Saturday
Nov262005
People and issues
Saturday, November 26, 2005 at 10:20AM
You may have missed the controversy taking place this week between Centeri0n and Internet Monk, with others (like Pyromaniac) also participating. At issue is a confessional essay written by Internet Monk. It's now been taken down, but is available upon request. In reaction, centuri0n has written about some of his concerns. Others have joined in as well. Fair enough. When you write something, it's fair game for criticism. I really don't have any problem with critics taking issue with something like the IM's essay. What's harder to take are comments like this: "iMonk: You are a fraud." Or this: "I pray God saves his soul." The hardest thing to do is to argue about issues but, in the process, to show kindness to people. This is especially the case when the person is closely related to the issue. We are all built differently, and some of us have more than an appetite for conflict than others. I just don't know that it's a bad thing to try to show the fruit of the Spirit in our reaction to issues, as far as it relates to people. Somehow this is seen as weakness or postmodernism by some people. So take issue with what Internet Monk has written. But think pretty carefully before you call somebody a fraud or judge their spiritual condition just because you disagree with them. As Anne Lamott has said, "You know that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people that you do." Or to paraphrase Paul: "I plead with Centeri0n and I plead with iMonk to be of the same mind in the Lord."
Reader Comments (10)
Hey, no fair using the Paul club.
I know. I was going to quote more Paul ("make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind") but I didn't want to get carried away.
Sounds all good as long as one can disagree in an agreeable manner and still present her opinion with the degree of vehemence the issue calls for.
Hmm. Darryl, you are pretty much spot on. I read Internet Monk's post (when it was first posted) and he sed in the post that he apologized to ppl because it was really meant for his loved ones and church family. So what is the issue here? People can have a problem with it I guess. But why do they feel the need to be judge and jury? or respond with vehemence or whatever. Thank you for the Paul quotes, I find it tempting to start going the Dr. Suess route when I see people react craptastically like this.
Good point Trish. The point below that Phil Johnson made really struck home with my observations of the difficulty in 2 parties diagloguing who are too far apart. "...One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable..."
Jacob: You're right, there are some root issues that make a fruitful dialogue difficult. I agree with Phil in his condemnation of the view that truth is a personal perspective, and his rejection of an anything goes attitude. If you don't start from that basis, I don't think any further discussion is possible. But who is disagreeing with Phil here? I'm sure somebody somewhere, but not (from what I can see) Michael Spencer. At least, Phil hasn't demonstrated that Michael holds these views. Phil (and others) have a lot of good things to say in response to Michael. I'm just not sure it's fair to label his proposal for a truce as a rejection of truth claims.
There is bad blood here, and I don't think this flame war is going to die out. A group of Baptists fighting over theological points is nothing new, flame wars are nothing new, and the varying levels of maturity or immaturity are nothing new. Personal attacks on theological blogs certainly aren't new. I can't see the participants in this one walking way and doing what is good for the whole. When scoring points takes precendent and people are hurt, sides harden and rhetoric gets more shrill. Which begs several questions. I'll stick to one. What is the godly response in this spat, and which blogger will submit to what that involves?
Just read this, and I'm glad to see it: http://thinklings.org/?p=2720" rel="nofollow">http://thinklings.org/?p=2720 It
Darryl, I'm glad that you agreed with Phil on this particular comment - it really resonated with me because I have definately have seen more and more of this attitude lately in people that name Christ. I'm glad there's people like Phil calling them on it. I'm not sure if it applies in this current debate that you're referring to. The paper was removed before I read it and I checked in and saw how long the comment string was and knew I didn't have the time to read it!
The "God saves his soul" comment got by me; I'll handle that in the morning. That's out of line as I have made clear elsewhere in this discussion. However, calling iMonk a fraud is not out of line. Michael Spencer himself admits that he uses iMonk as a "persona" for the purpose of writing somewhat inflammatory remarks. He thinks that's a kind of poetic license. I think that a minister of the Gospel who calls his choice to enter the ministry "the worst decision of my life" has a problem with his witness. I am wide open to seeing someone disprove that iMonk is a fraud, or that he is emotionally stable and therefore a reliable commentator. Wide open. The problem is that even those who are defending iMonk even at this point in the discussion don't want to talk about those matters: they want to complain that I have made a t-shirt up about this controversy, or that I have called the Boar's Head Tavern an apologetic clown-car. I'd be glad to be of the same mind in Christ as Michael Spencer. If I am willing to confess that my mind is not in the perfect image of Christ's right now, please do not argue that the mind iMonk has right now is Christ's mind, because I am certain Christ does not regret His choice to minister to souls that would otherwise be lost. Thanks for your comments.