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.

Hmmm,

Wouldn’t be the first time I have been wrong!

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.

“britphil’s provocative comments”

I don’t think britphil is speaking provocatively… just overspeaking a little.

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.

“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.

“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.

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

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.

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.