Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Greg Boyd Article
As many of you know, Greg Boyd, former professor of my alma matter, has been making the news a bit lately. When cleaning out my spam trap/junk mail box, I ran across this link to a "news article." Seeing as it was on a former professor of my alma matter, I thought I'd check it out.
And then I learned a lesson that all should note. What is traped by a spam trap or junked by a mail box, is best left trapped, as it is likely to be just that: junk.
Angered by the poor arguments of this author, who is (I guess) well-renowned and all that (I read his bio), I wrote this.
Please, feel free to comment (on either the link or my response). Steve says I should "get some discussion going, make some people mad, that's what blogs are for." This is my attempt at that.
As many of you know, Greg Boyd, former professor of my alma matter, has been making the news a bit lately. When cleaning out my spam trap/junk mail box, I ran across this link to a "news article." Seeing as it was on a former professor of my alma matter, I thought I'd check it out.
And then I learned a lesson that all should note. What is traped by a spam trap or junked by a mail box, is best left trapped, as it is likely to be just that: junk.
Angered by the poor arguments of this author, who is (I guess) well-renowned and all that (I read his bio), I wrote this.
Please, feel free to comment (on either the link or my response). Steve says I should "get some discussion going, make some people mad, that's what blogs are for." This is my attempt at that.
Comments:
I think your criticism is apt--except, perhaps, that Brannon Howse's vindictive piece perhaps does not deserve the considered, rational responce which you gave it.
By definition, evangelical is a contested (and sometimes hopelessly broad) term. A significant diversity of persons who accept evangelicalism's basic premises. This fact continually causes identity crises for those on the more (theologically or politically) conservative side of the movement. Many evangelicals retain the strong separatist tendencies inherent in American fundamentalism--particularly its oppositional stance to culture and to groups who disagree with one or more points. Confronted with disagreement in their own ranks, they look for ways to restrict evangelical from something descriptive of a broad religious movement to a normative term that means something like "orthodox," which for them means something like "someone who agrees with me on a number of test issues." Since those issues now include a number of current theological debates and cultural/political issues, they issue broad dismissals based on an such complex topics as abortion, homosexuality, or welfare.
This is a sad state of affairs. Rather than engaging in respectful dialog over the implications of evangelical beliefs, we're stuck with invective. As you point out, lumping people by common issues or by mere assocation becomes a way to attack. The article is rife with battle cries that contain absolutely no argumentative value (besides, of course, pathos). Calling something or someone "crazy" or lumping issues together (for example, "pro-abortion socialists who endorse the homosexual revolution, reject absolute truth and foundational Christian doctrines") only muddies the water.
By definition, evangelical is a contested (and sometimes hopelessly broad) term. A significant diversity of persons who accept evangelicalism's basic premises. This fact continually causes identity crises for those on the more (theologically or politically) conservative side of the movement. Many evangelicals retain the strong separatist tendencies inherent in American fundamentalism--particularly its oppositional stance to culture and to groups who disagree with one or more points. Confronted with disagreement in their own ranks, they look for ways to restrict evangelical from something descriptive of a broad religious movement to a normative term that means something like "orthodox," which for them means something like "someone who agrees with me on a number of test issues." Since those issues now include a number of current theological debates and cultural/political issues, they issue broad dismissals based on an such complex topics as abortion, homosexuality, or welfare.
This is a sad state of affairs. Rather than engaging in respectful dialog over the implications of evangelical beliefs, we're stuck with invective. As you point out, lumping people by common issues or by mere assocation becomes a way to attack. The article is rife with battle cries that contain absolutely no argumentative value (besides, of course, pathos). Calling something or someone "crazy" or lumping issues together (for example, "pro-abortion socialists who endorse the homosexual revolution, reject absolute truth and foundational Christian doctrines") only muddies the water.
# posted by 
: 8/08/2006 2:59 PM
: 8/08/2006 2:59 PM
Good for you. Well written, and kinder than he deserved.
I'm really frustrated with how lock-step, party-line people have become (on every side). So very silly to assume that people who aren't *precisely* like you are "the enemy."
I'm really frustrated with how lock-step, party-line people have become (on every side). So very silly to assume that people who aren't *precisely* like you are "the enemy."
# posted by : 8/09/2006 7:13 AM
: 8/09/2006 7:13 AM
So, my thoughtful comments, despite the fact they were not cutting nor over the word limit, were censored from the posts. The comments that remain either show how great this author was, or (there are about two) don't like something that the author said, but are so written that it's easy for others to take jabs at those commentors. If you have a chance, and have a thoughtful comment to share, would you try to post it? Check back the next day, see if it's listed. I think they're purposefully censoring to promote their cause. A bit disheartening.
So, my thoughtful comments, despite the fact they were not cutting nor over the word limit, were censored from the posts. The comments that remain either show how great this author was, or (there are about two) don't like something that the author said, but are so written that it's easy for others to take jabs at those commentors. If you have a chance, and have a thoughtful comment to share, would you try to post it? Check back the next day, see if it's listed. I think they're purposefully censoring to promote their cause. A bit disheartening.
I bet you they censored it. The organization does not strike me as one that is interested in debate; the very interest in debate makes one the "enemy."
# posted by : 8/09/2006 1:06 PM
: 8/09/2006 1:06 PM
I'm afraid that the Worldview Weekend spam ending up in your mailbox at all may be my fault, since I circulated their "Christian Worldview" diagnostic quiz to the focus listserv a year or more ago. Even though I unchecked the box for being on their mailing list, they're still sending me updates. Sometimes I read one or two of the columns out of sheer morbid curiousity.
Rachel,
Don't worry, it's an e-mail account that has no connection to my focus account. Not your fault. The account they sent it to is from my Christian alma matter, so either some other mailing list I got myself on in college, or something else is likely to be blamed.
Don't worry, it's an e-mail account that has no connection to my focus account. Not your fault. The account they sent it to is from my Christian alma matter, so either some other mailing list I got myself on in college, or something else is likely to be blamed.
They do say that your comment should be short, maybe your comment was too long?
I left a comment defending Boyd, lets see if it makes it through their filter.
Post a Comment
I left a comment defending Boyd, lets see if it makes it through their filter.
