What does it say about us as Christians, if what non Christians primary see is us...
Putting our differences of politics ahead of our commonalities in Christ?
Identifying primarily as a ______________. Christian, rather than simply a Christian?
Conversations between Christians marked by rancor, argument, vitriol, and division?
If anyone has anything else, chime in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I'd be glad to say proudly that you are my brother in Christ, a brother with whom I disagree, but still a brother. That I strongly disagree with a fellow Christian is a good sign, I'd hope people could see.
I would also gladly apologize for being too harsh at times. It's hard to know where to draw the lines and I'm sure I err too far from grace, too often.
I will say this, I think the world would be a better place if some group of liberals and conservatives could agree to have a conversation to try to find some common ground, strive to understand and answer the others questions directly and completely, strive to give the benefit of the doubt to the others. It seems that conversations with the other are extremely hard even when people are starting is a commitment to have a rational and fair conversation. It would be a beautiful thing to see happen.
I’d say that if you’d like to actually apologize, and actually acknowledge that you cross the line, that might be a place to start.
Beyond that, I have multiple places where I interact with Christians from across the political spectrum on a regular basis, I’ve never felt compelled to accuse them of being divisive, besting “false” witness or slander. Nor have I ever felt like expletive laden vitriol was the appropriate way to communicate with a fellow Christian no matter how much I disagreed with them.
One of my best, recent, friends at work was someone with whom I disagreed on politics, religion, and various other topics, yet somehow neither of us has ever questioned the others honesty or character. Nor have we ever told, or allowed to be told, lies about the other.
If the concept of that sort of relationship is so foreign to you, then I have nothing to say except that it grieves me to see you cut yourself off from people with whom you disagree.
I gladly apologize for being too harsh at times. I apologize to you, to Marshal and to Stan. I know you all find curse words distasteful and wrong so, I'm sorry for using them at your blogs in my disagreement with you. I can't apologize for disagreeing with you, especially on matters of great importance where I think you're mistaken, but for the harshness, I apologize.
Craig... "neither of us has ever questioned the others honesty or character."
To help, perhaps, clarify, I have never said that you are dishonest or questioned your character. When you make false or dubious claims, I have noted that it's a false or dubious claim. But that isn't to say that you have bad character or are an utterly dishonest person. I am sorry if I've said things to make you think that's what I was saying, because it wasn't.
I’d go back and dig up the quotes, but I’ve git much better things to do today. So I’ll just say thanks.
This subject still requires an answer to a long-standing question of mine: How far astray from Christian teaching can one be and still call one's self a Christian...indeed be a Christian? Beyond that line...whatever it is...the problem becomes outsiders believing the two opposed are both Christian, when one only claims to be while holding too many positions that belie the claim.
I really can't concern myself with what outsiders think, if outsiders aren't willing to sit down themselves and truly understand why an imperfect person debates as he might. How do I know how much the outsider knows about the faith and how willing is he to confirm what he knows?
You're welcome.
Now, in an effort to keep this good-natured, reasonable, calm and respectful dialog continuing, may I respectfully offer a couple more thoughts...?
One concern we have on all sides is one side may offer some olive branch and some apologies for things they've done wrong, but then, the other side does not examine themselves to take a positive step in the other direction? For instance, you raise a concern that I am too harsh in my disagreement with you and that you find curse words offensive and unhelpful. Fair enough, I apologize for being too harsh, not leaning into grace enough and using curse words which you find offensive and unhelpful.
Now, I raise a concern in another direction... something for your side to consider. For instance, just using your recent post: You made a claim that "liberals" were "protesting" because a conservative activist merely engaged in cleaning up garbage.
My three concerns were, I feel, quite legitimate:
1. I have no idea what the story is and you provide no links, no names, just the accusation. Do you see how it might be helpful to offer a link so someone can read your story and substantiate it (if it's factual)?
2. Since no one seriously ever protests someone cleaning up garbage off the street, it sounds like a fake claim on the face of it. Do you see how it might come across that way?
3. When you did offer a name, I was able to find these facts, which were different than your claim:
a. a conservative was cleaning up garbage;
b. some undetermined folks identifying as antifa (as opposed to general liberals), were concerned that this conservative was taking the property of homeless folks;
c. THAT is a different concern than merely cleaning up garbage. Presumably, no liberals that you can cite are opposed to picking up garbage off the street;
d. It appears that the antifa protesters had made a mistake and were just wrong... the conservative wasn't destroying/taking the property of the homeless, he was literally cleaning up streets.
Given the real world facts, can you see how some might be reasonably concerned about your portrayal of it?
That it is false to say that some liberals are protesting garbage being picked up, for instance?
Could you see how a good faith effort to find common ground might begin with you (as it did with me) with an apology. In this case, for misrepresenting the facts and that this is an instance of some antifa making a mistake and that their intent was good, but that their protest was simply wrong?
If you begin with offering the facts in a more even-handed manner, you might learn that many liberals are concerned about antifa protesters, that they tend to be young, hot-headed, too quick to action and this results in these sorts of mistakes... and that they're wrong for doing that... and thus, some common ground with mainstream liberals. Can you see how this seems reasonable to me and others like me?
Thanks for your consideration.
Dan,
You were doing so well.
1. I can see that it might be more helpful to spoon feed people information. At the time I was in a hurry and just threw it out there.
2. I can see how it would, had I made the claim that people were protesting picking up trash. I can’t help that you assumed something that I didn’t say.
3.
a. Was correct
b. ANTIFA is a liberal group. It’s a group that rarely gets criticized by “regular liberals”. My claim is factually correct. Again, I can’t control what you read into something. It’s not my fault that they, and you jumped to incorrect conclusions and chose to engage in attacks based on those hasty and wrong conclusions.
c. Pointing out that I didn’t say anything in your “c” seems pointless.
d. That’s been established and I don’t see why it needs to be repeated.
I do see that you read much more into my comments than was actually there and overreacted like the ANTIFA folx.
I didn’t say that liberals protested picking up garbage.
I could see that any good faith effort would have had to start with you simply asking for clarification, instead of making false claims, and accusing me of various things that are false. It seems that it’s difficult to talk about anything without understanding that my response was predicated on your falsehoods and attacks. It seems strange to think that I should not be affected by your falsehoods and attacks.
Again, the problem here is that you didn’t misrepresent the facts, so much as you assumed that I did. I find it interesting that you claim to know the intent of the ANTIFA, it’s quite impressive that you know so much detail about their intent. Of course, this while conversation ignores the fact that ANTIFA’s MO is to engage in violence and destruction in their protests. But, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
You probably aren’t aware of how much publicity the group doing the clean up does before they do these events. It’s certainly possible that the ANTIFA folx were stupid and unaware of what was happening. It’s also possible that they decided that ruching into confrontation without knowing the situation was a smart move.
Unfortunately the instances of liberals speaking out against ANTIFA are so rare, and it’s much more common to make excuses “they’re young and hot headed”, I might be more inclined to take this seriously.
Fortunately for me, I reported the facts accuracy although not exhaustively.
Art,
That’s an excellent question and one that is certainly a factor.
However, I’d argue that as believers our default position is to engage with anyone we disagree with using “gentleness and respect”. If we lower ourselves to the level of non believers, then what do we accomplish. Aren’t we called to a higher standard?
Craig... " I made the claim that people were protesting picking up trash. I can’t help that you assumed something that I didn’t say."
You said, and I quote, "Conservative activist organizes clean up in San Francisco, for some reason liberals protest."
Which makes it sound like you think liberals were somehow, for some strange reason protesting a "clean up."
Was that your intention, because that's what I'm hearing you say.
If that was what you were saying, then is it fair to note that these antifa people were NOT protesting a "clean up..."? They were (mistakenly) protesting taking away homeless people's property and encampments, right?
Thanks.
I’m sure it never occurred to you that the problem could be what you’re “hearing you say”. If you carefully read what I wrote, it quite clear that I’m not identifying why the liberals protested, again I’m sorry that I can’t help you with reading things in that aren’t there.
You can note whatever you want. You, like ANTIFA, jumped to a conclusion and started protesting without complete/accurate information?
Given the pictures of homeless people literally surrounded by trash, I guess it’s possible to get confused. It’s interesting that y’all aren’t more pissed off by the conditions in SF.
1. Did this group of ANTIFA just randomly wander by this clean up effort and start their attacks, or did they know in advance and plan?
2. In both cases, wouldn’t it make sense to ascertain the facts of the situation before protesting?
3. Once the ANTIFAs realized their mistake, did they join in and help with the clean up, or did they leave?
4. If they didn’t join in, why?
5. Can you acknowledge that a conservative organizer who travels the country clearing up trash from urban areas is engaging in a good thing and should be encouraged?
6. If a major city in the US has literal streets and sidewalks covered with literal human excrement, would it be accurate to refer to a place like that as an “excrement hole”?
Dan,
I’m just going to point out the obvious here, you’ve come onto this post and been pleasant and somewhat contrite, yet you’ve decided to turn that into issues with another topic in another post.
Since I know how seriously you take staying on topic at your blog, how about the same seriousness here?
My apologies. I do agree with the point of this post and I agree with the idea of seeking common ground.
My point was to bring up an object lesson having to do with the point of this post. That is, that we could find some common ground and be agreeable on a topic, rather than being divisive and arguing back and forth.
So far, I have apologized and found some common ground with you step in your way trying to extend more grace and not use curse words, which you find offensive. I've extended that Olive Branch. I was hoping to see that the Olive Branch would be extended back .
We have not, thus far, seen you seek to find any common ground with me... it appears to be one way, at least that's how it appears to me. I thought we could find some common ground on that topic and thus illustrate, at least to a small degree, the point of this post. That remains to be seen.
Again, I apologize for being off-topic. I was driving to be on topic with an illustration. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I'll withdraw.
You seem to have a strange idea of common ground. I apologize for pointing out where you are demonstrably factually wrong, and I’ve asked you multiple questions designed to go deeper. I’ve done these things politely and respectfully.
It almost seems like this whole apology thing isn’t so much a sincere acknowledgement of ares where you believe that you’ve acted poorly, as an attempt to get me to agree with you when you’re incorrect. I guess time will tell.
I am glad that you can acknowledge that it’s a good thing for a conservative activist to travel around the country and mobilize conservative volunteers to collect tons and tons of trash in cities where the local government can’t seem to manage that feat. I guess that’s a step in the right direction.
Using the illustration was not a problem, it’s when you started actually arguing the merits of the other post where you went astray. Again I know how important staying on topic is for you, it’s important enough that you delete comments you feel are off topic. I wouldn’t go to that extreme. I’d just ask that you bring that passion for staying on topic with you when you leave your blog.
To the point of this post, then, again, I'm hoping that we can turn a corner and find some common ground. But asking the Others to always be the one apologizing and accommodating your preferences and feelings and not meeting them in the other direction is not how we find common ground, it seems to me. My experience, sadly, has been that many conservatives don't want common ground, they want liberals to accommodate them and the common ground is mostly one way. Not really something I'm debating, just letting you know that this has been my experience.
Just something to consider, respectfully submitted.
That’s fascinating, first I’ve apologized to you multiple times when I’ve crossed lines, and edited or deleted things when I’ve been wrong. I’ve never had a problem doing so.
In this thread, you seem to be equating common ground with agreeing with you even though on things where you’re objectively, demonstrably mistaken.
If all your looking for is someone who’ll agree with you no matter what, then I’d question your definition of common ground. You seem to want some sort of quid pro quo, essentially a transactional interaction. If that’s what you want, I’m not the person who’s going to affirm your opinions even when the conflict with reality.
I’m sorry that you are so bereft of healthy relationships with people who disagree with you. It’s strange, I have a number of long term significant friendships with people who I disagree with on politics, yet we find common ground around Jesus. I hope you can discover these sorts of friendships also.
This is why respectful debate is so hard to come by:
"My experience, sadly, has been that many conservatives don't want common ground, they want liberals to accommodate them and the common ground is mostly one way."
The projection is strong with this one.
It must be acknowledged also that there is a chasm of difference between respecting an opponent and respecting the opponent's positions and opinions...which might be total crap. The respect comes in explaining why it's crap as well as the response to that explanation.
Truth and facts don't care about feelings. Constant reference to feelings is a ploy to distract from the superiority of one position over that of the person constantly referencing feelings. For example, I don't much care how a person feels if their behavior and/or lifestyle choices are the reason they suffer. If they're so attached to their choices, they will constantly express hurt feelings when they're expected to consider their own part in their suffering. Boo-hoo. The fact that their choices are whey they suffer must be acknowledged and addressed by them. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out.
I agree to a point. I think that it’s possible to engage in those sorts of disagreements in a way that is civil and respectful while also preserving friendships. I’m not sure that simply agreeing with someone who’s mistaken or wrong accomplishes anything.
If all your looking for is someone who’ll agree with you no matter what
Respectfully, no, of course I'm not. I am fine with disagreements. I've never suggested otherwise.
you seem to be equating common ground with agreeing with you even though on things where you’re objectively, demonstrably mistaken.
This is one of the problems. I am clearly speaking of facts and asking if we can agree on them. Further, I'm speaking on what is reasonable (it's reasonable to ask for support - a source - for stories, for instance) and what is reasonable, from a Golden Rule point of view.
We disagree about facts and what is reasonable, and that's one of the problems, it seems to me.
I’m sorry that you are so bereft of healthy relationships with people who disagree with you. It’s strange, I have a number of long term significant friendships with people who I disagree with on politics
Me, too. You'll have to remember, I come from conservative background and a conservative family. Of course, I have conservative people who disagree with me politically without us having hard feelings. I'm not sure why you would make this claim. That would be an example of me asking you to not make claims without having actual data that supports the claim.
This is one of the problems I see in Trump-era "conservatism," the willingness to make unsupported and non-factual claims. Of course, it has always been a problem and for all sides, but I suspect the data would should it's on the rise in Trump conservatives and those conservatives who defend Trump. It's part of the rise of these fake news memes (often begun by foreign/Russian operatives, if you can believe the news). I wonder if anyone has done research into this?
I certainly know anecdotally, I hardly go one day without seeing at least one and often multiple false/fake news memes from conservatives. And often times, if I bother to point it out, I'm met with hostility and nonsensical responses like, "Well, it's what I think is true..." or, what they view as the "olive branch" response, "We'll just have to agree to disagree..." even when we're talking about facts. Again, not looking for a response on that, just letting you know my actual experiences with conservatives.
"it's reasonable to ask for support - a source - for stories, for instance"
Given your many instances of presenting a verse or passage without adding the Book, Chapter and verse whence it comes, I'll just say you've got that plank thing going on again.
"This is one of the problems I see in Trump-era "conservatism," the willingness to make unsupported and non-factual claims."
Is this an example of a "fact" upon which we're to agree? This is rank projection and a case of seeing what you want to see.
"I certainly know anecdotally, I hardly go one day without seeing at least one and often multiple false/fake news memes from conservatives."
Sure you do.
In the case of this thread, we “disagree” on a “fact”, yet the factual reality is clearly and easily demonstrable, and that fact is that you chose to read a significant amount into what I actually said and react to your version, not mine.
Of course it’s reasonable to ask for support, although that should not apply selectively and simply declaring something “reality” isn’t a substitute for support.
Again, you’ve made claims that I’ve said certain things, yet you can’t support your claims. Since I know you can’t, I’ve chosen not to ask.
You “suspect the data” will support your claim. OK, let’s see the data to support your claim. Anecdotal stories from your sphere, don’t count.
Part of the problem with you bringing comments related to another post in to this thread is that it’s allowed you to throw out the terms “liberal” and “conservative” with those terms defined by you. You say “conservatives do this or say that”, but you don’t actually provide any specifics, quotes, or evidence to support your claims.
In my previous post, where most of this thread should be, I referred to a couple of specific “progressive christians” as examples of my point. You’ve chosen to throw out broad, vague, unsupported generalizations only a paragraph or two after you went on about how it’s reasonable to support your claims.
Well, you’ve got the opportunity to demonstrate how reasonable you’re going to be.
Art,
What’s interesting is that literally every time I open Twitter, I’m confronted with both “fake news” type comments from liberals, but also with some of the most vile, hateful, vitriol, you can imagine on a public forum virtually all directed at conservatives from liberals. The best and most consistent examples are Dana Loesch and CJ Pearson. But some on the left prefer not to be aware of these sorts of things, and can pretend that it’s not as prevalent as it is.
Michelle Malkin has posted many examples of the hate that has come her way. It's amazing to me she still reports boldly as she does. A testament to the strength of her character while her detractors give testimony to the lack of theirs.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-man-deliberately-rams-vehicle-into-gop-tent-full-of-volunteers-trump-responds?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
I saw this. There are all sorts of things like this that demonstrate the growing intolerance and violence of the left, while Pollyanna’s like Dan cling to the fantasies about the DFL being committed to pacifism and inclusion.
“Progressives: “This person doesn’t represent all progressives!”
Also progressives: “That illegally armed prohibited possessor who committed a heinous crime represents all gun owners!”
“I would also gladly apologize for being too harsh at times. It's hard to know where to draw the lines and I'm sure I err too far from grace, too often.”
Dan
“Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy.”
“Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?””
Dan, several weeks after the statement above.
The question is, “Is the second statement one where he’s engaged in an “err”, or is the first statement BS?”.
Perhaps it’s just confusing to determine if calling someone “rapeboy”, is crossing a line.
Since he doesn’t actually name the “rapists” that Art has defended, it’ hard to determine if the statement is actually true or not. I’ll simply point out that, given the absence of evidence, the claim is false on its face. Further, it’s misleading. It seems as if there is a defense of the “rapist” for the “rape”. Just because someone may have “raped” someone doesn’t mean that every other action they’ve engaged in is indefensible. Further, even a person accused of “rape” is entitled to a defense, it’s literally in the constitution.
It’ll be interesting to see if Dan’ll apologize or insist that his comments are an appropriate way of addressing a fellow believer.
Post a Comment