I am generally a fan of democracy. It has its difficulties as does any human government, but I think it has the least difficulties. So don't understand this to hear me say that I'm against democracy. That having been said, there are, in my view, applications of democracy that can be ... fatal.
According to the New York Times, "The Episcopal Church voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to open the door to consecrate more bishops who are openly gay." There has been, until now, a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops in an apparent attempt to calm the conservative side of the Anglican Communion. They voted to end that moratorium.
According to the article, the delegates "characterized the action not as an overturning of the moratorium, but as simply an honest assertion of 'who we are.'" You see, in their church organization, the function of the delegates is to be a "democratic decision-making" structure. In other words, the delegates of this convention for the Episcopal Church vote on what the Church believes, and they do so based on whatever their members want them to vote. Since the Episcopal Church has "has hundreds of openly gay laypeople, priests and deacons", then obviously you vote to do what they want.
Most of the Times article is about intrachurch relationships. Will this create a rift between conservative Anglicans and liberal? Of course it will. But that's not my major concern. No one seems to have noticed, here, but I don't find anything in my Bible about the Church being a democracy. From beginning to end, the Bible represents the people of God (genuine followers of God) as determining what they should believe and do by asking God, not by popular vote. "Vote" has nothing to do with "morally upright" or "correct".
In the article, they quote David Virtue, editor of VirtueOnline.org, a conservative Web site as saying, “The orthodox are finished.” In the case of the Episcopal Church, he's right. When "truth" is determined in the church by vote ... when democracy determines polity, practice, and doctrine ... then democracy has killed that church. Stay tuned for more death and decay.
51 comments:
The complete irony of them voting their preferences without respect to what God said is lost on them.
Of course, that is symptomatic of their larger problem: They are making up their own God.
Very soon the same thing will happen to the largest Lutheran body in the country.
The ELCA will choose to go down the same path.
The liberalism of the sixties which has taken over academia and government today has wrecked this country and the churches in this country.
The good thing about these folks who are destroying institutions at breakneck speed is that (like the rest of us) they will not live forever. Hopefully God will raise up a new crop of church leadership that is more faithful to Himself and His Word.
I suspect that you would find that Episcopalians (ALL "the genuine followers of God" within the Episcopalian Church) would agree that we are to follow God, regardless of what the majority of a group of people think. I would be willing to bet that you could ask each and every Episcopalian and they would agree that we must follow God as best we can, not humans.
Having said that, God does not speak audibly to Episcopalians (or Baptists, Catholics, etc). We need some system to determine church rules, behaviors, norms. How did we get the 66 (more or less, depending upon your tradition) books of the Bible? Did God hand them to King James? No. There were a bunch of writings that various churches held in esteem and they debated the matter and THE PEOPLE decided together which to include in the canon and which ones not to include. It was a human process.
When your church decides whether to put pads on your pews or not, whether to buy a church van or not, on what position to hold on a given war (if any), on whether to wed gays in your church or not, how do you make that decision?
In my faith tradition, sometimes it is a subgroup that might make such decisions (the Church Ministry Team, for instance, or the Stewardship Team), but for really big decisions, we bring it to all the people to vote on. Could we be wrong? Well sure. But what of the traditions where a pastor and the pastor alone makes all those big decisions? Is it not possible HE could be wrong as well?
I'm comfortable with the process of seeking consensus or even a majority vote as we as a church seek to discern God's will, I find that a much more trustworthy process than merely leaving the decision to one person. I don't think there's anything in the Bible that would suggest that is wrong, do you?
I sort of doubt that you all are actually having a problem with the voting. If ONE MAN (the "Chief Elder of the Episcopalians" or some such) were to make the proclamation, "I believe God wants us to ordain gays..." you would have a problem with the one person making the decision, yes?
It seems to me that probably your problem is the decision, not the manner on which it was reached, is that a fair assumption?
Dan T., you keep coming back to the "traditions of man"...the word of God warns against that:
Col. 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
I see you doing that a lot, so I just wanted to call that out.
Dan Trabue: "When your church decides whether to put pads on your pews or not, whether to buy a church van or not, on what position to hold on a given war (if any), on whether to wed gays in your church or not, how do you make that decision?"
No, actually, it is the vote that is disturbing to me. When we vote on church pews, I don't find anything in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" on the subject, so we're left to other methods of choosing. Like I said at the outset, "I am generally a fan of democracy." But when we decide to vote on things that the Bible gives instructions on, we're overstepping our bounds.
It would be like the city government placing a 25 MPH speed limit on a particular residential street and the residents have a vote and decide they're going to make it 40 MPH. Well, fine and dandy, that's democracy at work ... but they don't have the option of voting on that item.
Since it appears absolutely clear to most of us that the Bible has something to say about the morality of bishops, it would be equally clear to us that voting on it is not in their realm of options.
Well, that's the thing, Stan. YOU think the Bible gives instructions on not ordaining gays, WE disagree and DON'T think the Bible gives such instructions.
So, if there's 49 members of your church who think the Bible teaches that God opposes ordaining gay folk and 51 people who DON'T think the Bible teaches that, what do you do? Who decides? Your pastor? Your elders? Your congregation as a whole?
We ALL AGREE that God is the ultimate authority but NONE OF US have a definitive word from God saying, "Do it THIS way." You THINK the Bible gives a definitive word but we disagree. Who decides in that situation? How do you suggest we straighten it out?
It isn't a matter of some of us think the Bible teaches "Don't ordain gay men, but we want to do it anyway." We disagree with your interpretation of the Bible on that topic. Now what?
Star said...
Dan T., you keep coming back to the "traditions of man"...the word of God warns against that:
So, where have I come back to the traditions of men, Star? I have stated fairly clearly that God and God alone is the final arbiter of what is and isn't right. Have I erred in thinking this?
I have noted the reality that sometimes in church, X number think God wants to do This and Y number thinks that God wants to do That. Do you think I'm wrong for suggesting that probably the best we can do is seek to come to consensus or to vote on which way to go, as opposed to letting one person decide?
I appreciate the attempt to warn me about "traditions of men," but I am not clear where you think I've done this. A little help?
Dan Trabue: "So, if there's 49 members of your church who think the Bible teaches that God opposes ordaining gay folk and 51 people who DON'T think the Bible teaches that, what do you do?"
I go to a different church because that pastor has failed to teach the truth.
Note, by the way, that I don't need the prohibition of homosexual behavior to have a problem with actively homosexual bishops. Paul clearly states twice that one of the qualifications of bishop is "husband of one wife". Since homosexuals don't have that qualification, that would disqualify them.
Stan said...
Since homosexuals don't have that qualification, that would disqualify them.
IF one takes that passage in a woodenly literal way. IF one reads the whole of the Bible and thinks that is not intended to suggest what it seems to suggest taken literally, then they are not necessarily disqualified.
Just like you don't take the literal meaning of Luke 6, but instead find some reasons to suggest when Jesus said Poor and Rich, he meant something other than Poor or Rich. We don't always all take the literal reading of a given passage to be the best way to interpret it.
Be that as it may, you would opt to leave a church if it disagreed with your position on at least some topics and you were in the minority. Fair enough. Suppose you are in the majority, then what? Do you still leave if 49 members have a different interpretation of a topic than you amongst the 51 do?
As a related aside (ignore and don't publish if you wish), how many topics would you leave a church over? I think we can see that if a majority of your church disagreed with you on the topic of ordaining gays, you'd leave. Same for ordaining women?
How about having a different position than you do on eternal security? How about having a different position than you do on women deacons? On how to serve communion? On opposing war? On hiring a church social worker? On hiring a gay nursery worker? A gay secretary?
This may sound frivolous but I'm being sincere. I wonder where you draw lines on what is and isn't acceptable to have differences of opinion on? I'm sure you'll agree that in any church you will always have SOME differences of opinion, right? On which ones ought you disassociate and how do you determine that?
This may be another topic for another day, but I thought I'd ask...
Dan Trabue: "a woodenly literal way"
That is just so odd that you keep trotting that out. You take Luke 6 in a woodenly literal way although I have offered an array of people who suggest that it is to be taken as the Matt 5 version, but I'm being "woodenly literal"? There is nothing ... nothing at all to suggest that it was anything except what was intended. (At least in the Luke 6 question you have something with which to compare it. Comparing 1 Tim 3 with Titus 1 gives you the exact same condition.)
But you sorely misrepresent what I am saying when you say, "you would opt to leave a church if it disagreed with your position on at least some topics and you were in the minority." And you completely miss the point of the post in question. "Minority" is irrelevant. You don't vote on it when it is clearly stated in the Bible. Well ... let me take that back. I don't vote on it.
Look, all of Christendom since the beginning of the Church has held that the Bible forbids sex between same genders. There is no doubt. There is no question. No one contends otherwise. Now you show up and say, "No, that's not what it says. The entire Church for 2000 years has been wrong on this subject. Sex is not deemed moral only between a married male and female. It's okay for others, too." Vote on it? You may. But when a church decides that the Bible is not to be understood as written, not inerrant as God-breathed, and clear only to a select few individuals with the wit and wisdom to see through this veil of confusion, I leave that church. When a church fails to subscribe to the essentials of Christianity, I leave that church. Among the "essentials" on my list is an inerrant Bible. A church that equivocates on that is not for me. (I think that answers your second question.)
Stan asked...
but I'm being "woodenly literal"? There is nothing ... nothing at all to suggest that it was anything except what was intended.
Perhaps you can understand then why I am bemused when you keep offering up woodenly literal translations of passages that I think are patently obviously NOT to be taken as they are written. I find plenty to think that passages that suggest that only married men of one wife can be elders ought not be taken as anything but a cultural blip. Plenty in the Bible and plenty with just plain reasoning.
Also, I find an incredibly strong and consistent theme that supports a literal translation of poor and rich in Luke 6. No topic except for perhaps idolatry is talked about more than money matters in the Bible and the Bible is extremely consistent on this point (Do you think James was not talking about the literally wealthy when he said, "Is it not the wealthy who oppress you?" Do you think Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc, etc were not talking about the literally poor and widowed when they kept bringing up the topic?) And Jesus his own self, when he says in Luke 6, "Blessed are the poor and you who hunger now... Woe to you who are rich and who are full now," is only echoing what he says repeatedly throughout his ministry.
Do you think his Mother Mary meant something other than literally starving and rich when she said, "God fills the starving with good things, and sends the rich away empty."? This is a strong and constant theme in the Bible and perhaps, therefore, you can understand my amusement and the sad irony I find when the "biblical literalists" don't take these passages literally?
Stan said:
But you sorely misrepresent what I am saying when you say, "you would opt to leave a church if it disagreed with your position on at least some topics and you were in the minority." And you completely miss the point of the post in question.
I apologize. It is why I ask questions when your positions don't make sense to me, to try to correctly get your position. I thought that was what you were saying. I'm sorry for missing your point.
Having said that, I think you're missing my point. You state...
"Minority" is irrelevant. You don't vote on it when it is clearly stated in the Bible.
This is what I'm asking you: WHEN one group thinks A is clearly stated in the Bible and another group thinks NOT A is clearly indicated in the Bible, how do you propose we settle this difference? THAT is my question.
For instance, you contend, and I quote, that "Among the "essentials" on my list is an inerrant Bible."
A belief in an inerrant Bible is not listed as part of the Apostles Creed or the Nicence Creed, which I believe are fairly commonly considered to be a list of essential Christian beliefs. The Bible itself never suggests that an inerrant belief in the Bible is a Christian essential.
On what basis do you believe that belief in inerrancy is an essential? Does that mean that you think I'm NOT a Christian, even though I believe in all the traditional essentials? IF half your church thought inerrancy was an essential (even though it hasn't traditionally been considered such) and half thinks it IS an essential, how do you resolve the difference? THAT is what I'm asking. How do you know WHERE your church stands on the issue of inerrancy (for example)? Is it merely what your pastor SAYS your position is? If so, on what basis do you suggest that the pastor is the one who gets to decide? That's not a biblical position. If it's NOT your pastor, who decides? I'm asking you what YOUR process is that you prefer for settling disagreements on doctrine?
Dan Trabue: "I find plenty to think that passages that suggest that only married men of one wife can be elders ought not be taken as anything but a cultural blip. Plenty in the Bible and plenty with just plain reasoning."
Well, obviously we could debate this ad nauseum. Not the point. The point, apparently, is that you believe that it's perfectly acceptable to vote on truth and I believe it isn't. In other words, in terms of my post, you disagree. Democracy is a great way to go for this stuff. If I've missed something, let me know.
(Oh, by the way, the concept of "essentials of Christianity" doesn't mean "If you don't believe these you're not saved." It means "These are essential doctrines to the Christian faith." "Essentials", then, would suggest that all true believers, at some time, would eventually come to the same conclusion on these necessary items. Please note that an inerrant Bible makes for exactly what we find between us -- no way of knowing.)
Stan, I believe you have misunderstood my position. Can I try again? You said...
The point, apparently, is that you believe that it's perfectly acceptable to vote on truth and I believe it isn't.
What I have tried to suggest it that voting or striving for consensus are the ways most folk today strive to come to an understanding on what we stand for or not. We are not "Voting on truth," we are voting (or working for consensus) upon what our position is.
Is there some reason why you have not helped me understand your position by telling me what you do in cases where half the church believes one way and half another way? When you all have differences of opinion on God's will, how do you settle those disagreements?
We all get that "GOD decides," but how do you know what God decides? We all get "the Bible," but how do you decide what the Bible says? We all get "by reading it and praying for understanding," but what happens when your fellow believers reach a different conclusion than you do?
If you told me how you handle things like this at your church (or conversely, how YOU would like to see them handled), it would help me understand your position.
Thanks.
When you say, "would suggest that all true believers, at some time, would eventually come to the same conclusion on these necessary items."
What do you mean by "necessary?" Necessary for what? Salvation?
Dan Trabue: "Is there some reason why you have not helped me understand your position by telling me what you do in cases where half the church believes one way and half another way?"
Probably because I see the question as a smoke screen. But also because no such condition exists, except in matters of non-essentials. Essentials are those things that define Christianity. Non-essentials don't. Historically churches have a creed (or creeds) to which they hold. They teach them. (It's called "catechism".) They "advertise" them. "This is what we believe. This is what we adhere to." So the people that go to these churches are in agreement. Do they agree about what color the pews ought to be? Likely not. But on matters of doctrine, yes.
Now, what has happened in some churches is they have these creeds, these articles of faith, these statements of belief, and then people come in, ignore them, and begin pushing away from them. The church, in an effort to play nice, goes with the flow. And eventually you end up voting on truth. Oh, sorry ... "what we stand for". It was already laid out. It was already stated. It was clear from the beginning. But, hey, let's take a vote, okay? That's how you end up with churches that, say, adhere in theory to the Westminster Confession of Faith but have no problem allowing pastors who don't believe in the Resurrection ... or even a literal Christ.
In other words ... it's not a failure to understand. It's a failure to maintain. It's what you would call, I suppose, being progressive. Except "progressive" and "Christian doctrine" don't really fit well together, do they?
Stan said...
But also because no such condition exists, except in matters of non-essentials. Essentials are those things that define Christianity. Non-essentials don't. Historically churches have a creed (or creeds) to which they hold. They teach them.
Well, whether or not gay marriage is a sin or whether or not to ordain gay folk is, then, a non-essential, yes? It is a disagreement over something other than essential Christianity.
So, when you have a disagreement over something besides essentials, what do you do?
Stan noted (perhaps as a joke)...
Except "progressive" and "Christian doctrine" don't really fit well together, do they?
At my church, they go together better than any other church with which I'm familiar, but then perhaps you knew that...
Thanks for recognizing as the joke I intended.
Now ... in real life, how does "progressive" go with "Christian doctrine"? I mean, it would seem that Christian doctrine is pretty much set from the start. Application will vary, but doctrine won't. So ... how does "progressive" go with "Christian doctrine"?
As for ordaining gay folk, it's a "non-essential" in itself, I suppose, but if you take the Bible as inerrant (remember, "essential"), then it's not because the Bible is abundantly clear. (Of course, by "abundantly clear" I hearken back to "progressive" and "Christian doctrine".)
Stan said...
but if you take the Bible as inerrant (remember, "essential"), then it's not because the Bible is abundantly clear.
Well, says you. I think the Bible is abundantly NOT clear that ordaining gays is forbidden.
And so, we have two groups of people in your church who are talking about this non-essential practice. One group wants to ordain a lesbian, the other group doesn't.
How do you resolve it, if not by vote or consensus? (keeping in mind, I'm not talking about voting for Truth, I'm talking about settling a debate about a non-essential point).
Stan said...
in real life, how does "progressive" go with "Christian doctrine"?
Progressive is defined as:
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are;
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods
Jesus came preaching a radical, progressive message that upset the status quo of the day. The leaders - religious, economic, governmental - found Jesus' message radical and dangerous enough that the executed him in the same manner as they did all their dangerous political prisoners.
Jesus favored progress. He favored treating the poor and marginalized with respect, in an enlightened manner, helping them move to better conditions.
Jesus did not want things to remain the way things were. He came preaching a NEW kingdom, a NEW covenant, a NEW way of living that was apart from the old way of sacrifice and obedience to Caesar.
I think progressive fits pretty well with Jesus' teachings. Can you see how some many might agree with me and how it makes at least a certain amount of sense?
Which is not to say that I think Jesus would identify himself as a progressive or as a conservative. Jesus just is who he is and I, for one, would never try to place him in a box of being a "conservative" or a "liberal."
Dan Trabue: "I think the Bible is abundantly NOT clear that ordaining gays is forbidden."
Well, of course you do! Who said otherwise? Of course, that's because you have no problem suggesting that the Church has always been wrong on the subject of homosexual relationships and ordination. And it's not because of some careful exegesis of the passages that talk about the subjects of homosexual behavior or qualifications of bishops. These aren't unclear, nor is there any reason to question them except ... an appeal to culture which has no bearing on what is being said in these texts.
Dan Trabue: "Progressive is defined as..."
Well, since my question was in regards to Christianity, once Jesus settled what that meant ... how does "employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas" work? Or would you say that Christian doctrine is always a variable?
Stan asked...
how does "employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas" work? Or would you say that Christian doctrine is always a variable?
Well, Advocating more enlightened ideas than the world typically does, that's how it works. The world has always had very little concern or time for the poor and marginalized. The world has always typically had little concern for God's creation. The world has always tended to favor the rich and powerful on the backs of the poor and marginalized.
Jesus' way is a different way. A progressive way, as compared to the world. Don't you agree?
Hallelujah! What a progressive Way God has paved!
And no, I would not say that Christian doctrine is variable.
Now, would you mind answering a question of mine?
When you come up against non-essential differences of opinion in your church, like whether or not to ordain a gay person, how do you settle the difference of opinion?
Or, are you changing your mind to suggest that not ordaining gay folk IS an essential doctrine?
STan said...
Of course, that's because you have no problem suggesting that the Church has always been wrong on the subject of homosexual relationships and ordination. And it's not because of some careful exegesis of the passages that talk about the subjects of homosexual behavior or qualifications of bishops. These aren't unclear, nor is there any reason to question them except ... an appeal to culture which has no bearing on what is being said in these texts.
1. You are mistaken in thinking I "have no problem" suggesting the church has been mistaken. Remember, I believed as you do and on issues of homosexuality and it was only with a GREAT DEAL of internal strife that I could reconcile the realization that I believe that the church has it wrong on the issue.
2. You are mistaken, again, because I changed my position EXACTLY because of careful exegesis of the passages that appear to talk about homosexuality.
3. Whether or not they are clear is a matter of opinion. I think the issue in the Bible is NOT clear and I DO have reason to question the literal reading.
4. You are mistaken that I have made an "appeal to culture" in coming to my conclusions. This is simply not the case.
Just to clarify a few mistakes on your part about my position. You are perfectly free to have hunches about what I may think or may have done, but you don't know better than I do what I have thought or done.
Dan Trabue: "You are perfectly free to have hunches about what I may think or may have done, but you don't know better than I do what I have thought or done."
I'm going to need a valid source on this, as I consider it highly suspect.
Dan Trabue: "Now, would you mind answering a question of mine? When you come up against non-essential differences of opinion in your church, like whether or not to ordain a gay person, how do you settle the difference of opinion?"
We don't vote on it. Having the "like mind" (in the phrase, "In essentials, unity ..."), we look to Scripture. We agree that Scripture is abundantly clear on the topic. We examine Church history to find out if we've come up with a new interpretation, and we find that Church history is abundantly clear on the topic. So, having agreed that the Bible is clearly understood and without error, we agree that ordaining gay bishops is a violation of clear Scripture.
Okay, insufficient, I know, because you keep using inflammatory concepts. So let's take a non-inflammatory one.
When you come up against non-essential differences of opinion in your church, like whether there will be a Rapture before the Tribulation or after, how do you settle the difference of opinion?
We examine the Scripture to see what it says on the topic. We examine Church history to find out if we've come up with a new interpretation. If we can't find an agreeable solution, we ask the elders (bishops, whatever you wish to call them) to determine because they were, after all, appointed to that role because of their biblical wisdom and spiritual maturity. They decide. (And we still don't vote.)
What inflammatory concept? Some people, like me, DO in fact disagree with your position on how "ordaining a gay bishop is a violation of clear Scripture." So, if we I disagree with you and you disagree with me, how do you settle it?
What's inflammatory about the concept??
But thanks for the answer. In your church tradition, you go through scripture together seeking God's Will. Good, so do we. Then, finding no agreement, you would turn it over to the elders. THAT's how you settle questions of non-essentials. That's all I was asking.
Thanks again.
As to this comment...
I'm going to need a valid source on this, as I consider it highly suspect.
About who knows my heart better, me or you, I will assume it's a joke and NOT the case that you think you know me better than I do, yes?
Dan Trabue: "What's inflammatory about the concept?"
Seriously? Historic Orthodoxy is being hounded to death these days, and not merely by unbelievers. "Progressives" have determined that the Faith of our Fathers is of far less value than anyone really imagined and it's time for the new. "So ... let's throw out the centuries old tradition of 'marriage' and begin something new, something never done before on the face of the earth ... let's redefine it as 'whoever wants to do it'." And marriage is under attack. "And that whole 'sex is reserved for a husband and wife' thing is way too repressive. Let's allow for same-sex sex as well!" And biblical sexual morality is under attack. "Oh, piffle! What nonsense! Why would you think that? Just because you read it plainly in your Bible? Oh, you've read that wrong all along." And biblical inerrancy is under attack. All on one topic: homosexuality.
If I want to find out about a particular view, it is best not to ask in terms that create a strong reaction in the person I'm asking. That's "inflammatory".
Oh, and, yes, the "valid source" comment was a joke.
Stan said...
"Progressives" have determined that the Faith of our Fathers is of far less value than anyone really imagined and it's time for the new.
It was not intended to inflammatory. You hold a position on ordination that I do not hold and vice versa. I was discussing that difference and did not take your responses on topic as inflammatory.
Now, it IS rather inflammatory to cast accusations against "progressives" who "have determined that the Faith of our Fathers is of far less value..." We disagree with you and those who believe as you do in the past on the point of healthy expressions of homosexuality. That is hardly the same as saying we don't hold the faith in high value. It is BECAUSE we hold our faith in high value that we hope to make changes where our faith in the past has been wrong.
Like those who were opposed to slavery in the past had to break with those who held that God endorsed slavery because the Bible said so.
We disagree on a few non-essential points. We disagree about whether gays ought to be included in the church in the same way straight folk are included, no more and no less. We disagree on women in ministry. We disagree on inerrancy. We disagree on perhaps a few more topics.
But on each and every essential doctrine as detailed in the Apostles Creed, we agree. The essentials. So, you disagreeing with me and me disagreeing with you on a few extra points is hardly a huge chasm and I don't see that it should be inflammatory. I certainly don't take your disagreeing with me to be inflammatory.
Anyway, I apologize if it came across as inflammatory, it was not my intent.
Dan Trabue: "It is BECAUSE we hold our faith in high value that we hope to make changes where our faith in the past has been wrong."
I referenced a particular aspect of "our faith" ... the Faith of our Fathers ... the faith that you say "in the past has been wrong". In other words, you are saying, "YES! The Christian Church has been wrong for 2000 years on this topic." The only possible conclusion from that is "What we believe today is of higher value than what the Church has believed from the beginning ... or "the Faith of our Fathers is of lesser value".
But, listen, "inflammatory" is probably not the right term. I was trying to think of an example. Bob wants to find out what Ted thinks of the office of President. Ted hates President Obama. Bob should not ask Ted, "What do you think of the office that Obama holds?" The term "Obama" redirects the response for Ted, you see? He will go on and on about how he dislikes the man, but Bob will learn nothing about what Ted thinks of the office. It's a trigger. Knowing that I have strong concerns about homosexuals, asking me about "this" using that as a reference will only get you a response about homosexuals. "Inflammatory" isn't the right word, but you understand, I hope.
I have to wonder, Dan Trabue, why you keep commenting on a blog that you so vehemently disagree with. And I personally wonder why you are so insistent on commenting on other people's blogs instead of writing your own, since you are so vehement in your disagreement with virtually everything Stan has to say. The heckling commentary is getting a bit old.
I have to wonder, Mom, why you perceive me to be heckling and being "vehement?" I have questions where I don't think Stan makes sense and so I ask those questions. There is nothing vehement in my intention nor is it my intention to heckle. My intention is to ask questions to clarify and understand.
Is there some particular place you might point to where you think I have been inappropriate? If you could do that, I could apologize if I was in the wrong and learn better how to communicate in a way that does not come across in the wrong manner. If you would do so, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
My guess, though, is that it is the mere fact that I disagree that troubles you and not the manner (since I DO tend to be pretty polite and I strive to be gentle in my disagreements).
To answer THAT question (why would I comment at some blog where I disagree with someone), I would say it is because I disagree with them and seek understanding. Perhaps I might have a word that they could learn from. Perhaps they might have something to teach me. I tend to learn more from those I disagree with than from those I agree with.
Do you have a problem with Christians expressing disagreement with one another? Or is there something specifically that I've said that you object to?
And, having said all of that, I don't know that it's the case that I disagree with Stan as much as you may think. If you will note, you will quite OFTEN see me saying to Stan, "I agree..." on this part of what he said or that part. I tend to think we agree more than we disagree. I could think of maybe ten things we disagree upon but probably hundreds that we agree upon. It's just that people don't continue to discuss things so much when they agree as when they disagree, and that's probably as it should be.
Thoughts?
In response to Science PhD Mom...you could also exchange "the Bible" for "Stan" in your comment! ;-)
Note 1: "Vehement": expressing strong feelings or opinions. Is it not strong feelings or opinions that you are expressing?
Note 2: "it is the mere fact that I disagree that troubles you". FYI, the assumption that one is lying is not ... charitable. More than Science PhD Mom has expressed to me (via email) that they wonder why I put up with the heckling. The perception is that you won't take an answer given or accept responses at face value. I'm not claiming it. I'm just telling you how you are coming across. More than Science PhD Mom thinks that you seem to make it your mission to continually protest whatever I write, so accusing her without evidence of ulterior motives isn't a charitable approach.
Stan said...
"it is the mere fact that I disagree that troubles you". FYI, the assumption that one is lying is not ... charitable.
I will remind you of the context, context, context of my comment. I (quite graciously and humbly, I thought) asked if Mom would please point to what has been perceived as heckling so that I could apologize and learn.
I repeat that request to you.
It was then that I said, "My GUESS, though, is that it is the mere fact that I disagree that troubles you and not the manner..."
1. I asked for her to point to what disturbed her and I could apologize.
2. I offered a GUESS, a hunch about what I thought. That is not saying that she is lying. You all seem to be finding accusations where there are none.
If I express, "That seems hard to believe to me," that is not saying you are lying, that is saying it is hard for me to believe. That IS in fact, my position. Since it is hard for me to believe, I would then typically ask, can you provide some source to support your claim?
This seems to me to be reasonable conversational tactics for striving for understanding. I apologize if it comes across as an accusation.
Perhaps you can help me. IF it is the case that you say something that I find hard to believe, my first typical first response is to ask for some support. How do you suggest I handle it when someone utters something that sounds unbelievable?
Regarding "vehemence," one of the definitions for the word is "bitterly antagonistic." Given the context of Mom's comment (suggesting I was heckling you), THAT seemed to be the definition she was using for the word. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Yes, I do make sometimes impassioned cases and am vehement in that regard. No, I was not being bitterly antagonistic (which IN CONTEXT seems to be what she was suggesting).
Dan, it's hard for me (and a lot of my readers) to believe that you are casually asking questions on my blog. The perception is that you are here because I hit sore spots, things that upset you, and you wish to argue them. Not learn. Not understand. Argue. Now, I've never made such an accusation because I've chosen to take you at face value. If, however, you think that because I find it somewhat questionable as to whether or not you are honestly trying to simply "ask questions to clarify and understand" that I should bring you up on charges of false representation and ask for some sort of proof that you're not misrepresenting yourself, well, then, maybe I should. I just don't think it's charitable. I won't simply conclude, "Since it is hard for me to believe, can you provide some source to support your claim?"
If I find someone making (verifiable) claims that are hard to believe, I either research it for myself or I ask, "Do you have someplace you got that so I can look?" Then, assuming that everyone is operating in an honest manner, if they tell me, "No" for whatever reason (One person told me, "I read it, but can't remember where."), I take that at face value. (Of course, people who prove themselves to be chronic liars are a different case, but we're not there, are we?)
So, I tell you my source or I tell you I won't tell you a source and your response is "I won't believe you." At that point, I can conclude, "He thinks I'm intentionally telling a lie" or "He thinks I'm unintentionally telling a lie", but I can't conclude, "He thinks I'm telling the truth." Further, since you disregard the position because it's unbelievable to you, the discussion crumbles to nothing more than "he said, he said". I can't use the non-sourced position and you can't discuss anything else. That, my friend, sounds to a lot of people like "heckling". You don't accept that answers given (Like "I believe all humans are guilty of rebellion against God" and you say, "You never answer my question about babies!!"), but you'll go on arguing the point. That sounds to a lot of people like "heckling". I'm just saying.
Stan noted...
The perception is that you are here because I hit sore spots, things that upset you, and you wish to argue them. Not learn.
If I read a brother or sister in Christ writing something which I think is contrary to the teachings of Christ, then I disagree with them. If I think it is a serious enough matter, I might bring it up to them. If I think they have (by mistake, unintentionally, intentionally, whatever) misrepresented something, I might especially bring it up to them in an effort to clarify what they are saying and, if they are indeed misrepresenting something, to help them correct their own misunderstanding.
I am not making a judgment on their motives (they are INTENTIONALLY lying!), just an observation (they are mistaken, that information is not/does not sound correct).
What do you do when you read a brother or sister in Christ (or anyone, really) making what you believe to be a mistaken claim, misrepresenting facts somehow? Do you presume that they are lying? Do you presume they are mistaken? Do you attempt to correct the mistake or at least clarify what they are saying to see if, indeed, there IS a mistake?
If I go to a blog and someone says, "Conservative Christians hate the poor. They only want to collect money to pad their pews and build bigger church buildings and get the pastor rich!" I might step in and say, "While I'm no conservative Christian, I come from that background and your charge is simply generally not the case, in my experience. What are you basing that claim upon? Certainly, there might be SOME who would fit that description, but in my experience, that is the extremely rare exception, not the rule..."
If the person then responds, "Well, I went to this one church and they said that the poor are cursed! They blamed welfare mothers for being poor and took a big collection for their church building fund-raiser..." I might respond, "That may well be the case in that one situation, but do you have any evidence for suggesting that's the norm?" etc.
Would I be mistaken in doing so, in your opinion? Would I have called that fella a liar? I don't think so, that sounds like a reasonable conversation to me. Do you disagree?
Do you hit "sore spots" or upset me? That would be a stretch. Sometimes you say things with which I disagree or which sound questionable or which I don't understand your position. In those cases, I might raise a question or point to something that I think is a mistaken characterization. I don't find that to be problematic. I don't have a problem with someone doing that with me, not at all. I enjoy hearing from people who disagree with me, as it is a chance to hear another side of an argument.
As long as they are relatively polite, relatively rational and don't twist my words, I am glad to have conversations with those who disagree with me. I feel like I've been relatively polite and rational with you. I don't think it unreasonable to question sources, I'm sorry you do.
Perhaps if you are making a point based on anectdotal evidence, if you made that clear, then someone like me would not bother commenting. If you were to say, "I talked with Mr X and he said.... He is clearly wrong because..." well, I have no points to raise in that case, it is based upon a private conversation. It's when you make general claims ("Liberals think... Homosexuals are trying to...") that I might have a question to raise.
So does it come down to you finding me uncivil when I ask for support for your claims? Do you think that is a reasonable position to hold?
Dan, I ended my comment with "I'm just saying." The phrase is intended to suggest, "I'm just telling you what it looks like." The entire comment, in fact, was intended to convey, "This is what it looks like to other readers." You're free to say, "They're wrong", but you're not free to say, "I don't think you're being honest" which is what "My guess, though, is that it is the mere fact that I disagree that troubles you and not the manner" says.
In other words, I wasn't saying what you are or are not doing (which you carefully defend). I'm commenting on perception ... in case you cared. (I, for instance, cared if I actually looked like I was playing the "victim card" like DagoodS complained or was being evasive or was not being fair. I didn't think any of those were true, but I was concerned that it might appear they were, so I asked some of my readers because I care about perception.)
I guess my question is Stan, do you think it unreasonable for someone to ask for a source when you make a claim about a group of people?
I don't find it to be reasonable to suggest that asking for a source is the same as calling someone dishonest. However, I will keep that in mind and try to be more careful if and when I ask for sources in the future. Thanks.
If you are interested in my perception, you do come across sometimes as evasive when you respond as you do to what seems to be (at least to some of us) straightforward questions.
And, for what it's worth, that's another reason I like engaging in these sorts of conversations. The "Left" and "Right" seem to have hard time having conversations and I'm striving to analyze that and trying to understand why it is and what can be done to help it.
It's heckling.
But, let's be clear, it's heckling in a NICE way! Heckling with please and thank yous. Polite brotherly pestering. Pick, pick, pick... oh sorry, was I bothering you? Dan sincerely wanting to know things? Yes, probably often true! But, then, not always listening so well to the answers given, and then bringing them up again later so they must be addressed all over again... how time-consuming.
But oh, that's like many of us! When we didn't like the answer or explanation our parents gave us, we'd keep at them, hoping to wear them down, to get them to see our point of view and change theirs. We wouldn't take no for an answer. We were right and they just didn't understand!
I was on vacation for over a week. Wondered what had been going on in Stan's blog. Got home, same old thing. Stan being called out for one thing after another after another. Strife. Contention. Good grief.
And all the while Stan so patiently enduring it again and again and again, supplying and resupplying sensible and scripture-supported responses. (My opinion.) Personally, I find Stan to be very level-headed and logical. I am thankful that he is "a man of The Word" -God's word-, that he is a man of God -a holy and just God, our loving Creator. He personally knows Jesus ~ "the way, the truth, and the life". He's a good representative of one of God's children, adopted into the family of God. The Bible is Stan's written form of authority and he demonstrates time after time that he knows it well. He shares with us exciting new things he's learning and old things we probably ought to keep in mind and/or consider applying or studying. In spite of what I said in a quickly-written previous post, being a student under the instruction of an all knowing, perfect, and loving father, the God of the universe, is VERY exciting and never ending. He imparts His wisdom, knowledge, and character to us throughout our entire lives. How great is THAT!?!
Dan Trabue, the banter between you and Stan truly IS interesting and amusing to read sometimes. You and sometimes a few others question things about which I think many of us then are interested in hearing the answers. So that's good! This is a service you are providing, Dan. :o)
We ALL agree that we need to be ready to give answers to those who might question us. We readers are all interested in better understanding not only issues but where each other is coming from. And most of us readers are interested in trying to keep ourselves in line with God's word so that we can be used to better this hurting world in which we've been temporarily placed. Discerning truth is important to Stan's readers.
But, I've begun to wonder if, in the midst of addressing some topic, Stan were to mention that the sky is blue, you wouldn't jump in there and make him try to clarify that. Why? Because when you look out your window, it is in fact a white sky you see. And sometimes the sky is gray. Also, let's be clear, the sky is sometimes definitely pink and orange! And hey, what about when it is brown from smoke? Let's conclude that Stan isn't very credible and doesn't know what he's talking about because he just said the sky was blue! This is outrageous and surely must be corrected. (BTW, personally I usually don't find this type of thing happening because Stan generally writes very clearly and distinctly.)
Stan should NEVER make such blanket statements without full documentation and explanation. Just because the sky is blue sometimes in many places, a person should not dare say that. (Oh brother, Dear Brother.)
Now, let's discuss it until the cows come in. Wait, did you say cows? In Alaska they don't always "come in" at dark if you were implying dark because it stays light very late or all night, so what exactly do you mean by that? Explain yourself, because I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
The contentiousness and strife. Scriptures about those have been coming to mind for months now. I think some people feed on it and, when life gets too calm for their liking, they try to stir things up.
I'm actually not specifically talking about you, Dan Trabue. I think in person you are probably a kind-hearted, soft-spoken, loving person who is generally pleasant to be in the company of. I do! I rather like you. (Writing often brings out another side of many of us.) But I know some people who actually find ranting and raving to be an enjoyable pastime.
They aren't happy unless they have someone or something they see as unjust to get worked up over. It gets old to be in their company and can't possibly be good for their hearts. Go ahead and take my use of the word "hearts" literally and spiritually and however you wish, so I don't have to take time to explain myself. I was talking about strife and contention, remember?
Peace.
Dan Trabue: "I guess my question is do you think it unreasonable for someone to ask for a source when you make a claim about a group of people?"
"Hey, do you have a source for that, because that seems off to me?" is not a problem for me. But when you get an answer (yea or nay), is it reasonable to continue hounding the request (which becomes "demand" at that point)?
Dan Trabue: "You do come across sometimes as evasive when you respond as you do to what seems to be straightforward questions."
When the questions are not straightforward, I can't answer straightforward. I know that you think, "Are you saying that the baby is guilty for being human?" is a straightforward question, but it's not. (And when I answered that, you didn't consider it an answer.) Consider this. Straightforward question: "Yes or no ... Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?" Ah, come on, Mr. Jones, are you going to be evasive on that? It's a simple question! No, it's not. It requires explanation. "What do you mean 'stopped'? That would require 'started' and I never started. So I can't answer 'yes' or 'no' since it isn't applicable!" See? Mr. Jones is being evasive. No, not really. The question appeared straightforward, but was not. Questions that appear straightforward to you are often misunderstandings of the concept, but your question is "Is that what you think?" So I'm stuck with trying to explain the concept ... again ... not answer the question. (The entire Original Sin thing is a grand example.)
Sherry, I have no idea who you are, but I want you to know that I appreciate your encouragement.
Funny stuff there, Sherry.
Yes, I suppose it can be irritating to keep explaining yourself. But if someone does not understand or if you have made a suggestion that seems worthy of being sourced, what is the problem with asking?
Certainly, some topics (the color of the sky, what cows do or don't do) may be trivial. But other topics have more serious ramifications.
I guess my questions remain, do you think it unreasonable for someone to ask for a source when you make a claim about a group of people?
I don't find it to be reasonable to suggest that asking for a source is the same as calling someone dishonest, do you?
And finally, Sherry, where you suggest I'm heckling, I would point to the dictionary to show that heckling is "to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibe." The fact is, I am not seeking to harass Stan or to disconcert him. I'm seeking Truth and am glad to engage in conversations with those who disagree with me in the process.
Would you be offended if I asked what your source was for considering my questions "heckling" (ie, what did I say that made you conclude I was harassing Stan whether than merely asking questions)? Or if I were to suggest you were mistaken about my motives (assuming you mean the dictionary definition of heckling)?
And, if I suggest you're mistaken, will you presume that means I think you're lying?
Stan said...
Questions that appear straightforward to you are often misunderstandings of the concept, but your question is "Is that what you think?"
Well, that's why I'm asking the questions. Perhaps this is the same reason why you so often misstate my positions, too? You just don't understand my position, perhaps?
But even so, if you asked a fairly straightforward question ("So you're saying, apparently, that you believe that it's perfectly acceptable to vote on truth...?") and even if I have to explain where you got it wrong, it is still a straightforward question.
Your example question (the famous example of "have you quit beating your wife?"), is sort of a "Gotcha!" question, it has a catch. But there is no catch to, "You appear to be saying... Is this your position?" It's just a straightforward question. It may require a complex answer, but that does not mean it's not a straightforward question. Right?
I suppose you may characterize it as a "straightforward" question, but to me a "straightforward question" is one that receives a "straightforward answer", so a question that asks a simple but totally misguided question isn't "straightforward".
You know how you object to terms like "heckle" and "vehement" and "progressives" (when you think it was used to broadly) ... well, I have a similar difficulty with "straightforward".
I don't object to terms like heckle, vehement or progresives, only when they are used incorrectly. And even then, I'm not objecting, I'm just pointing out that if you use English in non-standard ways, it becomes difficult to understand one another and you shouldn't be surprised if people don't understand you.
I'll be glad to avoid using "straightforward," though.
Oy.
Post a Comment