[Vision2020] answering g. crabtree

[Michael]

Gary Writes:

 

.As to why I refuse to come over to your way of thinking, here's the short
version, hundreds of apparently happy, easy to get along with Kirkers who,
for the most part, mind their own business vs. a couple dozen shrill
internet forum posters that includes two (count 'em two) disgruntled former
church members, several atheists and at least one sanctimonious, holier then
thou sky pilot wannabe. Even with the "new math" this story problem isn't
too difficult to cipher.

 

 

Me:

 

I'm usually disappointed in Gary's method, and I doubt it would help matters
if I exposited and critiqued this latest.  I should note again however, that
many of his points I agree with; and I think some of them Joe and others
would agree with too.  However, I did want to here note one seemingly very
large problem with Gary's "short version" argument: it is what we might call
a "category mistake."  Gary wants to compare those members of the class of
people who are vocal in criticizing Doug Wilson publicly with those members
of the class of people who comprise the entire membership of Christ Church.
It is not clear precisely how this argument is supposed to work, but the
rhetorical feel is unmistakable.  Gary doesn't like the few public critics,
but he suspects that he would like the hundreds of Christ Church members.
The problem is that this is not comparing apples to apples at all, and
ultimately misconstrues what many of us are even arguing for.  In fact, I
think I like the good majority of Christ Church members far more than Gary
Crabtree, and I'm actually one who knows them all personally.    If we were
to turn this point into a just rhetorical maneuver, we could try comparing
all those fine Christian and non-Christian people out there who agree with
my criticism of Christ Church with the membership of Christ Church. But even
this would be off base: the "threat" or "immorality" of the typical Christ
Church member, particularly those who "mind their own business" is simply
not the issue at all, and never has been the issue - particularly with me.
If we were to go this route, I doubt my stance would be jeopardized, as I
have firm evidence that there are hundreds of fine Christian people giving
their complete thumbs up to the nature of my public criticism of Doug
Wilson.  But I don't want to go there since it is not the point. 

 

The only way to begin making this kind of rhetorical maneuver fair would be
to compare Wilson's public critics with Wilson's public defenders.  If you
do this, Gary simply doesn't have a defensible position. We would only wish
that Wilson and his public defenders were merely "shrill" in the way they
responded; they dehumanize their opponents and insult them in ways that
Keely, Joe, and others would not imagine doing.  But even this is still a
bit off base, at least as far as my criticism is meant to be taken; this is
because I see the nature of my criticism largely "in house," within the pail
of Christian concern.  A Christian must hold a religious leader to higher
standards than the typical laymen, and he must even hold the typical laymen
to higher standards than the local non-Christians.  

 

In sum then, I do not see a concern expressed by Gary relevant at all to my
critical project (which would be similar to at least some of Joe's and
Keely's concern); and it is still not clear how it is relevant to the
criticism of others.  I think this will be my last answer to Crabtree, since
it does not appear he is interested in dealing directly with my position and
arguments (something I've noticed for the last five months); I'm also not
sure where he is ultimately headed with all this after accusing my writing
style as being "shrill." 

 

Yours,

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060625/b1a317e6/attachment.htm