is outspoken) – it is precisely because I am virtually certain that Michael Patton views error as serious and can point to many serious and urgent errors that I wrote this.

On my blog I pointed to Piper as an example because I think that Piper is usually very irenic in his interactions, but he also seems to always communicate the urgency of avoiding error. I’m not asking Patton to agree with me at to what is a specific error. I’m also not giving Patton a list of errors against which I think he should unload his rail guns – which seems to have been a pattern that sparked the unnecessary comments at the beginning of the thread. I may not agree 100% with Patton over what constitutes error and its degree in every case, and some are less clear, but from what I’ve read I do have a lot of theological and motivational parity with him – and this includes a shared view of what is the most serious error, namely, a rejection of the Gospel. With that as the underpinnings, I’m trying to point out something as regards his general methodology with respect to what he views as error and especially the urgency of the true Gospel. That’s why, to borrow from the debacle at the beginning of this thread, this transcended his treatment of non-Calvinists.

That there IS error and that it IS serious and that it can be clearly seen is not really the issue here. That the true message of salvation can be known, and known clearly, and that it is urgent, is not in question here. I’m speaking in a common faith as one brother to another.

So I think right now we’re beyond whether there are clear and dangerous and damning errors. This is a plea to be methodologically consistent with respect to the damning character of error when it is encountered.
Criticism — Constructive, Destructive, Gentle, & Stinging | Through A Glass, Dimly on 04 Oct 2008 at 2:43 pm #

[...] recently posted Criticism from a Reader, which contains a well-articulated, gracious criticism from a reader along those lines. [...]
learning on 07 Oct 2008 at 5:34 pm #

Michael, whoever sent you that criticism might have a point but Im also afraid that this person might be just another fundie who wants others to have a fighting or seige mentality. I enjoy your blog because it is pretty balanced in the way you present things. This is not true of all blogs especially those by well known fundies….I am tempted to name names. It bothers me that these same folks want everyone to be like them and act like them and have the same tone as they do. Keep doing what you’re doing. Stand for the truth and continue to be as balanced as possible and avoid overstatements and generalizations.
Is there a way to stand for Truth without sounding like a reactionary-dogmatic-religious-person? I think J.P. Moreland is a good model of being both gracious in our tone as well as standing for truth without having the fundie tone or vibe.
Eclectic Christian on 08 Oct 2008 at 9:45 am #

Late to the conversation, but I am with CMP on this one. I will always be much more in tune with strong affirmative arguments than with polemics slamming each other.

We are far too hasty too call somthing “heresy” or “not-biblical” when in fact they are well within the bounds of “orthodox christianity.”

We need more voices like CMP who present what they believe in a straight forward rational manner without feeling the need to tear down the other guy.

I am in the process of going through my site and removing or editing comments that can’t make their own point without condemning someone else.
Eclectic Christian on 08 Oct 2008 at 10:07 am #

A quick P.S.

I disagree with CMP on MANY theological issues. However, because he is willing to state his position clearly and thoughtfully without slamming my position, I am willing to listen to what he has to say.
britphil on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:29 pm #

“We are far too hasty too call something “heresy” or “not-biblical” when in fact they are well within the bounds of “orthodox christianity.”

Eclectic Christian – a person after my own heart!

Several months ago, I posted a couple of threads saying virtually the same thing. When we casually brand someone a heretic what we are really, in effect, saying is because you do not subscribe to “my idea of orthodoxy” you are by definition “unorthodox”

I notice that CMP’s critic did not define in any way what they meant by “error” or “unorthodoxy” and used one verse of the New Tesatament as a basis for their argument, extrapolating it to cover the New Testament, and all Paul’s writings as a whole. I imagine I could have a good guess at what the person in CMP’s original e-mail means by the terms “errror” and “orthodoxy”but I don’t know for sure. An educated guess would be that anyone who does not agree with them on a fair range of issues could be classed as “in error” or “unorthodxo/heretical”, and I guess that would no doubt include me!

To finish with I am going to state something that will virtually double the number of threads to this post overnight! I have just begun reading “A Generous Orthodoxy” by Brian McLaren. I can sense the feeling of alienation setting in already in some quarters! I am in the very early stages of reading it but I am determined to read it all the way through. I sense that many people may be already tapping out a strongly worded rebuke on your keyboards.

Before you do can I just say stop a moment and request one thing. Please only continue with your critique IF and WHEN you have already read the book in full. I am more than happy to read such responses. What I have little time for, is for stinging rebukes from people who have not taken the time to actually read the book but are going on their pastor’s opinion, denominational stance etc

There…off you go! I await a spirited response.
Mike J on 08 Oct 2008 at 4:42 pm #

“Michael, whoever sent you that criticism might have a point but Im also afraid that this person might be just another fundie who wants others to have a fighting or seige mentality. I enjoy your blog because it is pretty balanced in the way you present things. This is not true of all blogs especially those by well known fundies….I am tempted to name names”

Did you read the first few comments?

“Stand for the truth and continue to be as balanced as possible and avoid overstatements and generalizations.”

That is a pretty hypocritical thing to say when you’re tossing around terms like “fundies.” Someone might get the impression that you just have a fighting or seige mentality. Do you know what fundamentalist means?

“I notice that CMP’s critic did not define in any way what they meant by “error” or “unorthodoxy” and used one verse of the New Tesatament as a basis for their argument, extrapolating it to cover the New Testament, and all Paul’s writings as a whole. I imagine I could have a good guess at what the person in CMP’s original e-mail means by the terms “errror” and “orthodoxy”but I don’t know for sure. An educated guess would be that anyone who does not agree with them on a fair range of issues could be classed as “in error” or “unorthodxo/heretical”, and I guess that would no doubt include me!”

This is also an ironic example of failing to do sufficient reading – in this particular case, the comment section – before drawing a conclusion.

Patton and I hold the same Gospel. I can make a criticism of Patton without elucidating every point because we can speak the same language. My critique was specifically how he deals with damning error. Damning error isn’t the subject of the entire NT. Thus, your statement, that I “used one verse of the New Tesatament as a basis for [my] argument, extrapolating it to cover the New Testament” is acontextual, hasty, and wrong.

Read comments 9, 10, 36.

It is also ironic that the plea to read the “book in full” before someone rips into you for it. Why don’t you apply that standard to this discussion?

Is it unreasonable for me to ask those who want fair representation and talk so much of it to fairly represent what they critique? Or is that too much?
learning on 08 Oct 2008 at 9:39 pm #

Mike J, yeah I have somewhat of an idea of what a Fundamentalist is. Sam Storms has a short but to the point article on his website about Fundamentalists and what characterizes Fundamentalists. Fundies seem to always have a fighting mentality. And the fundies I have met also are very suspicious people. I don’t know if their pastor taught them to be suspicious or if it’s part of the vibe of their church or if their pastor instills this attitude to be suspicious of people, including other churches and christians. If I guessed I think it does come from their seige mentality as well as the leaders they look up to kind of nuturing a suspicious attitude in their churches. I understand that Fundamentalists did a good job of defending doctrine in the past against the threats of modernism and the rise of the secular culture which is good but there are also negatives when it comes to Fundies. I have also met believers who wouldn’t consider themselves to be Fundamentalists ( the group within christianity) but who care about sound doctrine and who love their bibles and who love Jesus but they don’t have the same attitudes as those of Fundamentalists. I don’t think one has to be a Fundamentalist to have sound doctrine. Another thing I’ve noticed with Fundamentalists is that is that they are almost too serious. They take themselves too seriously. Another dangrous thing I’ve seen is that some fundamentalists have a dangerous martyr complex. It’s kind of like saying ” They don’t like our church or our pastor or that author because we’re ’serious’ about obeying the bible “. These are just some of my observations that I have personally experienced.
britphil on 09 Oct 2008 at 4:39 am #

Mike

Thanks for your comments. I wasn’t too far wrong about the expected spirited response. Can I just begin by putting my hands up and saying “fair point” about the read the thead first bit before posting. I confess that I skimmed through the thread and should have read it a bit more fully which I have now done.

Can I also just say that I agree wholeheartedly about the “fundie” remark. There are so many different strands of “fundamentalist” that to label it as one pejorative term is not particualrly helpful, in the same was that describing all charismatics are “happy-clappies” doesn’t do anyone any favours.

I would say that my concern is that there can be a tendency to almost worship “the Truth” , rator the Bible even, rather than the God of Truth, the One who is the Truth, or the One who inspired the writing of the truth.

Can I also just say something about the tone of your response. I don’t mind the “I don’t take any prisoners” approach so long as it is a two way street. My experience of those who set their stll outto expose error at the expense of everything else is that ity is OK when you are agreeing with thenm, band that the unwritten rule is often it is OK for me to challenge you but I cannot be cahalleenged because I have “the truth” and by definition you are “in error”.

Finally do you mind if I ask a question. It doews seemk a bit obsessive to bwe taking notes of every thread since April 2008. Are our thoughts likely to appear in a book sometime!?
If I was Michael I would feel as if my thoughts were being just a little over-policed.

With regard to my comment about responding to “A Generous Orthodoxy” I have no problem whatsoever with people posting regarding the subject matter, just that my experience is that peeople have such diverging views about Brian McClaren that if we are going to have a balanced discussion it would help if thit was aover the content of the book rather than the overall stance on Brian McClaren and his writings.

At a guess, I would imagine (and I may be very wrong, apologies in advance if I am) but I guess tyou may be of the opinion that Brian McClaren is promoting damning error so I guess the conversation would be interesting to say the least! Again I may be wrong but I guess you may have formed an opinion of me siidran largely from one thread and the fact that I am reading “A Generous Orthodoxy”. This is equally as dangerous as categorising people as “fundies”

I fully acknowledge that fairness is a two way street but I think if you look at your nites from April 2008 onwards you need to be equally as critical of those, from a more conservative fundamentalist viewpoint who have been very damning, far more unfair in their accusations and judgements yeyt who would appear to not receive the same criticism maybe because they sing from a similar 9though by no means identical )hymnsheet as yourself.

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but are there not exhrotations from Paul at certain points in the New Testament to attempt to rescue people from error and bring them back onto a more truth-filled path. There is a danger in adopting a highly critical approach towards “error” that we unfairly target those who have been influenced by error and tar them with same brush as those who are the mainperpetartors/teachers of error. There is as much a pastoral element to this as well as a teaching element.
britphil on 09 Oct 2008 at 4:47 am #

I have posted this thread again as it chucked me out during editing so I want to post something that actually makes sense, and is in English, rather than some desperate form of Esperanto!

Mike

Thanks for your comments. I wasn’t too far wrong about the expected spirited response. Can I just begin by putting my hands up and saying “fair point” about reading the thread first before posting. I confess that I skimmed through the thread and should have read it a bit more thoroughly which I have now done.

Can I also just say that I agree wholeheartedly about the “fundie” remark. There are so many different strands of “fundamentalist” that to label it as one pejorative term is not particualrly helpful, in the same was that describing all charismatics are “happy-clappies” doesn’t do anyone any favours.

I would say that my overall concern is that there can be a tendency to almost worship “the Truth” , or the Bible even, rather than the God of Truth, the One who is the Truth, or the One who inspired the writing of the truth.

Can I also just say something about the tone of your response. I don’t mind the “I don’t take any prisoners” approach so long as it is a two way street. My experience of those who set their stall out to expose error, almost at the expense of everything else, is that it is OK when you are agreeing with them, but the unwritten rule is often “it is OK for me to challenge you but I cannot be challenged because I have “the truth” and by definition you are “in error”.

Finally do you mind if I ask a question. It does seem a tad obsessive to be taking notes of every post since early 2008. Are our thoughts likely to appear in a book sometime!? If I was Michael I would feel as if my thoughts were being just a little over-policed.

With regard to my comment about responding to “A Generous Orthodoxy” I have no problem whatsoever with people posting regarding the subject matter, just that my experience is that people have such diverging views about Brian McClaren that it would merely get in the way of a helpfuland balanced discussion of the book and it’s contents.

At a guess, I would imagine (and I may be very wrong, apologies in advance if I am) but I guess you may be of the opinion that Brian McClaren is promoting damning error so I guess the conversation would be interesting to say the least!

Again I may be wrong but I guess you may have formed an opinion of me largely from one thread and the fact that I am reading “A Generous Orthodoxy”. This is equally as dangerous as categorising people as “fundies”

I fully acknowledge that fairness is a two way street but I think if you look at your notes from April 2008 onwards you need to be equally as critical, if not scathing of those, from a more conservative fundamentalist viewpoint who have been very damning, far more unfair in their accusations and judgements yet who would appear to not receive the same criticism maybe because they sing from a similar (though by no means identical )hymnsheet as yourself.

Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but are there not exhrotations from Paul at certain points in the New Testament to attempt to rescue people from error and bring them back onto a more truth-filled path. There is a danger in adopting a highly critical approach towards “error” that we unfairly target those who have been influenced by error and tar them with same brush as those who are the mainperpetartors/teachers of error. There is as much a pastoral element to this as well as a teaching element.
Mike J on 09 Oct 2008 at 8:36 am #

“I would say that my overall concern is that there can be a tendency to almost worship “the Truth” , or the Bible even, rather than the God of Truth, the One who is the Truth, or the One who inspired the writing of the truth.”

Where is this coming from? On what basis do you think this? What exactly constitutes idolatrous worship of God’s word?

And is it worshiping stop lights to think and state that it’s dangerous that someone runs a red?

“Finally do you mind if I ask a question. It does seem a tad obsessive to be taking notes of every post since early 2008. Are our thoughts likely to appear in a book sometime!?”

It’s a tool for memory. If something is worth remembering I write it down.

Call it what you want.

“Again I may be wrong but I guess you may have formed an opinion of me largely from one thread and the fact that I am reading “A Generous Orthodoxy”.”

You really have to stop with the imputations of motive and opinion. The only opinion that I have of you thus far is that you don’t seem to stick to what a person has written.

“Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but are there not exhrotations from Paul at certain points in the New Testament to attempt to rescue people from error and bring them back onto a more truth-filled path.”

Yes. One of them is in Galatians. Galatians is an example of apostolic interaction with those being led astray by a damning error. The Scriptures don’t present condemnation of error as opposed to leading back to truth; indeed, it is rather quite the opposite.

I don’t think that clearly explaining to your children that it is extremely dangerous to run onto a busy road is painting with too broad a brush.
Mike J on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:02 am #

“I fully acknowledge that fairness is a two way street but I think if you look at your notes from April 2008 onwards you need to be equally as critical, if not scathing of those, from a more conservative fundamentalist viewpoint who have been very damning, far more unfair in their accusations and judgements yet who would appear to not receive the same criticism maybe because they sing from a similar (though by no means identical )hymnsheet as yourself.”

Are you referring to the comment sections? I don’t read all the comments of every post. I read the comments for posts I comment on. I rarely get much out of the comments. Plus, I’m not a moderator here.

“Can I also just say something about the tone of your response. I don’t mind the “I don’t take any prisoners” approach so long as it is a two way street. ”

My problem wasn’t with your tone. My problem with your post was addressed when you said: “Can I just begin by putting my hands up and saying “fair point” about the read the thead first bit before posting. I confess that I skimmed through the thread and should have read it a bit more fully which I have now done.”

Again, I think that going on and on about tone more than the content just indicates the emotional fragility of western culture.

So you know, I’m terse in my comments because it is efficient, not because I’m aiming to be rude.
Eclectic Christian on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:20 am #

Mike J and britphil.

Mike J. wrote:

“So you know, I’m terse in my comments because it is efficient, not because I’m aiming to be rude.”

As I read the dialogue here I think its fair to point out that it is so easy to be misinterpreted when we post in relative anonymity and cannot communicate face to face. I have had to apologize on more that one occasion when something I have written was not understood the way I intended it.

Neither Mike J.’s “Terse comments” nor britphil’s provocative comments lend themselves to the conversation being advanced in a positive usefull way.
Mike J on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:30 am #

“britphil’s provocative comments”

I don’t think britphil is speaking provocatively… just overspeaking a little.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:32 am #

Neither Mike J.’s “Terse comments” nor britphil’s provocative comments lend themselves to the conversation being advanced in a positive usefull way.

I disagree. No equivalence.

Mike J’s short comments are understandable given the explanation of brevity and efficiency.

Mike J’s comments are eminently positive and useful in advancing the conversation.
Eclectic Christian on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:39 am #

Hmmm,

Wouldn’t be the first time I have been wrong!
Mike J on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:43 am #

Eclectic: “I have had to apologize on more that one occasion when something I have written was not understood the way I intended it.”

You don’t have to apologize for being misunderstood. You only need apologize if you spoke wrongly.

Otherwise Jesus would be making A LOT of apologies.