A La Carte (11/30)

Manhattan apart, it is interesting studying the dynamics of any given debate whenever and wherever and whatever the topic. Often, you can find some common strategies employed that can be fascinating studying.

One might be the bombarding of your opponent with questions that in essence are really only statements that must obviously be true! It can be far more difficult to reason and argue than give questions in other words and of course some questions have nothing to do with the actual issues at stake although they appear pertinent. You then send out another barrage of questions constantly shifting the point of reference, never letting your opponent take the statements and answer them one by one. That of course would take time, and thought and open up oneself to the genuine claim that you might be persuaded.

I do though respect those who are prepared to stand and deal with arguments even if I disagree. Although here again is another tactic. Answer the parts that enable you to stay on safe ground and as to the rest move the argument on to something similar but qualitatively different and answer that in a way that must be right.

The good news is that we can find a way through all of this that is kind and generous and thoughtful of the person and yet still disagrees. Grace and truth. The problem is that the alternative can open up a can of worms!

Dan Phillips has left honesty behind with his anti Manhattan Declaration Post. He claims to be asking questions. Well, if you ask questions you have to be willing to listen to the answers. However, Dan isn’t willing to listen any answers that don’t agree with him. After his ‘Questions’ he posts a list of topics that will not be allowed to be included in the discussion. These effectively silence people who do not disagree with him. This is Dictatorship show trial stuff. This is frightening. One thing this is not - Christian.

I commend Nicodemus’ post in #3 and I was really quite taken aback by Dan Phillips’ rules (just like Bernard) for what comments he would allow in his thread discussion. I have no problems with his rules per se, after all, it’s his blog and he can do what he wants, but what I thought was truly lame was that he’s setting up his thread to be an echo chamber of sychophants under the guise of keeping the discussion “on-topic.” As Bernard said: “These effectively silence people who do not agree[original was an error] with him.”

Here’s his rules:

“Therefore, if you comment, you will know that it is all about the Gospel.

That means that —

We will not have any comments by anyone attempt to derail this into a discussion of homosexuality, abortion, or “co-belligerent” social involvement.We won’t have anyone attempt to derail this into a discussion of the relative value of minimalist creeds.We won’t have anyone attempt to derail this into a discussion of sociological definitions of “Christian.”We won’t have anyone attempt to derail this into a discussion of whether non-leaders who attend bad churches without accepting their damnable heresies can individually be saved.We won’t have anyone attempt to derail this into a discussion of the spiritual condition of long-dead men or women.”

Ten questions, but you’re not allowed to answer them in any way that doesn’t confirm Dan’s case? Whatever your views, insisting that an opponent in an argument is ONLY allowed to make your case for you or else keep silent just isn’t constructive of anything that I can think of.

Andy,#10,

I don’t think Pastor Jeremiah is making a bogeyman out of Dan Phillips. He wrote on Dan’s post:

“I read your whole blog post including all the questions (as I always do when I read your blog and have appreciated doing so).

Even as one who has signed the MD I think they are good and and compelling questions … but,

Your conditions for posting a comment (especially conditions 2-5) are unhelpful for productive conversation because they prohibit discussing some of my own answers to the questions that you asked.

Unless, of course, they weren’t really questions but statements. In which case, you should consider labeling them as such.

I have been reading a great deal and am FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL quite willing to be persuaded to remove my name, but I can’t be persuaded if conditions for conversation are placed that exclude genuine responses that I have to the questions you pose.

But I will follow your ground rules. Therefore I won’t “derail” the conversation by offering genuine to your answers or honest questions of my own as they would violate conditions 2-5. Unless, of course, you were willing to allow a little more flexibility in your conditions.

And hopefully, you do not deem that this comment violates your conditions as I have read the entire post and my comment is relevant to the content of the post (admitting that it is not directed at the main point of your post, which I can’t address due to the conditions set).

Thank you for the questions, nonetheless.

Jeremiah”

Denis,

That’s okay that it didn’t make sense for you. It’s merely to show that Pastor Jeremiah’s comment affirms the observations made by other commenters on this thread about Dan Phillips’ rules.

And if you still don’t understand that, then that’s okay too.

TUAD, how do you feel about Bernard’s comment on this post: “This is Dictatorship show trial stuff. This is frightening. One thing this is not - Christian.”

Hyperbole? Melodramatic? Laughably silly?

How do you feel about his closing sentence (again, on this blog): “One thing this is not - Christian.” Not Christian, huh? Must be some new criteria I was previously unaware of.

TUAD, I guess its a good thing I don’t limit myself to only listening to the advice given by perfect people.

Then again, I don’t find his comments to be too over the top given what was being addressed. At least he wasn’t invoking the imagery of tyrannical despots or suggesting we need to fear the critical voices.

Bernard,

I am familiar with the concept of a show trial, but I think the analogy breaks down in too many ways for it to be of any usefulness in this case.

1. There are many online venues where more complete discussions about the Manhattan Declaration are available. I don’t recall much of anything that produced so many articles in the Christian blogosphere in such a short period of time. Even on Dan’s own blog the topic was discussed in a more broad way without the restrictions of the current Team Pyro post.

2. Dan’s goal with this post seems to be to have a more specific discussion … one about the Gospel and ecumenicism. The rule’s he’s laid out for commenting, whether we think they are effective or not, appear to be an attempt to make this discussion more targeted than other discussions that have already occurred; he only wishes to discuss this one aspect to the exclusion of other issues. And, in all honesty, do we really need yet another forum to discuss the MD in its fullness? At a minimum, Dan’s rules will succeed in producing a discussion which doesn’t follow the same cookie cutter pattern that has emerged on so many other MD related posts.

3. I think a reasonable argument can be made that actual answers to Dan’s specific questions do not need to go into the territory he’s marked as out of bounds. You may not agree, but I think the argument can be made (effectively, following the thoughts of my second point).

4. Team Pyro, while being a good blog, is hardly the be all and end all on Christian ideas and faith. Even if they find the MD guilty based on the evidence they have (to further your analogy), they are still simply the modern-day equivalent of an editorial piece in the Sunday paper. There are no firing squads, physical or metaphoric, waiting in the wings.

Fine, for the sake discussion lets say that Dan’s blog is the antithesis of open and fruitful discussion. That still leaves many, many different venues where this topic can and has been discussed in its fullness.

My point still stands.

TUAD wrote: Denis, are you conceding Bernard’s point?

What’s to concede? These comments were specifically related to the first point in my list from post #19. The point I was making is there are many other places where a more complete debate over the MD is possible; the Team Pyro blog is not the only game in town.

Since the commenting policy of Dan’s blog ultimately has no bearing on the legitimacy of this point I didn’t see any reason to argue it.

I realize my sentence was poorly formed in my response; so just to clarify “for the sake discussion” should have read “for the sake of discussion” or maybe more accurately “for the sake of argument.” Sorry for any confusion.

TUAD, congratulations, you cleverly caught me saying something I stated as fact several hours ago.

See points 2 and 3 from my #19 post for a fuller treatment of this. It also shows why I believe such an approach can be reasonable and not, as you and Bernard appear to believe, diabolical and underhanded.

That was the post where I outlined my reasons for saying his characterization of the Dan’s post as a “show trial” was neither useful nor accurate.

Sorry, not diabolical, just dishonest, dictatorial and frightening. My mistake.

Andy, thanks for the clarification, and …

Furthermore, if you disagree with me, you’re no better than Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. :p

… thanks for the smile!

Have a great night.

Bernard,

Let me distill my previous response to you down to 2 points:

A. There are many unrestricted discussions online that you can read and interact with on the merits of the MD.

B. Dan only want to discuss the MD’s relevance to the gospel (e.g., the potential impact on clearly communicating the gospel).

So given A what is the problem with B?

As I said earlier, I may not have chosen to take that approach and you might not have chosen that approach but I see no reason for putting down Dan for doing so.

TUAD, you said Here’s a rebuttal post by Andrew Sandlin titled “Lordship Salvation Is Not Enough: A Response to John MacArthur.” Dan’s rules wouldn’t allow it because it covers areas outside of the Gospel.

So? I’m sure I could find posts that would qualify and others that couldn’t … what exactly does that prove?

As I said earlier, rather than looking at the MD as a whole he is trying to examine one aspect of it. You may not agree with that and if you had a blog you might do things differently … great. You don’t think this is a valuable approach, but he does.

Rather than getting all high & mighty and assuming the worst of him why not just accept that his approach is different than yours would be. We have many places where we can, and have, debated over the MD as a whole … quite frankly maybe a more focused discussion was called for. At least the comment thread wasn’t a verbatim repeat of numerous others of the past days.

As a side note, I object to the inflammatory comments about “rigging” or “show trials” for the reasons I’ve stated above in earlier, more detailed, posts.

Excerpts From Andrew Sandlin (#32):

“MacArthur is wrong on two counts. First, he over-generalizes and oversimplifies the Gospel.

Second, and more relevantly, MacArthur underestimates the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The MD presupposes an ethical calling wider than the Gospel, and we dare not shrink back from the implications of this wholly valid assumption: the Gospel is one of the great themes of the Bible without which there can be no “true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills,” but the Gospel is not the entire, or even the most important, message of the Bible. It is a crucial dimension of an even more momentous message, which is the sovereignty of God over all things (2 Chron. 20:6; Ps. 103:19; Pr. 21:1; Zech. 9:10; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 19:6).

The MD is suggesting that Jesus is Lord of the state, too, not just Lord of redemption. And when the state transgresses its God-ordained role, it stands as a rebel against the kingdom of Jesus Christ to which it, too, and not just the church, is called to submit.

But what MacArthur does not seem to grasp, and what the signatories of the MD do grasp, at least intuitively, is that the Lordship of Jesus is wider than individual salvation. This fact is easy to prove.

The MD takes a step toward recovering an understanding of the full-fledged Lordship of Jesus — that Christians must speak prophetically to the ethical issues of the time, and expect the state to stay within its divinely prescribed limits. Just as Jesus’ Lordship is wider than the church, so Christians’ message must be wider than the Gospel.”

Read it all. And then you’ll understand why Dan Phillips’ rules aren’t helpful.

“Dan Phillips enabled moderation at *his* blog just recently, after months of dealing with an obsessive troll …”

If that’s a hint, I’m with you.

“Truth Unites,” consider yourself on notice. Maybe take up another hobby.