A fellow Arizonan named T.J. Pennock runs a blog called Liver and Onions. The blog is painful in its absolute, unvarnished hatred for Calvinists. There isn't anything else going on there. It's all about how bad Calvinism is. If you are of the Reformed persuasion, you are not merely a "Calvinist" -- you are a "Calamite", which appears to be Mr. Pennock's idea of comparing Calvinists to sodomites. For favorite books he lists, "The Bible and other anti-Calvinist literature" as if no one who believes that stuff could have gotten their ideas from the Bible. It's not a simple disagreement for T.J. It's serious. And there is no dialog with T.J. because, well, if you disagree, you're evil.
He's been at this for years. You have to admit he's dedicated to this bitter hatred. But ... why does it have to be that way? When did it become necessary to assassinate those with whom they disagree? Oh, I understand fully that this is the world's approach. But why do we see it in Christian circles? Why do Christians have to be so mean?
I don't get it. "Mean-spirited" isn't one of the fruits of the Spirit as I recall. Oh, wait ... there it is. You'll find, in the list of "works of the flesh" as "enmity, strife ... dissensions, divisions" (Gal. 5:20). How odd! Somehow "Hate the sinner along with the sin" doesn't quite sound right at all. And when this kind of "in house" disagreement is trotted out on the Internet for everyone to see, it's just sad and embarrassing. These things ought not be.
It is important to contend for the truth (Jude 1:3), but it is equally important that we not be contentious. It is important that we defend what we believe, but always with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). Wrong ideas need to be exposed, especially for the brethren, but it must always be for the purpose of turning a brother to the truth (James 5:19), not trampling him underfoot. I mean, seriously, in what world is it likely that abusive terms and a complete lack of charity are viewed as likely ways of assisting a loved one toward the truth? Surely we can do better than that, brothers and sisters. (Oh, and you Calvinists who are equally nasty ... I'm talking to you, too.)
4 comments:
It doesn't have to be like this, but I suppose if you view a particular doctrine as heresy and consider it your responsibility to refute it, then it is quite possible to become bitter and hateful in the process. Unfortunately, in this particular example, he doesn't appear to care about accurately or fairly representing reformed theology.
"Unfortunately, in this particular example, he doesn't appear to care about accurately or fairly representing reformed theology."
Sad but true. If someone feels it is their responsibility to refute a particular error, it seems like it would be best for them in the process to rightly represent the error they are refuting ... or it won't be the error they are refuting, but a missed mark.
I do wish believers, at least, could discuss ideas without demeaning the one with the ideas.
You have to admit "Liver and Onions" is a good name for a blog like that, though. :-)
I find liver and onions as pleasant on my plate as I do as a name for a blog ... no thanks. ;)
Post a Comment