Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Effective Antagonism

There are times we want to discuss a particular subject, teaching, or event in order to learn more about it. Sometimes we want to enter into a dialogue to understand the other person’s point of view, and sometimes we want to talk it over in order to correct or counter what we perceive to be an error in thinking. These are all legitimate aims.

Sometimes we are so convinced of the rightness of our own position that we run roughshod over those that disagree with us. I have seen pastors of many years do this as well as the exuberant young convert who is aflame with passion for his new-found views. Unfortunately, we often do great harm to the cause of God and truth by failing to take into consideration the person with whom we are contending. Next to the Bible, every contender for the truth should be thoroughly familiar with the principals of inter-personal relationships enumerated in How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie. How we pursue our objective will either gain us a hearing or a dismissal as just another troublemaker. Carnegie’s book will help to make it the former rather than the later.

I am not afraid of those with opposing viewpoints nor am I always opposed to having those views expressed in this blog. I, being human, am not perfect and therefore do not have perfect understanding. There are times I need to be corrected. One gentleman who did that in a humble approach was Russell Earl Kelly, PhD, Author of Should the Church Teach Tithing? You can read his comments at http://hermeneutical.blogspot.com/2007/09/honor-lord-with-your-substance.html.

Anyone can write a blog (and I am proof of that) and unless you know that person personally or by reputation you have no idea if he even knows what he is talking about. As a blogger, I have to do my best to establish and hold a readership. Proper use of language, vocabulary, punctuation, and correct spelling go a long way in giving me credibility. But more than that, I have to know what I am talking about. This holds true for those that want to comment on my posts as well. Let me give you a case in point.

The man that wrote in opposition to my article on the Trinity said, “Sorry, but your Trinitarian belief is incorrect. If you will check the Greek, you will find that the Pronoun used when referring to the Holy Spirit is neutral. The Holy spirit [sic] is the power of God. The bible uses the pronoun 'He' when referring to the Holy Spirit and it should be correctly rendered ‘It’. Just check the Greek.”

Any first-year Greek student will chortle upon reading that. “Just check the Greek,” — like the man is a Greek scholar. This man either has not the slightest exposure to the structure of Greek or is suffering from an advanced case of Alzheimer’s. Greek, along with many other languages, has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. “Spirit” is neuter in gender, not neutral. The word “spirit” may be translated, depending on context, as “wind” or “breath” as well as “spirit.” It does not follow that because spirit is a neuter word that the object represented by the word is. One of the words used in the New Testament for child is tekna (τεκνα). Tekna is also a neuter word. Sometimes it refers to a female and at other times to a male child. No linguist would translate an antecedent or subsequent pronoun referring to tekna as “it.” Checking the Greek has to go beyond a quick reference to Strong’s concordance. By the way, there are also Greek masculine words with feminine endings. At any rate, the Bible translators are correct in assigning an English masculine pronoun to references to the Holy Spirit. This we will, the Lord enabling, show in a future post. If you don’t know Greek don’t use it in an argument. If you don’t know what you are talking about it is better to not say anything than to show your ignorance to the whole world.



Monday, July 27, 2009

Handling Antagonists

How can you tell if someone is interested in discussing a difference of opinion or just wants to dump his or her views on you? How can you tell if a person is truly interested in learning or is entering the discussion as a teacher, a know-it-all? More than that, how does one deal with such a person?

I received two responses from the same individual to a blog article I had written some time back on the basis of the Trinitarian belief. The first of these started with, “Sorry, but your Trinitarian belief is incorrect.” Not much to discuss, is there? Judgment has been passed. I (or at least my understanding of the subject) has been tried, condemned, and declared anathema. What do I say, “Is too”? Mr. Obdurate isn’t going to listen. His mind is made up. I’m wrong and that’s all there is to it.

Can this person enter into a civil and gentlemanly discussion at this stage of the game? I do not think so. He has thrown down a gauntlet and is daring me to pick it up. He is picking a fight rather than looking for light and for a reasonable answer. It is his prerogative to not believe what I have written. A better course of action would have been to ask me to provide additional support for my belief in the Trinity. Then we could enter into a discussion of the pros and cons of our respective positions. But he did not do that. He just spoke ex cathedra and declared me to be in error.

What is my response to be? I guess I could answer in kind, but that would shed no light and only generate ill feelings. I could respond to his reasoning with logical counterpoints but that would probably be met with arms akimbo and an equally closed mind. And I could ignore him. I could do a combination of these responses but that would be counterproductive.

The one thing I will not do is post his thoughts on this blog. Why not? Many blogs will allow just about anyone to say anything, pro or con. This particular blog does not fall under that category. I am not afraid of opposing viewpoints and have allowed some readers to post views differing from what I believe. The purpose of this blog is not to allow just anyone to vent or push his or her own understanding of the Word of God, but to (as much as is humanly possible) present a clear and orthodox understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine. This man’s views are unorthodox and from an historic Christian perspective, heretical.

What I will do is to present portions of his response and show the weakness(es) in his thinking. That way, those interested in having their convictions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity made more concrete will also have more knowledge to answer those whom you may encounter that think like this man or are leaning toward his views. My antagonist is welcome to read my posts and learn why the Church has insisted that orthodoxy include belief in the Trinity. He is also free to continue to disagree. He is free to discuss, to offer remonstrances, or to ignore me. He is not free, in this forum, to push his present views.