Via VirtueOnline:
www.ChristianView.org
November 13, 2008
Certain emergents have suggested certain rules for debate/conversation.
For example: Tony Jones, the co-ordinator of Emergent Village in the US, has said that he won't respond to any of his critics unless they've read, the book "How (not) to speak of God."
http://themillers.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/how-not-to-speak-of-god-by-peter- rollins/
It is rather a bit like McLaren who said: Brian McLaren's view on how we can "solve" the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:
"10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages 10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible 20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages 5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold 25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position 10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views 50 for every friend you have who's been through an ex-gay ministry 50 for every friend who's been through an ex-gay ministry that didn't work 50 for every friend who's gay and in a long-term committed relationship 50 for every friend who's gay and not in a committed relationship 50 for every parent you've listened to whose child is gay When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue." --Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005 http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.ht ml
There is another errant preacher out there (on the issue of 'The New Perspective on Paul') who tries to silence his opponents by saying that unless they have read all the Targum's on in the original Aramaic then they don't understand the subject and can't argue with him.
One of them came to me saying that I should not criticise his previously expressed viewpoint online without first following Matthew 18 procedure.
He also argued we should engage in 'conversation' rather than 'debate'.
WHAT DO WE SAY TO ALL OF THIS?
My answer to all of the above is that it is an attempt to set unreasonable conditions which then allow errant teachers to spread their error, without opposition - by making it hard and difficult to follow all their conditions for engaging in debate. Basically it is a circular argument: You need to buy into a certain amount of postmodernism in order to be allowed to debate with postmoderns. No you don't.
No, one does not need to read a complete chosen book on postmodernism to be able to express disagreement with its ideas. That should be fairly simple to anyone with a basic knowledge of scripture.
McLaren's idea of counting 'experience points' before expressing views against homosexuality is ridiculous. It is plain in scripture and authority comes from scripture not your own experience. Postmodernism promotes the idea of personal experience rather than objective truth as an authority.
No you don't need to follow Matthew 18 procedure before arguing online. Once a person has gone public with their views, you can argue back publicly. Online unless in a closed forum, is public. Paul did this against Peter as an example. GAL 2:14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
As for the non-emergent guy who wants us to read all the Targums in the original Aramaic before arguing with him, well, great strategy to silence everyone else, but our authority should be the Bible and not the Targums, which are a very loose but sometimes helpful Aramaic paraphrase.
Now as to the idea of engaging in conversation rather than debate. Sorry, but this presupposes a postmodern paradigm, which I do not share. That paradigm evades propositional statements and Yes/No, right/wrong choices. Yes, I will converse in many circumstances to better understand people, but in other instances I debate and here I debate.
I have also met this type of argument in other contexts. For example, some feminists say you can't argue on the abortion issue unless you are a woman - otherwise that proves you must be a male chauvanist.
We must try listen to the other side but I believe the above rules are unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment