Re: [asa] Our discourse here

Steve, I don't think I ever said anyone should be constrained in speaking
the truth firmly. Here's something I wrote on my blog last week: *"Our
posture towards truth discovered in the natural sciences has too often been
defensive, disingenuous, and dishonest. These are obviously strong words,
and I use them, as we lawyers like to say, "advisedly." But I think we need
to be clear-headed about what is at stake. . . . We believe and proclaim
that Jesus Christ is the center of a reality created by God, not of our own
making. If we tie that proclamation to untruths about the nature of the
material creation, we at best dilute our message and at worst make ourselves
into hypocrites and liars."*

Is that clear enough for ya? But I hope, I hope, I hope the whole context
of what I wrote (a) was not an attack against any particular person; (b)
acknowledged the humanity of those with whom I'm disagreeing; and (c) was
appropriately self-conscious about my own limitations (here's the whole
thing: http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=751 Maybe I got the balance right,
maybe I didn't).

In my view, there's an important distinction between attacking an idea and
attacking a person. I also think there's an important distinction between
taking visible leaders of a movement to task and attacking a person who is
part of a movement -- leaders should know better and willingly expose
themselves to public fire.

Finally, I think there are different fora in which different modes of
discourse are more or less appropriate. The Apostle Paul enscripturating
the central doctrine of grace for all of Christian history might in some
cases be expected to use stronger words than a Christian who believes he is
more mature on a debateable point when speaking to another brother or sister
in Christ on an email list. I don't think it's "sermonizing" to suggest
that there is a clear teaching throughout the New Testament -- not just a
few proof texts -- on how individual members of the body are supposed to
treat each other when they disagree in the context of their fellowship
together.

All of this goes to the muddy nature of this email list, doesn't it? Is
this primarily a debating forum for academic types and trained apologists?
If so, the discourse likely will have sharper claws. Is it primarily a
place for confused or struggling people or seekers to ask honest questions?
If so, the discourse ought to be more gentle. Is it primarily a public
record of views espoused by various members of the ASA? If so, the
discourse ought to be more carefully guarded. Is it primarily a place for
Christians interested in the sciences and holding varied views to fellowship
and discuss theological ideas? If so, the discourse ought to be persuasive
but more respectful.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>wrote:

> 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.
Received on Sun Feb 22 17:05:03 2009