Comment Response

Recently I posted a few thoughts entitled "Was Adam a Literal Man?" Yesterday, I received a comment on that post. Here was the comment:

Slippery slope.... The theology doesn't matter? Really??? So are you saying that it would be ok to go out and evangelize with some Mormons if you are both talking about Jesus? Who cares that they believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, thats not the point. You need to stop relying on your own flawed wisdom and rely fully on God and the council provided in the inspired Word of God, i.e. the Bible.

To be honest I was abit put off by the tone of the comment and I immediately responded with:

Respectfully, you should probably man (woman) up enough to fill all of us in on your identity if you want to be so critical of my post. I will post my response tomorrow.

That was probably not the most charitable way to handle my angst, but it is a good lead in as I type a few points of reply to the comment...
______________

I don't mind challenges to my beliefs - I welcome them. I may be wrong about YEC or any number of things - I have been before. However, this comment was a great example of exactly how NOT to dialogue about important issues. Here are some rules that I have drawn up after looking over the comment for future reference as "anonymous" or anyone else decides to make comments on my (or any other) blog.

Rule 1
Reveal yourself

Posting anonymously is lame and appears cowardly. If you have the answers and I am mixed up, why not tell us who you are. Why be afraid to give your identity. Walk in the light so to speak. Generally, only bellicose blog trolls who are trying to stir up trouble hide behind the curtain of Oz. It also implies a lack of confidence in your own argument IMO. Perhaps it was an accident and you meant to give your name - if so, let us have it and disregard rule 1.

Rule 2
Fallacy Follow Thru

The first words of the comment accuse me of a logical fallacy in my argument. However, the subsequent breakdown of how my argument is a slippery slope is missing. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. My argument was that overemphasis on a literal 6 day creation and/ or a 100% uber-literal reading of Genesis 1-3 will, more often than not, have a more negative affect on evangelism than if we only require a person to assent to the underlying principles and then push ahead to the Gospel itself. If my argument is a slippery slope then my first premise (we should abandon uber-literal interpretations of creation as a requirement for initial faith) must lead to some major negative impact. How? I don't see that spelled out. It is implied that my thoughts might lead to an abandonment of the deity of Christ. If thats the point that anonymous is making, where the beef? That is to say, where are the connecting points that take my argument from point A to point B and how do they relate?

Rule 3
Don't misquote people

I never said that "theology doesn't matter." I said that "...making secondary issues the forefront of one's evangelical convictions can be far more harmful than helpful."

Rule 4
When you disagree with someone, that doesn't necessarily make them a heretic.

Then, in the middle of the post I get questioned (feels like an accusation) about my agreement with the Mormons. How this comes up...??? We went from my argument regarding Genesis 1-3 to talking about the nature of Christ and his relationship to God. It looks sorta like a minor ad hominem since it doesn't get flushed out with any explanation, but instead simply comes out of left field.

Rule 5
Learn abot someone before you assume their beliefs

If the question about my willingness to go knock on doors with Mormons is a serious one (as opposed to a theological insult) then anonymous didn't do their homework about me very well. A 10 minute browsing of my blog would indicate that I am fully committed to the tenets of Reformed Faith, which certainly include a far different view of Jesus than Mormons and a rigidity about holding firm to the penal substitutionary atonement of the god-man Christ as the Gospel message.

Rule 6
Don't try and be super-spiritual

The last sentence in the comment informs me that I rely too much on my own reason and that that I need to get with the program (as anonymous is, I persume) and only trust in the Word of God. Of course, I thought I did hold to revelation pretty well. I actually thought that my quest to bring both natural and special revelation in agreement so that we can get to the Gospel was God-honoring. It always seemed more God-honoring and Christ-centered to me to work with Jesus at the core of evangelism than to try and convince non-believers that all science is false and the world is 6,000 years old before I could tell them the Good News. Using the "you are not spiritual enough" argument is a last ditch effort when one realizes that they don't actually have a counter-point.

FINALLY, the comment by anonymous is truthfully a perfect example of what I said in my original post "Why I am not a YEC." Too many believers get hung up on uber-literal Genesis interpretations and they make them of equal weight with the essential aspects of the faith. When clear-thinking is abandoned for knee-jerk reactions, structured arguements are dropped and baseless critical remarks ensue.
_______________________

I hope that anonymous reads this reply and that he/ she will know that I love them as fellow members of the body as they seek to defend truth even as I think that they are deeply confused about theological priority and thoughtful debate. I also hope that they will use the suggested rules to compose another response that more accurately explains why my thoughts are unbiblical and how they contribute to a low-Christology.

I also hope that my other readers will benefit from this exchange as they seek to study Scripture, pray about truth, and trust in God's grace.

My apologies if anything in this reply has been antagonistic towards anonymous. I really don't intend to slam the individual, just to critique the comment that was made. However, I know that I struggle with my own argumenative nature and how I can best express what I believe is truth "in love." I am usually somewhat aggressive in my manner (thanks to the Marines) and I have a hard time being pastoral with my advice.  Hopefully, I have not been rude in this post.  I look forward to more (hopefully helpful) discussion.