Comments on: Wisdom in Words

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:10:54 +0000

No problem, and thanks for responding.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:02:39 +0000

Amy,
Point well taken, and my apologies for any possible aggravation I may have injected into this delicate exchange with Mark. I have a habit of finding connections between and contradictions across ideas and worldviews, but I suppose some observations are not worth making.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:57:15 +0000

“Having read the stuff here at A-team for a while, I would say that you all try to be humble in many cases. Other times though, I have to say, your tone is not terribly humble at all.”
Glenn, thanks for the admonition. That's hard to hear, but good for me.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:59:22 +0000

“This sounds hauntingly like the response of the TV smut peddlers.”
Scott, I think this is an unfair and inappropriate image to bring into the conversation. Mark has had friendly dealings with us in the past, and though I strongly disagree with many of his claims, I feel enough of a relationship with him to ask you to just remember that you're talking about a real person here and not just an abstract concept.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:22:11 +0000

Mark's final recommendation seems to be: don't like me, don't read me. This sounds hauntingly like the response of the TV smut peddlers. I hope he realizes that it is not just that his ideas are personally abrasive, but that we have concern to help someone like himself, in a position of influence, to improve his theology and methods. He seems to be inclined to shut out the counsel of a great body of careful and learned thinkers simply because they are too confident in their conclusions. The sad thing is, many of these "conclusions" are merely echoes in the halls of the historical church. If he were simply taking issue with the debate over Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or modes of baptism, then I'd have sympathy, but some of his statements seem to chip away at far more foundational issues. Mark lost his credibility with me when he called D.A. Carson's (one of the top evangelical scholars alive today) thoughtful and gracious work a "poorly researched piece of opinion posing as scholarly thought."

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:11:11 +0000

Chris, I don't think you came across as a jerk at all. I appreciate the feedback. As I noted on Mark's blog, I put a lot of time into choosing my words carefully so I wouldn't come across as inflammatory. I'd like to make it clear that I'm not “out to get” Mark.
You're correct that it's entirely his perrogative as to whether or not he engages “debate” on his blog. The problem comes when he makes very controversial statments and then refuses to clarify or substantiate them, when he ridicules those who disagree with him and their ministry, all while in some way representing a respected ministry. My point isn't to bash him, call him names, or anything of that sort, but to simply say that we can do better, and that the Bible's told us specifically how we can do better in this area.
Mark and I are in agreement, at least, that we're approaching this from two different perspectives and we've been talking past each other to some degree, and we've also frustrated each other to some degree. When he gets back hom we'll have a private chat about all of this and I hope it will at least bring some peace between us, if not some clarity to the larger issues as well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:03:34 +0000

I would tend to agree with Chris a bit here. I think that it is entirely reasonable for Mark to decide that he doesn't want to engage in debate on his own blog. On my personal blog, I would certainly delete stuff that I thought was offensive to my students or something like that. It's my blog, and therefore I feel that I have that right.
I would say that honestly, I've enjoyed reading stuff on your blog over the past month or so since I found it. As a high school teacher who has taught apologetics and teaches worldviews now, I certainly love what you all do.
But I would agree that once again, the tone is often wrong. Mark's original tone was wrong as well, though I can see that he was trying to be lighthearted but it appeared flippant. Having read the stuff here at A-team for a while, I would say that you all try to be humble in many cases.
Other times though, I have to say, your tone is not terribly humble at all. I realize that some of that is due to the field you are blogging about. Apologetics often tends to be confrontational and is of course concerned with defense and offense occasionally as well. That's okay, and I certainly understand where Scott is coming from in his comment there as well.
But to accuse Marko of being snarky or sarcastic, well, the same tone is evident here as well. It is fine to say that you were taking care to be humble and not angry, but just as a reader who is to be honest “on your side” in the whole emergent debate, there was little humility shown, just a “we have the truth on our side until proven otherwise” sort of attitude.
Again, I think that you are correct about a lot of this, and I even commented to that effect on Marko's blog as well. But tone and perception do matter, even, or perhaps especially in apologetics.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:32:55 +0000

Hey guys,
I think you are making to mucha deal out of this… Oestreicher has already apologized for his tone, and I think its perfectly acceptable for him to chose not to engage in a debate over his blog… Its his perrogative, its his blog…
i'm not trying to be a jerk here… sorry if i come across that way… it just looks like you are really out to get him, you saw a chance and you took it…
chris