On Thu, 01-5-06 9:52 pm
OK, so Dan didn’t say that exactly but the essence of his The Godblogosphere’s Black Hole is a call for peace in place of all the arguing and bickering that has characterized so much of so-called Christian blogging of late.
Dan begins:
Four days.
Yesterday, I joked about jumping back into the charismatic/cessationist debate that fueled the Godblogosphere discussion during the last quarter of 2005. Now Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniac, mere hours after I posted my comments on Acts 2, is going to prove ONCE AND FOR ALL that the gifts have ceased. Four days into the new year and here we go again.
“All I want to say in response is that my white flag is up–I quit.
“No, Cerulean Sanctum isn’t going away. But to be honest here, I really feel like we’re wasting our time blogging if this is the best we can do with this fantastic medium for bringing together great Christian minds. If the sum total of Godblogging is to see who’s right and who’s wrong then we might as well pack it in.”
Maybe this just reflects the blogs that I have frequented most often in the past, but it seems to me that the blog wars tend to be between Reformed individuals. Phil and Turk go after iMonk, the barroom brawlers respond in their typical style, the Reformed cessationists argue with the Reformed charismatics - it strikes me that some of the more prolific Reformed bloggers are also the most pugnacious: they’ve never met a fight they didn’t like, and they’ve never retreated so much as an inch. And some seem to delight in stirring up trouble just for the sake of arguing, like little boys on a playground trying to show how tough they are.
Which is why I greatly appreciate the more irenic Reformed bloggers like Tim Challies, David Wayne, and others. And, it now appears, Dan has joined the more serene and stable in the Reformed community. I don’t think the obnoxious - or just plain noxious - behavior has anything to do with Reformed doctrine; I do think that Reformed doctrine tends to attract angry, rigid, and aggressive individuals who baptize their bad behavior in quotes from Calvin.
If this seems like a rant against Reformed bloggers, it’s not meant to be; it’s intended to be a mirror for those few who make the Reformed position look bad. Of course, they’ll never consider the possibility that a non-Reformed person - who is automatically suspect because I will not chant the TULIP mantra - might be right. They’ll just blast away or ignore it. But maybe some of you peaceable, more mature Reformed bloggers can get through to the loose cannons on deck.
Maybe sometime when I have absolutely nothing else to do, I’ll go back and see how many blog wars there have been that haven’t been between Reformed brethren. Things might be a bit more loving and edifying if the Reformed in-fighting didn’t monopolize the topics so often.
Experientially, I don’t care about the in-house problems of the Reformed community. I’ve tried engaging some of them only to be treated like a Samaritan dog. That’s fine: I don’t need any more narcissists in my life and the crumbs that fall from their tables tend to be baby food anyway.
I just get tired of listening to them tear one another down and watching them bring disgrace to the Name of Christ.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:57 am
Mike,
When Adrian Warnock dropped me a line about being included on the Reformed Charismatic blogroll, I told him that I wasn’t a strict TULIPer. My theology has a Lutheran basis, so I do consider myself “Reformational,” if not a pure Reformed Calvinist. (I asked him if he considered that worthy of inclusion. I guess he did.)
The difference? I think that Luther was more willing to chalk some things up to mystery. I appreciate that. I think that is where the basis of my call in this post emanates. Too often we want to batten down the hatches over Christian theology and claim we’ve got God under the tarp. But I’ve read enough and seen enough to know that God doesn’t easily fit beneath our tarp.
Does it all makes sense now?
I hope that I never treated you like “a Samaritan dog” at Cerulean Sanctum. I’d fold up my blog if that ever happened.
Thanks for the link.
Dan:
No, you never treated me like a dog: if you had, I wouldn’t be reading your stuff or linking to it in a positive manner. I’ve not detected an angry, smug, or superior disposition from you with regards to those who may disagree with you on some non-essential points of theology or practice.
I’m not Lutheran, but I do believe in mystery when it comes to God and His plans, purposes, and means of effecting His will in history. I believe in election and that salvation is fully an act of God, but I also believe that we all have the freedom and responsibility to choose. I can’t reconcile or neatly solve enigmas like that, so I accept the fact that I’m not bright enough and move on. Nobody is bright enough: nobody ever has been and nobody ever will be. That’s why my favorite theologian is nobody.
- Mike
January 6th, 2006 at 9:15 am
excellent thoughts. And thanks for sharing Dan’s article.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:18 am
[…] Mike Russell at Eternal Perspectives thinks the christian bloggers should be less contentious when discussing doctrinal differences. For my part, I guess I don’t hang out in the right corners too see the heated action and on the up-side can’t compare to the wars of the Reformation, eh? […]
January 6th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Mike:
It’s really good to see you blogging again. Good thoughts from a unique perspective (I liked your thoughts the other day about how one’s pscyhology informs theology).
“never met a fight they didn’t like…like little boys on a playground.” The thing I remember about the playgound is that we really fought mostly with our friends. Like some kind of sibling rivalry where I feel free to mistreat my little brother, but no one else can. People who think vastly different than us are written off as not worth our effort. But we’ll argue to the death with those who are just almost on the same page.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Mike said: “If this seems like a rant against Reformed bloggers, it’s not meant to be”
Wow! You really don’t think so?
Jim:
Sorry about taking so long to approve your comments: from now on yours should get posted immediately. I’m really bad about paying attention to “comments awaiting moderation”: I had 26 sitting there!
To answer your question, no, I don’t consider it a rant. I care about my Reformed brothers in Christ and believe there is an endemic problem infecting many in the denomination, i.e., the inability or refusal to check for logs in their own eyes before scrutinizing the rest of us. Now, don’t get me wrong: I know I have blind spots, too - and, of course, some of the Reformed folks are kind (I mean that) enough to point them out. But when I or others try to reciprocate, we’re labeled derogatorily and dismissed. See, for example, Phil’s total misrepresentation of me in his post here, and my response here.
No one - Reformed, Charismatic, Arminian, Dispensational, or whatever - is beyond constructive criticism. Too often, however, criticism of a Reformed believer turns into a “shoot the messenger” situation.
To paraphrase and completely rip Paul out of context, I would answer any questions about my motives with, “Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!”
And I do.