Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars

> *From:* Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
> *To:* George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> ; Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> ;
> asa@lists.calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 11:29 AM
> *Subject:* Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars
>
>
> At 11:22 AM 3/3/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>
> It might be worth noting that with respect to many issues orthodox
> Christian teaching is a matter of staying on the road (if not exactly in the
> middle) rather than falling off on one side or another. Christology depends
> on avoiding both docetism & adoptionism, the Trinity requires avoiding both
> tritheism & modalism, &c. "Having the courage of your convictions" can
> sometimes mean emphasizing one aspect of the truth at the expense of others
> & ending up in heresy.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
> ### The only ones who are *destined *to "fall off the road into the
> ditch" are the ones who aren't on God's right hand". :) ~ Janice
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
> To: Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> ; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: On being a noncombatant in the culture wars
>
> At 09:50 AM 3/3/2006, Ted Davis wrote:
>
> [snip] "...I offer it as an apology (in the older meaning of that word)
> for staking out a middle position on ..." [snip]
> Harvard-Bound? Chin Up by David Brooks [snip]
>
>
>
> ## Those who stake out a "middle position" on the highway get no respect
> and usually do wind up getting run over by those who have the courage of
> their convictions who are "going somewhere" on the left or the right of
> them.
>
> Here's another great article David Brooks wrote over a year ago. He talks
> about these "people who have the courage of their convictions" on both
> sides. You may want to post it on the wall, too. [snip]
>
> Let's deal with what Mr. Brooks just wrote:

> Read Plato's "Gorgias." As Robert George of Princeton observes, "The
> explicit point of the dialogue is to demonstrate the superiority of
> philosophy (the quest for wisdom and truth) to rhetoric (the art of
> persuasion in the cause of victory). At a deeper level, it teaches that
> the worldly honors that one may win by being a good speaker can all too
> easily
> erode one's devotion to truth -- a devotion that is critical to our
> integrity as persons. So rhetorical skills are dangerous, potentially
> soul-imperiling, gifts." Explains everything you need to know about
> politics and punditry.

I'll take the ancient Christian *via media* approach to seeking truth any
day over modern extremist rhetoric. Remember Judas betrayed Jesus in part
because Jesus did not have enough "courage of his convictions" and thus
didn't seek to overthrow the Romans. Justifying extreme partisan rhetoric is
not only not Christian but it is not scientific either. A recent Emory
University study<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php>shows
extreme partisans do not exercise the rational part of their brains.
Received on Fri Mar 3 16:51:46 2006