ok, so — i’ve been asked to enter into a debate with a professional debater, on the subject he has spent his life developing debate-points about, using an approach (debate, that is) that is centrist to this debater’s worldview, and substantially less so to mine. and i’m being asked to enter into this debate in the most inhuman and non-relational of spaces: the internet.
what must you think i’m smokin’?
a few random, non-debatey, thoughts — first about this blog, and second about the “subject d’jour” (i’m only a handful of miles from france right now, so that somehow felt very appropriate)… OOH, i’ll even lay them out in numbered order, kinda like propositions! (because, of course, i DO still use propositions).
1. my blog space, as i said in my very first post back in april, has multiple purposes. but it’s primary purpose is a semi-accountable journalling space for me. a place for me to ruminate and dream and throw out ideas and log personal stuff, and –hey — even reason.
2. i do want my blog to be read, and am thrilled that anyone chooses to do so, and hope it is occasionally stirring the pot for those who do choose to read.
3. blogs like the str blog and the a-team blog exist for debate. that’s fine and good — it’s just not the purpose of this blog. that doesn’t mean i’m dodging you, brett. it means i am so not into this format as a place for you and i to “get into it”. dude, come to san diego, sit in my hot tub with me, stay at my house, meet my family. and we’ll talk. this very year i have had two formerly tense relationships move to warm and supportive because we sat down, talked, prayed together.
4. i warmly welcome comments on my blog — so comment all you want! i often respond to comments, but i’m trying to do so less when they are pulling me into debate.
5. it both annoys and humors me when people accuse me (or any of my friends in the emerging church) of having self-defeating logic because we: (pick one) don’t believe in reason, but use it to persuade people; don’t believe in any absolutes, save the one just stated; dismiss propositions, while using them liberally. i still believe in absolute truth (i believe we bring out “stuff” to it, but that’s another subject); i still use reason and propositions all the time (as is clear from this post)
6. but if you ask me to respond to paul’s “methodology” — well, i think it’s a stretch to call it a methodology. paul was brilliant in using all kinds of “methods”, relationally when appropriate, public-speaking when appropriate, propositions when appropriate. but when i’m asked to be ready in and out of season to give a reason for the hope i have — which is one of my favoriate passages, by the way — my mind does NOT go to my list of logical arguments and rational propositions. the REASON i have for hope is a person: christ; not a proposition. the reason i have for hope is a gorgeous story of truth — god’s truth. i’d rather tell it as a true-story than as an outline of propositions.
that about sums it up for today, from guernsey, UK. day three of the strep throat extraveganza — what was supposed to be a spiritual retreat, but has been three days of whincing when i swallow. but i can tell i’m slightly better today, and have HOPE (!) that i’ll have enough of a throat on thursday, friday and saturday to actually retreat.