Mr Turk makes an interesting point in the conversation about ecumenical conversations, although I’m not entirely sure it’s the point he wants to make. A week or so ago he offered that those of other denominations, specifically the Roman and Easter churches were right with God only if they (accidentally) held to a Evangelical belief/approach to the Gospel. I think this point of view is held far more often by most people in every church/denomination. That is to say that any Christian church X thinks that members of church Y are in the soteriological pink inasmuch as those members in church Y (accidentally) hold to beliefs that are held in church X. That is, Mr Turk as an Evangelical thinks that the Catholic and Orthodox are saved if they hold an Evangelical understanding of the Gospel and those in the Roman hold that the Evangelical and Eastern are likewise correct when and where they (accidentally) hold to the Roman understanding of Gospel. And so on. Now I had been under the impression that I was “above the fray” in this regard. But on reflection, I am not.
An example of this is Mr Turk’s latest series of Nativity posts. He’s penned several essays as Church (small “c”) catholic nears the celebration of an anniversary celebration of the Nativity on the wrath of God. Just a few years ago, in the seventh century, a man named John became a hero of the Eastern (and Western) churches, heroes of the Church are called Saints. St. John Scholasticus (or St. John Climacus) wrote a book, John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent. This book lists practices that one might undertake in order to strive to become a better Christian. Oddly enough step 6, entitled “on remembrance of death” notes much of the things which Mr Turk emphasizes in his talk of the wrath of God and how being aware of how far we fall from a reasonable (or worse God’s) expectation for behaviour is a first step in Christian awareness. This feature too is not unrelated. The point here is that Mr Turk’s posts on the wrath of God seem words well said by such as myself is because they are in step with the the teachings internalized within my own tradition.
But this misses the larger point. Is this the right way to evaluate another tradition or individual? To suggest it is only “valid” in the overlap with what you see as right within your own. I would suggest that this is not the correct method, that in general externally evaluating whether a tradition or denomination is small “o” orthodox from outside is a process which is fraught with danger, specifically being misinterpretation or assigning incorrectly the importance and meaning of particular elements which you find in or out of synch with your own.
In the first centuries, the church found itself with a rich array of religious writing. Gnosticism was a heresy produced a great deal of writing. The popular conception is that the early church repressed gnostic writings. While they early church wrote much against these heresies … the repression charge is somewhat hard to sustain given that the extant surviving gnostic literature is found in monastic libraries. The Early church theologians and monastics did not discard these writings because while much in them was heretical and wrong … you could find in them valuable alternative ways of writing about or thinking about the Gospel and God. To put it crudely, they panned and filtered these for the gold they contained discarding the dross. This might be a better analogy when approaching another tradition. Let, “Look for the gold” be your motto.
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:01 am | #1
Mark,
Great questions. I’m sure that the search for some point of religious commonality is unavoidable. But I wonder whether the indomitable Mr. T is getting derailed by looking for that commonality in an extrinsic, intellectual assent to a set of beliefs. That’s more than a tad ironic, if you think about that for a second.
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:34 am | #2
“Is this the right way to evaluate another tradition or individual? To suggest it is only “valid” in the overlap with what you see as right within your own. I would suggest that this is not the correct method, that in general externally evaluating whether a tradition or denomination is small “o” orthodox from outside is a process which is fraught with danger, specifically being misinterpretation or assigning incorrectly the importance and meaning of particular elements which you find in or out of synch with your own.”
Perhaps I have misread something, but… Are you finding yourself in danger of postmodernism, expressing a reluctance to approach another tradition from some external, objective standard and wanting instead to approach another tradition from the standpoint of its own assumptions and expectations? I am a Protestant, Evangelical Baptist because I have certain convictions about what is taught in the Word of God. Based on those convictions and my belief in the objective standard of God’s Word, I look at Catholics and Orthodox and see they fall short of biblical faithfulness. Were I to approach those traditions on their own terms I might not be willing to speak against them, but their terms are of no real value when it comes to determining their validity. The only thing of value is what has been declared by the One who determines what is good and right and true.
December 22nd, 2009 | 11:55 am | #3
Though we may agree, Chris, that the Word of God is an objective standard for us, yet we all approach it through a variety of conditioning factors of culture, religion, philosophy, etc., with the result that our interpretations of the objective Word end up being subjective to one degree or another. We must be careful, then, that we do not mistake our own interpretations of the Word for the Word itself.
So the matter is not as simple as their (Orthodox and Catholic) terms compared to the Word, but more like their terms compared with our own subjective understandings of the Word.
December 22nd, 2009 | 12:32 pm | #4
Jeff,
We will always have subjective issues to work through. Sin continues to distort even those who have been regenerated. But we cannot discount the work of the Holy Spirit to lead us to a proper objective understanding of truth. Again, it is the postmodern who will look at truth claims and say, “That is just your subjective understanding of truth!” Push that far enough and we will never get anywhere and all of Scripture will have to be thrown out the door or, as the Catholics have done, subjected to human authority to offer the authorized interpretation. That approach is, in effect, ancient postmodernism by committee: “given the range of possible meanings, what do we decide to be the best understanding for us?” Councils have their place, but man does not determine truth. So, again, we must rely on the Holy Spirit. And we have the promise of Christ that the Spirit will guide us into all the truth. So that is my foundation and prayer: “God, lead me into a knowledge of your truth, so that when I evaluate these conflicting truth claims I will do so with your unchanging truth as my guide.”
December 22nd, 2009 | 12:36 pm | #5
What is frowned upon in this quote:
“To suggest it is only “valid” in the overlap with what you see as right within your own. I would suggest that this is not the correct method, that in general externally evaluating whether a tradition or denomination is small “o” orthodox from outside is a process which is fraught with danger, specifically being misinterpretation or assigning incorrectly the importance and meaning of particular elements which you find in or out of synch with your own.”
seems to be approved of in this quote:
“The Early church theologians and monastics did not discard these writings because while much in them was heretical and wrong … you could find in them valuable alternative ways of writing about or thinking about the Gospel and God. To put it crudely, they panned and filtered these for the gold they contained discarding the dross. This might be a better analogy when approaching another tradition. Let, “Look for the gold” be your motto.”
Truth, period, and truth in any area takes primacy. Even the “look for gold” motto depends on the primacy of truth.
December 22nd, 2009 | 1:25 pm | #6
Chris, my point is that, though we may claim infallibility for the Scriptures, we cannot do so for our own interpretations of the Scriptures. I’m not pushing it to the point that we cannot know anything about anything, because I don’t think that is true either. In the end, we must each follow the witness we believe we are receiving from the Holy Spirit.
Since you are a Baptist, you believe the Spirit has led you into a Baptist direction. OTOH, I believe the Spirit has led me in a non-Baptist, Pentecostal/Charismatic direction. Inasmuch as there are some disagreements in between our theological persuasions, they cannot both be correct, even though we may both feel we have received the light of the Spirit on the Word of God. Does this mean that one of us has fallen short of “biblical faithfulness”? That is not a very helpful way to look at it, I think, since it can easily lead us into pride and arrogance. It is also possible that neither of us has adequately received the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and that we have both fallen short of “biblical faithfulness.”
So, while I have come to certain theological persuasions and particular interpretations of Scripture, I must recognize that I am fallible and could possibly be in error. I must also recognize that much of how I think of Scripture is conditioned through the lens of Protestant theology and the particular way questions were framed in the 16th-17th centuries in the Western portion of the Church, and the way certain doctrines developed (e.g., the legalistic way atonement and justification came to be understood in the West at during medieval times).
The study I did this year on the history and development of Christian theology teaches me that it is not as cut and dried as I once supposed. It causes me to try to be more humble and more willing to approach EO and RC traditions on their own terms and less willing to judge them by my own fallible Protestant traditions. It does not necessarily mean that I agree with them all, only that I now see them on a larger matrix of Church history and Christian theology. And more willing to learn from them where perhaps my own traditions have been in some way deficient.
December 22nd, 2009 | 1:45 pm | #7
Mark,
I seem to see three separate things all going on at once: (1) Difficulty in accurately understanding other traditions, (2) the tendency to pan for gold, or “eat the meat and spit out the bones”, and (3) identifying what is the core, sine-qua-non of the gospel.
Your post seems to be mostly about the first two, with a hint of the third near the beginning. And they’re all important questions, but they’re also distinct, aren’t they?
First, I’m looking at your second to last paragraph, from “I would suggest that…” onward–on the difficulty of evaluating a separate tradition from the outside.
Granted, it can be difficult to accurately understand both meaning and emphasis from the outside–partly because the other tradition might use the same words with subtly different definitions. (The same difficulty is always there to some degree in all communication, isn’t it? And just as it’s generally possible to achieve meaningful communication, it’s also possible to achieve meaningful understanding of other traditions?)
Second, that was an issue of accurate understanding. Your last paragraph seems to shift gears, toward the idea of “eating the meat and spitting out the bones”. In other words, do we listen carefully to others in order to glean valuable insights, even if we also see problems in their view? (Once we’ve accurately understood someone, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? And do we value the opportunity to hear & consider alternate views?)
There’s wisdom in both those observations, and also limits to how far we would want to take them.
But I question the way you set this at odds with evaluating whether another tradition is holding to the gospel. We must certainly be cautious to interpret others carefully, and we should be willing to see & accept valid insights from every source. But…
The major point:
That does conflict with assuming, “My tradition has everything right already,” or “I have nothing to learn,” or “Every difference is important,” or “Every difference is rooted in objective truth where one of us is right and the other is wrong.”
But I don’t see how it’s an alternative to evaluating, “Do they hold to the essentials of the faith once delivered?” (And yes, we’ll be evaluating based on our own understanding & interpretation, which is fallible. But we’re still supposed to do it, aren’t we? How is this a wrong approach?) There is a core of the gospel, and we’re supposed to hold to it, and hold each other accountable to it?
December 22nd, 2009 | 3:16 pm | #8
While I can’t speak to the evidence of Gnostic literature preserved by monastics, I think your accounting of how responses to the heresies is not merely reductionistic but strikes off on the wrong historical path.
Men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and others didn’t argue for ‘looking for the gold’ in other the Gnostic system. In fact just the opposite–they argued that was was being proffered could not be found up until that point in time.
In fact, they relied heavily on the witness of the apostles and the witnesses to the witness of the apostles. Arguing in fact that the church in the whole world held to the things the gnostics were denying.
Without making a judgment on your larger point, your illustration is historically poor and would actually commend what you see as Mr Turk’s criteria for judgment, not your own suggested method. The early apologists, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, actually evaluated Gnostic by how closely they held to the beliefs of the church at large thus critiquing “Y” by the beliefs held in ‘church X’.
December 22nd, 2009 | 10:35 pm | #9
Great post! You’re certainly right that Evangelicals often fail to see the good in the RC and EO traditions, and all too often forget that the church has a history prior to the Reformation which is full of gold.
Having said that, I would make two suggestions:
1) I’m not sure that Evangelicals in general or Frank Turk in particular are necessarily calling for the total dismissal of all things non-Evangelical in the Catholic or Orthodox faiths. Though I might be misunderstanding you on that one…
2) In the original post, it was said that
If I understand most Evangelicals (and I very well may not) we are happy to agree with this in almost all areas except for the Gospel. That is, we are perfectly willing to admit areas of legitimate difference on Baptism, Communion, ecclesiology, eschatology, and so on almost ad infinitum. But, once another Gospel is being preached, we not only can but must discriminate. That is simply the non-negotiable of Christianity.
December 23rd, 2009 | 12:42 am | #10
If I understand correctly, ecumenism is the large tent which encompasses all faith groups which affirm The Gospel. Is it not possible that those who see the tent as being so small as to exclude any traditions other than those using the label “Evangelical” may indeed misunderstand the Gospel as affirmed by those traditions which they exclude? And if so, can they (do they?) claim the humility of which Mr. Doles speaks in #6?
Does it not seem odd that non-ecumenists would emphasize the wrath which miserable sinners (us, and especially them) deserve, and from which Christ alone saves, while failing to admit that said sinfulness might hinder their own understanding of The Gospel or of other traditions’ understanding of It?
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:15 am | #11
Coupla things:
[1] Not gonna respond until after Christmas. I am on a self-imposed hiatus for other projects, and this topic will require and absorb a very significant amount of time to wander through, as it is a minefield.
[2] I invite Mark Olson, after the New Year, to open thread here at Evangel in which he and I will dialog about this subject — that is, the matter of whether we can reasonably talk about the question of whether anyone is a true disciple or a false disciple of the Gospel and of Christ. The only guidelines for that thread would be these:
[a] no one else is invited to comment in that thread; comments from other parties will be deleted without any warning or apology. I would like a public exchange with Mr. Olson on this matter, but one which doesn’t get derailed. Everyone please read; everyone please allow Mark and I to deal with each other and not 10,000 qualifications and vendettas.
[b] I’d prefer that each side try to keep the discussion focused, so I’d request a word limit for each response — even if that limit is 1000 words (about 3 pages). That’s not a deal-breaker, but it will keep things from running over hill and dale.
[c] I also prefer (but can’t hardly require) a give-and-take format — that is, Mark can ask the first question, and I’ll answer, then I can ask a question, and then he answers, and so on. This is to give each side the opportunity to have a fair chance to cause the other person to speak to what seems to be the core issues. I’ll answer any question on this topic Mark can pose; all I ask is the same courtesy.
[d] I don’t care a hoot about time limits; we can let this drag on for all of 2010 is necessary, and Mark can take as long as he likes to respond to my comments — because we both work for a living. If Mr. Olson has a preference in this matter, I’d be glad to hear him out and work with his concerns.
In my opinion, these posts are by far the most important posts being made at Evangel right now. They are the ones everyone reading this blog should be reading deeply and reflecting on — because they speak directly to whether or not Jesus of Nazareth did anything worth arguing about. You know: if Mark is right, I think many Jews ought to be considered as part of the same faith we say we hold to — even if we use the Nicene creed as the club membership oath.
But to say more would require I stay longer today than I intend to.
Merry Christmas all! May the one who was born king of the Jews, named Yeshua because he would save his people from their sins, and who brings the light of salvation into this world, be gracious and loving to you this season, and in the New Year coming.
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:23 am | #12
Coyle,
On comment #9 point #2 … I’ve got a question. Because much if not most of the complaints about RC and EO are not about the Gospel but about those matters which you claim are adiaphora (legitimate difference). What is an example of such a non-negotiable difference?
Tim,
On Comment #8, I think you misunderstand me. I didn’t claim that the church fathers did not contend against the gnostics (or other heresies). But was pointing out that they still read and gleaned their thinking for the gold. A non-gnostic but similar example might be found in Origen. Origen was anathematized in the 4th (I think) ecumenical council. Yet he is widely read and discussed … much of his writing remains an important contribution to our understanding of Scripture, God and Gospel. But he is a heretic … he held a belief in the pre-existence of the soul which has been understood to be completely off base.
The point is like their treatment (subsequently) of Origen, the early church didn’t repress or ignore the gnostics. They contended against their error, yet gleaned their thoughts for what was right as I claim.
Jugulum,
Well, as I was writing my point of view changed a bit … and perhaps I should have re-written it. When I started I was thinking to use Mr Turk (standing in as a canonical/representative Evangelical) as an example of using the overlap with my tradition as a yardstick to measure others and to turn it around and point out that I at least do the same from a different perspective.
Then it occurred to me to ask, well, what should I be doing. And I’m afraid that thought was left a little incomplete. “Pan for gold” was my first thought. What to do (if anything) with the dross was left unsaid at this point.
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:26 am | #13
Frank,
That sounds like a great idea.
Perhaps we might close comments, and you post a question, and I’ll edit the post to update with a reply (and vice versa). Would that work?
That is just mechanics … my point is I’m on board.
December 23rd, 2009 | 12:41 pm | #14
I would be very interested to see the dialogue between Mark and Frank (particularly because I am Orthodox). I certainly do not think that Jews are part of the same faith that I hold to. But you know me, I have personalized my conversion into Orthodoxy according to Mr. Turk :-)!
But I do freely acknowledge that there are many Orthodox Christians (and Catholics as well) who I find to be kind of loosey-goosey on the matter of the Gospel. I have heard Catholics say, “Well, I think all that matters is if you are a good person.” And I know several people who do not take their faith all that seriously in the Orthodox Church. They seem not to know what is sin and what it is not. And I think some of this unfortunately stems from the fact that so many Orthodox Christians are not as familiar with the Bible as they should be. Nonetheless this is still the church where I have found truth.
I look forward to the dialogue in the new year. Merry Christmas all.
December 23rd, 2009 | 4:43 pm | #15
I think part of the problem in these discussions is a failure to distinguish between the fides qua creditur and the fides quae creditur. Here is a brief explanation in an obscure book by Thomas Watson, a Puritan theologian, who died in 1686.
There is a twofold faith, Fides quae creditur [the faith which is believed], which is ‘the doctrine of faith;’ and Fides qua creditur [the faith by which we believe], which is ‘the grace of faith.’ The act of justifying faith lies in recumbency; we rest on Christ alone for salvation. As a man that is ready to drown catches hold on the bough of a tree, so a poor trembling sinner, seeing himself ready to perish, catches hold by faith on Christ the tree of life, and is saved. The work of faith is by the Holy Spirit; therefore faith is called the ‘fruit of the Spirit.’ Gal 5: 22. Faith does not grow in nature, it is an outlandish plant, a fruit of the Spirit. This grace of faith is sanctissimum humani pectoris bonum [the most hallowed possession of the human heart]; of all others, the most precious rich faith, and most holy faith, and faith of God’s elect: hence it is called ‘precious faith.’ 2 Pet 1: 1. As gold is most precious among metals, so is faith among the graces. Faith is the queen of the graces; it is the condition of the gospel. ‘Thy faith has saved thee,’ not thy tears.
December 23rd, 2009 | 5:37 pm | #16
According to the Nicene Creed, Christ is “God from God, true God from true God, Light from Light, begotten not made,” etc.
Perhaps I know a different set of Jewish folks, but I don’t think the ones I know would sign off on that?
December 23rd, 2009 | 5:50 pm | #17
Okay, never mind. I just got Mr. Turk’s point.
December 24th, 2009 | 11:08 am | #18
In #12, Mark Olson wrote:
That’s certainly true, and in many cases we no doubt overdo our complaint about said adiaphora. In lieu of the upcoming Turk/Olson showdown, I’ll refrain from giving an extensive answer not only because I think Frank Turk can say it better than I can, but because I’ve much more of a “spectator” kind of personality :)
In brief, however, I would suggest that the reason Evangelicals complain so often about these “legitimate differences” that we have with RC and EO and not as much over the same differences amongst Protestants (for example, both RCs and Presbyterians baptize babies, but Baptists wouldn’t object as strenuously to the Presbyterian position on infant baptism as we would to the RC position) is the perception that in the RC and EO faith, these adiaphora are being tied in to the Gospel.
So to give an example from within Protestantism of a non-negotiable difference that is affected by the teachings of a denomination: one non-negotiable for Evangelicals would be the idea that Christ on the cross has totally accomplished the salvation of His people. (Hopefully that’s general enough to get common consent.) Yet, there is a particular denomination of Protestants who teach that one cannot get into heaven without being Baptized into their church. As far as I’m aware, they are sound in all of their doctrine except that one point, but because they have tied that one point to the Gospel, we have to be very careful about declaring their denomination to be “Christian.”
And the same certainly applies RC and EO.
And I promised not to answer extensively (which promise I may have already broken), so I’ll stop here.
Merry Christmas all!
December 24th, 2009 | 9:25 pm | #19
Regarding “the upcoming Turk / Olson showdown,” I think I might try that a time or two on these threads: “What I have to say is so important that I will agree to give my input on this thread, but only on the condition that no one else be allowed to post without my permission.” I’m sure it would work, wouldn’t it?
Y’all pray for me and my lousy attitude, and Merry Christmas to all. Hugs and kisses, cp
December 26th, 2009 | 8:13 am | #20
Craig –
One of the significant differences between you and anyone else who has “tried that” here at Evangel is that no one is actually talking to you or about you.
It seems clear to me that Mark is working hard to overcome the objection that EO and EV theologies are incompatible — something which was inevitable, given the trajectory all the conversations here involving his name and mine. But in doing that, he has framed many of his points around what I have said.
The last time I responded to the long list of things I allegedly said, I was called a lot of names for lining up the questions and answering them — probably because I didn’t let someone else administrate the interview.
Fair enough: now I have asked Mark to do me the favor of exchanging Q&A with me in order to do two things –
[1] To answer directly some of the reproachments offered up against my point of view, including charges of ignorance and indifference.
[2] To have a productive dialog with someone who disagrees with me, and with whom I disagree.
Your response is simply a piece of evidence to show that this dialog is sorely needed. That you can post something as inherently-unproductive as that sort of accusation with a clean conscience is telling; that civil dialog without sophomoric interruptions is now classed as some kind of dodge is simply ridiculous.
December 26th, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #21
Good points. My apologies. Best, Craig
December 26th, 2009 | 9:15 pm | #22
Well, its true that Protestants don’t always understand how Catholics and Orthodox think. I remember about 5 years ago reading JD. Bury volume on the latter Roman Empire which is a late 19th century term for the Byzantine Empire. Anyway, he mentions about a story about the emperor Justinian rubbing his knees against relics of some saints and he was cure. I thought at the time it was 6th century supersition, and the Romans of Justinian’s time were as supersitious sometimes than today. Remember Procopius in his Secret History mentioning that Justinian was a demon because he could take his head off from his body. This I’m sure was nonsense but exploring a little about Eastern Orthodoxy I heard of some visitations of Saints which do not contradict believe in God. Protestants just handy demiss this as worshipping saints but I dont believe this is true.
December 26th, 2009 | 11:51 pm | #23
Mr. Payne, you were not alone in this observation. I was unaware that Mr. Turk was this blog site’s moderator.
December 27th, 2009 | 4:50 pm | #24
Rev. McCain –
One of. The point of my request, as I have already lined out, is that Mark is actually speaking to me and about me. Isn’t it obvious that if he wants to speak to me and about me that I should want to respond to him?
Why is it in any way like demanding sole moderation to ask that Mark and I have a stand-alone conversation that other people are welcome to read but in which we ask them not to interrupt? Why is asking for a conversation so objectionable?
I’m asking for my personal benefit. You found my interview of myself (which was actually a list of questions other people in other posts had asked to me, except for the jokes) objectionable; you find the request to have a stand-alone conversation with mark about our disagreements objectionable. I look forward to finding out why.
December 28th, 2009 | 1:58 pm | #25
Mr. Turk, it appears to me that most of your posts here have more to do with you, than with a discussion of issues.
Rev. McCain, I’ve been reading here since the beginning of this blog and I don’t see what you see. At all.
Mr Turk is a “Truly Reformed Watch Blogger”? Huh?
I feel a little like there’s a whole background storyline to this that I’m missing, yet I’ve read the whole book and I can’t find it.
The whole thing is indeed very strange and very puzzling.
December 28th, 2009 | 2:23 pm | #26
I’ve made 38 posts to Evangel since its start-up about 9 weeks ago. To make it easy on you and the readers, I have made it possible to see them all here. Of those posts, as far as I can tell, exactly one is “about me”. The others are certainly all by me, and certain express my opinions — but to say they are “about me” requires more than a a new placard announcing it from the top of the Arch Books spinner tower.
Have a look again at my posts, and please point out which of the other 37 (I grant you the interview was about “me” insofar as it was answering questions posed to me and not to everyone) were about me.
If you want to point to comments under other posts, answering other people’s questions is not “about me”: it’s “about clarity”. You know: someone reads something, doesn’t understand, asks for a clarification, and the writer obliges by responding to that person. He doesn’t pretend that somehow the reputation of all academic discourse is on the line because a popular-level discussion is taking place.
I’ll leave the “parochial” comment for the readers to mull over as I am sure it will stick, but it cannot be in any way substantiated.
December 28th, 2009 | 2:28 pm | #27
Rebecca –
If Rev. McCain has any past sin which I have committed against him or those he sees as allies, I’d be willing to hear him out — and apologize to him and his allies if I am in fact in the wrong. I have a long history of reconsidering those things which I have overplayed and apologizing when it’s right to do so.
As always, that’s my offer and I stand by it. Everything after that devolves into bickering over the definition of “parochial”.
December 28th, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #28
Fortunately, due to the fact that so many people contribute to this blog site and the posts move along quickly, whoever wants to continue an extended debate in the comment section is certainly able, and free, to do so and those who choose to follow it can, while most will simply move along. It is just my observation that Mr. Turk appears to enjoy, a bit too much, his self-appointed role as provocateur and gadfly. I’ve bumped into his type of blogging personality before. Some people go for that kind of thing. Others, like me, do not. I won’t take the “bait” to enter into a protracted and ultimately pointless/fruitless argument via a blog site’s comments. And just so you know, I don’t know Frank Turk, and don’t recall ever bumping into him before on the Internet before I found this blog site. So, there’s no “past history” of which I’m aware. I’m just calling it as I see it. And, if Mr. Turk does not agree with my view of his style of blogging, that’s fine too. To each his own.
December 28th, 2009 | 4:31 pm | #29
Mr. Turk, let me excerpt quotes from of a number of your posts that demonstrate what I’m referring to when it comes to your style of blogging—a certain self-referential passive-aggressive style of writing that I have not ever been able to figure out when I run into it on the blogosphere, but I do see it consistently. I see the same thing on Michael Spencer’s blog as well. It’s a kind of odd narcissism, which delights in calling attention to oneself through a combination of self-pity and rather grandiose claims about oneself, while making the most of every opportunity for a bit of snarky put-down. There is a running stream of faux-modesty and fau-self-deferential comments throughout your posts that I find tiresome, an odd kind of “dying the death of a thousand qualifications” rather than simply assertions, without all the references to yourself. I’m sure I have fallen into the same trap in my own blogging. I just like to think that this blog might be different and distinct in the Blogosphere, and perhaps we can raise the bar a bit higher than is normally found elsewhere. That’s why I express these concerns.
Here then are the kind of comments/quips that characterize my criticism of your blogging style, and mind you, these are quotes from your blog posts, I don’t have time or interest to wade through your many comments on your own posts and others.
“Since this is the last post in this series, let me say frankly that I think most people don’t care about this series of thoughts”
““Wait a second, Frank,” comes the right-minded objector who already signed this statement,”
“I just want to go out on a limb here and say that I know about you people reading this blog. ”
“You know, my wife doesn’t really understand my passion for Christmas because she is convinced that I am crazy – too involved in the matter of God”
“Given what’s been said about me here after declining to sign the MD, I’m fearful to post anything ”
“In his current Evangel bio, Frank Turk lists one of his pastimes as “internet mayhem.” [Mr. Turk speaks about himself in the third person introducing his own post with comments that began with this line].
“As I’m writing this fourth part, I’m betting that you’re worn out already — “OK, Frank: wrath of God. I got it.”
“So some of you are thinking, “Frank, you’re a jerk, you know that?”
“You know: when most people get ready to write a little something for the Christmas season, they fire up the Yule log, and they have a little eggnog, and toss a little tinsel, and eat a cookie, and then they have this sweet smell on their breath as they talk about how joyful a season this is. I’m going to try something different this year, and I hope you’re ready to come with me.”
“feel free to let the next round of condemnations begin. ”
“Which, by the way, I’ll take. I know: you’re stunned”
“I’m going to give an apologia for myself here and hope that it makes something like good sense.”
December 29th, 2009 | 11:52 am | #30
Hi, Frank Turk. I was going to move on to other things, but after looking over the thread, I feel I owe you an explanation.
I think, given your beliefs and theological position, your posts are logical, internally coherent, helpful in advancing clear discussion, and most of the time pretty funny. Of course, I for the most part disagree substantively with many of them, as well.
What I’ve been objecting to, I’ve come to see, are more matters of style and tone. In other words, it could be just a matter of writing style (and perhaps a clash of temperaments that are more than a bit alike?). And style and tone are usually not matters worthy of clashing over.
In the future, therefore, I will try to raise the tone of my own posts a bit, or at least think longer before I hit the “Post” button.
Best, Craig
December 29th, 2009 | 7:01 pm | #31
Mr. Payne, I communicated privately to Mr. Turk about the matter of his style/tone and, not surprisingly, yet still disappointingly, what I got back from him was another example of his, let us say, very healthy sense of self-importance. I think we can pretty much assume Mr. Turk is just going to keep doing “the Frank Turk show” here, as apparently he loves to do anywhere else he blogs. I’m just going to ignore him.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact