Do you have someone who you would listen to, and who would be willing to give you an honest and critical appraisal of your behavior? If you do, I suggest asking that person–in private–to read this thread. And, although I do think certain concessions on your part would only be helpful, I’d advise you not to concern yourself with your public image at this point.

It looks like you haven’t in fact answered this question. So, although you think you have dealt with these issues, you’ve actually just dismissed them, reading into them your own suspicions. Again, it’s consistent.

Here’s to the goal of increased understanding.

Another aspect of getting “ready” that I have long found weird has now been captured by First Thoughts editor R.R. Reno in his post Beating Up On the Left.

He quotes an atheist undergrad student, Alex Knepper, who writes in an essay, “The Roots of the Left’s Love Affair with Islam”:

“A consistent rationalist has no home on the modern left, because the left has no particular problem with religion. Its problem is with Christian Republicans. The left doesn’t love Darwin, for example; it just hates Palin. It doesn’t love reason, it hates conservative Christianity. With the left, we are dealing with a political ideology that is completely defined by what it hates. And what it hates is anything at all that stands in support of traditional Western values—whether they are Judeo-Christian religious ones or Greco-Roman pagan ones.”

Reno then goes on to write: “He[Knepper] goes on to argue that, even though conservative in every relevant respect, Islam gets a free pass because its anti-Western. Islam “sticks it to the man,” and therefore becomes an ally of the transgressive Left.”

So in regards to one aspect of Tom Gilson’s question of “Islam in America: Are We Ready?” we have to also ask:

Are we ready to understand how the American Liberal Left views Islam as their ally?

I think I am. As Knepper wrote: “With the left, we are dealing with a political ideology that is completely defined by what it hates.

Result: I tolerate Islam’s hatred for me since I am an infidel. And I also tolerate the Liberal Left’s hatred for me since I am a conservative Christian.

Insofar as you’ve raised the question of what is “drastically wrong with [your] communication,” you should really address this issue. In all seriousness (your habit of reading into my comments your own suspicions compels me to add this), if you would come to terms with this issue, I really believe it would clear the path for much richer dialogue about your posts.

Even if your understanding of Christ is a bit blurred, you should at least recognize this: being defensive and hostile doesn’t really complement your “call to increased understanding.” But this should also, I suspect, be painfully obvious.

You’ve shifted from the helpful phase to the painfully obvious. I know I’m not Jesus. He did tell us to follow his example, didn’t he? There are dichotomies in the world, as he so clearly taught, and to try to avoid them would be to follow a lie and to fail to follow Jesus.

Here’s a nice self-refuting observation on your part: “it stifles it with the raw emotion produced by an appeal to tribalism.” I notice how carefully you avoided the use of stifling words loaded with raw emotion.

The current post was an appeal to understanding of Islam. The homosexual attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality I do not need to explain; for what it is, quite plainly, is an attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality.

You don’t have to agree.

I could defend that statement, but here are three other principles I observe in Jesus’ example:

One, he did not explain every detail of his teaching every single time he spoke. I’ve covered that topic in the past, and I don’t accept the requirement to cover it in full detail every time I mention it in passing.

Two, he tailored his message to his audience. He spoke one way to the Pharisees, another way to the disciples, another way to the women he knew, and another way to inquirers. This message is on an evangelical blog, and sometimes we evangelicals say things to our evangelical audience according to what we expect will be evangelicals’ shared understanding.

Three, he didn’t expect everyone to agree with him, and there came a time when he said (paraphrased), “If you’re not going to interact and discuss in good faith and honesty, then ‘neither will I tell you’ the answer to the question you’ve asked”. John, because of interactions we’ve had on my Thinking Christian blog, wherein you took a manifestly unreasonable and rude stance toward me, I’m not going to wait very long here to reach the stage where I consider the conversation to have reached its ending point.

Thank you again for stimulating me to a good time with the Lord this morning. You need not consider it your duty to remind me that I am not He. If you’re going to complain about someone’s appeal to emotion, think twice before doing it with such loaded language in the future; hypocrisy does not become you.

1) “Dividing is not wrong, according to Jesus’ ministry. He created dichotomies everywhere, by confronting error both in teaching and in practice.”

Yes, Jesus pointed out dichotomies—but you aren’t Jesus.

2) “I had thought that the current post was actually not divisive; it was a call to increased understanding.”

Wow.

Please explain how you thought the following would increase understanding and decrease prejudice and stereotyping:
“Another steamroller social issue was bearing down on us then, though: the homosexual attack on marriage, family, and sexual morality.”

The victim trope does not increase understanding; it stifles it with the raw emotion produced by an appeal to tribalism.

I took an extended look at Jesus’ ministry just now through the Gospel of Mark, and I saw in it a range of things like healing, comforting, praying, freeing, providing, blessing, instructing, equipping, suffering, rescuing, and even warning and dividing.

Dividing is not wrong, according to Jesus’ ministry. He created dichotomies everywhere, by confronting error both in teaching and in practice. (The Gospel of John displays that even more clearly.) The point, I take it, is not to avoid dividing, but to be sure that the divisions and dichotomies are based in truth and balanced with other emphases like comforting, freeing, blessing, equipping, etc.

I had thought that the current post was actually not divisive; it was a call to increased understanding. I do not assume that increasing understanding must be accompanied by increasing agreement, but I would hope that it would lead to decreasing prejudice, stereotyping, and (on the other hand) naivete.

Anyway, through this I have seen things in me that need the Lord’s work. Better balance in my writing here is one of them, especially in terms of being encouraging and displaying the light of Christ. Most of all, you have reminded me how much I need the power and direction of the Holy Spirit, for I cannot do it on my own. I appreciate the learning opportunity.

There is something drastically wrong with your communication. Every word is designed to promote dichotomies that are either false or intended to divide people, not unite them in caring for each other.

“This happens amazingly often, and it’s happened again: I write a blog post about some general topic,…”

You write a post about a cultural battle.

“I illustrate it with examples, and none of the comments have anything to do with the general topic. It’s all nitpicking on the illustrations.”

It’s not nitpicking. Your posts on cultural issues are almost always intended to divide people and incite hatred and misunderstanding.

It’s what you do, Tom.