Re: [asa] Our discourse here

I will take a contrary position here, not because I wish to defend offensive behavior but because I am troubled by the way the conversation about tenor has unfolded.

First, I find the proof-texting to be somewhat unconvincing. Paul is arguing against crude and offfensive verbal behavior in Ephesians 4, but engages in the very same behavior in the letter to the Galatians. As others have noted repeatedly here, Jesus emitted some of the most outrageous personal insults and verbal attacks ever recorded. I conclude that merely citing proof texts about niceness will never -- NEVER -- suffice in condemning or dismissing a particular example of rhetorical aggression. To criticize the harsh words of, say, John Walley in response to James Patterson, you need something much stronger than Paul's code of conduct for the Ephesians.

It seems to me that we need to focus on goals, purposes, outcomes. Phrases like "giving grace to those who hear" or "giving an account of the hope within you" or come to mind. The confrontation in Galatians 2, for example, is notable not for its tender phrasings but for its import: Peter's hypocritical behavior was damaging the Gospel and leading people astray.

This leads me to David Opderbeck's comments in response to the appeal from Preston Garrison. David urged people to reconsider their behavior in light of the possibility that list readers are affected by obnoxiousness in destructive ways. This, to me, is a VERY important point. But it is imperative that it be kept in an accurate context. David is right to point to the influence of our discourse on the gospel (and especially on those who come here hurt and struggling), but we are all unwise to apply that principle in a narrow focus on coarseness or other aspects of conduct. It seems to me that the times when Jesus and Paul went over-the-top were precisely the times when the very integrity of the gospel was threatened. My point is NOT that we should emulate Jesus or Paul when typing email; my point is that the principles that matter are far bigger than "conduct" or even the kind of "grace" that we show other people during social interaction. I consider the letter to the Galatians to be a strong and ubiquitous rejoinder to proof-texted appeals for better manners.

And that leads me to John Walley's response to James. I did find John's message to be unreasonably uncharitable. But let's step back. The following are my impressions, subject to correction from David and John. Like David, John has an interesting story of interaction with various creationist groups and/or their ideas, and like David, John is concerned about the influence of these ideas on people's faith. David's story includes this key theme: abandoning fundamentalism (and especially its errors regarding science) can be difficult, even devastating, and Christians in origins-related discussions should be careful not to further hurt these believers. John's story includes this theme: believing the lines from RTB means believing a lot of baloney, including stuff that's just flat made-up, and recovering from that seeming betrayal of trust can be difficult, even devastating. So, Christians in origins-related discussions should be careful not to encourage the damaging work of this unreliable apologetic organization, so as not to further hurt the church.

I conclude that both David and John have compelling reasons for their conduct, and that these motivations cannot be dismissed with a blog sermon on sinful anger. And I insist that to object to rhetorical misbehavior like John's, without also noting the toxic ideas taken for granted in James Patterson's posts, is unbalanced and ultimately unbiblical.

James Patterson has equated naturalistic explanation with deism and seeks to denigrate the work of God by claiming that naturally explainable phenomena are not God's "handiwork." If you can condemn John's snippy retort without objecting to James' obnoxiously arrogant claim that "as for me and my family, we choose God," then we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes inappropriate and harmful verbal behavior. If you are more worried about the damaging effects of coarseness than you are about the damaging effects of cleaving God's creation and his work into unbiblical modern categories and then judging one of those to be "not God", then we have a fundamental disasgreement about what constitutes dangerous and unproductive discourse. All I ask is that people keep this in mind when posting another sermon on anger and gentility.

Steve Matheson

>>> Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> 02/22/09 4:47 AM >>>
I agree as well; thanks for posting this.

Until those who seem to think it's OK to "chew out the brethren" and
be offensive, sarcastic and vitriolic get the message that this is
inappropriate, we need to keep raising the profile of this issue.

Iain

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:25 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amen!
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 10:37 PM, <SteamDoc@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> I found the following worthwhile blog post this morning via Scot
>> McKnight's Jesus Creed blog, and then one ASA list message today (and to
>> some extent the previous message it was responding to) made me think we all
>> should read this:
>> http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/02/eph-429-and-blogs.html
>>
>> Allan (ASA member)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
>> "Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
>> attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"
>> ________________________________
>> Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
>

--
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.