my conversations with russetshadows

(in case he deletes them)

Conversation 2

Me

I need to stop having internet debates. It wears me out. By the time I actually get to a career where I get to have theological conversation, I'll be so jaded I won't be able to talk to anyone different than me. I need to save my youthful optimism for people on which it might actually make a difference.

Here are my debates, for the curious:
1) http://leeu.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2209363036&topic=2025&start=70
2) http://jenwhits.blogspot.com/2006/11/warning-im-sleepy-and-rambling.html / http://inrussetshadows.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-not-to-do-driving.html

RussetShadows

Even the ivy league citadels of communist-leftist intolerant totalitarianism are withering. You'll still get to obey the speech codes and fete all the various racial power nuts, but you may actually be confronted by non-leftist, non-pomo thinking. It won't be much, so thank your self-created relativistic God for that, but you're only delaying the inevitable.

Me

hey, how bout you leave me alone. i get it, you don't approve of my liberalism. no one is impressed by your name-calling. you're not challenging me, you're not entirely making sense. just move on.

RussetShadows

Jen -- if you link to my blog (as you did with your Xanga post), you will get a response. That's the way it goes on blogs.

Your liberalism is a byproduct of your wrong-headed theology. You've built your house on the sand and actually, fundamentally, I feel for you. You have nothing in truth and have created an elaborate word game to disguise the fact. Someday you will fall -- hard -- and it will hurt.

Me

by response, do you mean a spew of insults? that's sweet, really.

oh good god, pleeease, don't give me a sympathy line. it was unthinking submission to the kinds of truths you espouse that set me up for a fall. i guess if you need to believe that anything but your theology will inevitably lead to failure and misery, then i should be the one feeling for you. but don't worry, i'm still not quite condescending enough to assume i can sum up a whole person by filtering them through my personal categories, especially when all i know of them is a few words on a screen.

Russet Shadows

Jen -- You said you wanted me to leave you alone, and then you keep the fire going. You're off-topic again! *sigh*

They are attacks upon a worldview, and the concomitant characteristics that they breed. I would classify them actually as a "rebuke". I suspect that you understand what a rebuke is as opposed to a personal insult, so I won't belabor this point.

But to make it clear, if you feel injured, then I hereby apologize for communicating in that manner.

Now you say that you don't condescend to understand people through your own filters, but every human being does. Strangely, the denial of this is often belies its practice (cf. the mainstream press). I am extremely wary of people who claim to be beyond bias, beyond understanding people through their own filters, and other such "I am above it all" type language. I find your claim to be suspect. Indeed, your continued violent reactions to my words imply that you do in fact have some kind of filter that amplifies what I am saying, or at least makes it into a very personal issue.

Did I say that everyone who does not follow my (personal) theology will end up miserable and failed? No. I did say that one day your intellectualized, ahistorical, relativistic, postmodern understanding of God will let you down and leave you hurt, because you will find it to be a falsity. The big distinctions are between historicity and non-historicity, absolutism and relativism; if you think those concepts are my personal theology (and mine alone), I'm afraid that you are quite wrong.

Me

i'm off topic?? another of your criticisms that is completely lost on me. what was the topic supposed to be? not-talking?

i do recognize that i process everything through my own categories. i'm not the one claiming to possess all the absolutes, remember? do you think you skillfully pointing out another of my inconsistencies? nope, you just misunderstood. all i'm saying is, i recognize someone can radically disagree with me and still be content, for a lifetime even. i recognize you don't have to be postmodern to be happy. of course not! but your theology doesn't allow for the same sort of acknowledgement of limits, which is delusional really, and also, sad. ok, ok, i do pity you!

my "violent reaction" only indicates that i'm through trying to actually communicate. this is me unreservedly responding to your nonsense. you know, the same way you have been responding to my thoughts. i'm finally just letting myself mirror your insensitivity and, i can see why you like it so. it's therapeutic.

ok, so i get it. not everyone different than you will fail, but i will, because i'm somehow neglecting history???? HA! that's a good one. again, you somehow seem to think your ideas are rooted in history. i'm guessing you mean they span back to jesus himself, yes? that's a joke. your doctrine of biblical authority is less than a century old, doctrine of justification, five hundred years, max. your disdain for diversity isn't new, but neither is it productive.

and which is it? are your categories personal or "absolute?"

phew, that's a load off my mind. now for sweet, contented, clear-minded sleep. g'nite.

RussetShadows

Jen -- You are off-topic because your comments have nothing to do with this topic you're leaving a reply to.

You said: "do you think you skillfully pointing out another of my inconsistencies?"

I made no such claim.

You said: "All i'm saying is, i recognize someone can radically disagree with me and still be content, for a lifetime even."

I suspect that is because you hold very little (if anything) as an absolute. Therefore, it doesn't bother you when someone proposes something else. It's all quite the same, isn't it? Also, that's not exactly what you said earlier.

You said: "but your theology doesn't allow for the same sort of acknowledgement of limits, which is delusional really, and also, sad. ok, ok, i do pity you!"

My theology recognizes certain absolutes, absent which, people will not see God. I think that's a fair summary of what I'm saying.

You said: "my 'violent reaction' only indicates that i'm through trying to actually communicate."

You said: "i'm finally just letting myself mirror your insensitivity and, i can see why you like it so. it's therapeutic."

I intended it as a wake-up call. You can accuse me of being insensitive, but I suspect that sensitivity to you means treading so lightly and never confronting someone about what they believe.

You said: "again, you somehow seem to think your ideas are rooted in history. i'm guessing you mean they span back to jesus himself, yes? that's a joke. your doctrine of biblical authority is less than a century old, doctrine of justification, five hundred years, max. your disdain for diversity isn't new, but neither is it productive."

I thought I would pin your relativism sooner or later and there it is.

What else is there to say? You are self-condemned.

From here on out, you will stay on topic on my blog, or your comments will be deleted. That's both civil and fair.

Me

"My theology recognizes certain absolutes, absent which, people will not see God. I think that's a fair summary of what I'm saying. "

i like this. when you summarize your position this way, it sounds reasonable.

i don't think i need a wake-up call, and if i did, your comments would be the last thing to give me one. for a wake-up call to be effective, it needs to be given by someone who has a pre-established relationship with me, where mutual admiration and respect are already present.

sensitivity is not about treading lightly; it's about recognizing another person's intelligence and ability to come to rational conclusions based on the experiences and evidence before them. if this sort of respect is felt, one can say devistatingly contrary things without offending, and thus, conversations can actually be productive. it's really hard to show this sort of respect in exclusively written communication, which is why i tend to tip-toe online (although i'm obviously past that with you). also, choosing not to start a conversation by offering a moral condemnation of your opponent's position is usually conducive to healthy dialogue. you can call someone "condemned," but it's an empty accusation if you haven't given convincing and substantial reasons the person is wrong. you probably feel you've done this. as i've already stated, i think you've just given rhetoric. and also, we disagree about which fundamental items deserve condemnation.

just because you, for whatever reason, don't think the things you're saying are personal attacks and insults, that doesn't mean they aren't. i'm more and more amazed at christians' ability to make sweeping condemnations and flippantly dismiss other worldviews, and somehow think they're thus offering a service, doling out wake up calls, even acting in love. before all else, love is trying to understand another.

and lastly, i'm sorry if my comments were unwanted, or perceived as "comment-spamming." i had no idea this was an issue until i read your next post. in the xanga world, you have back and forth dialogue by posting replies to comments on the other person's blog. next time you say cryptic, condemning and unwelcome things on my own blogs, i'll just reply there. problem solved. no need to delete anything.

Conversation 1

RussetShadows

It sounds like you spend your time being uncertain about everything. Congratulations! You've passed the first test in being just the dhimmified psuedo-Christian beloved by both the oncoming Islamic armada and the relentless engines of political correctness.

If dogmatic theology is a comfortable numbness, what then the straitjacket of moral relativism, that keeps time in merely finding new oddities to embrace and accept? It is the designer drug which attempts to reconcile the individual to a thousand rebellions and in so doing, leaves the holder incapable of holding to anything at all. But it is not void of effect.

It leaves behind a numbness and a sense of moral superiority (ironically enough). That is the reason why you can't stand people who are not as fractured as yourself -- you are better than they.

It is so commonplace that it's scriptable. The Nietzchean supermen find solace in their acceptance of all the trifling traits of the unwashed masses, rising above their petty theologies and words, washing them away with a few chosen words of a verbal magic wand, and becomes a law and an idol to themselves.

Me

Dear Mr. Shadows -

It sounds like you've got me pegged. Well done. Sorry if I'm too predictably postmodern for you. I'm sure if I took a gander at your blog, it'd feel nauseatingly conservative to me. That's fine.

I feel like most things I could say in response would just be attempts to defend my personal integrity and credibility, and I'm not really interested in that.

But I'll say this: I am much more satisfied with the truth I've found than with the truth I used to cling to. I am thankful that I've taken the risk of listening to different perspectives without assuming they're wrong from the start. It has expanded my world, and it has helped me to recognize that the reason there are differences in the world isn't because everyone else is wrong, or that they haven't read John Piper yet. It's because truth is, by its nature, worthless unless embedded in the ins and outs of human experience, which varies so vastly that we'll never all see the same. That's why you find it more reasonable to believe in absolutes and dogmatic theology: because your reason and experience tell you it makes more sense. Same with me for my perspective. Thank goodness we have a Bible that recognizes this, and includes centuries of dissenting voices. If only our churches could be so inclusive.

Don't you think you're better than me because you like dogmatics and I'm sickeningly postmodern? Is there a problem with admitting that we've inhabited our perspectives for a reason, that we think our own is more satisfying than the others we've seen, which sometimes results in a bit of arrogance from time to time?

This is a clumsy response, but what I'm saying is: from where you're standing, all you see is the weakneses is my perspective, and they are not the whole story. Everything looks laughable when reduced to a caricature. And it's a shame that you miss out on the beauty of plurality just because you won't give it a close look.

(Not that I know how close you've looked at it, but by your sweeping dismissals, I can only assume ignorance.)

RussetShadows

It is only necessary to state that by diluting the Bible's clear teachings into "do as thou wilt", you have effectively turned wine into water. (Accepting various heresies and blasphemies as equally valid makes the truth into really nothing at all.) I am at a loss as to how that is transformative or redemptive, except as ego support to mental gymnasts. What power has it to save?

Random Onlooker #1

What the hell is with the Jen?

Sheesh. Laugh at the joke, babe.

RussetShadows

She's not happy because I stopped by her blog and pointed out that you can't simultaneously accept the whole universe of trendy theology and "Jesus my way" thinking, and then claim that it makes any coherent sense as a whole. It's a game a lot of folks play, pretending that it makes them appear open-minded, magnanimous, and non-judgmental. It does, the same way a clown is perceived as being non-threatening!

Random Onlooker #2

Morning, RS!
Kind of like that video clip from ChristianWorldView. "Sloppy agape", pc, multi-culti, anything goes, theology with NO FIRM FOUNDATION. It's like the man who built his house on the sand, the storms WILL come, but that flimsy edifice WILL fall, and great WILL be the destruction thereof!
Sorry Jen, I will build on a Solid Rock and when the storms of life WILL hit(and have)I WILL still stand!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!

tmw

Random Onlooker #3

Jen,

Before launching into a long winded diatribe you could have explained the situation to those who know nothing about your beef with RS.

Just like life, blogging is three dimensional...

My favorite buzzwords:

"Conservative" (ewwww... yuck, like gag me with a latte)

"Dogmatic theology" (it must be wrong, its got the word dog in it)

"Dissenting voices" (you cant argue with the sacred right of dissent)

"Arrogance" (anyone that displays any faith or self-confidence and is not racked by the guilt of what their ancestors might have done hundreds of years ago)

"Plurality" (the all encompossing feel good word of our generation. it includes terrorists, Leftists and everyone except for conservatives [see above])

"Ignorance" (anyone who disagrees with you)

Random Onlooker #4

The post is hilarious.

The discussion kind of ruins the mood.

As long as the mood is ruined, here's my input.

Mal 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I do not change..."

Me

Whoops! I missed your response, my bad.

Sorry, freedomnow, I wasn't really intending to start up a conversation. I just responded to this guy on my blog, and I thought I'd post my comment over here for his convenience. If you want to know the conversation, hop on over to my blog.

Yes, you've made a lovely list of buzzwords. Very funny. I'm probably not as cliche and retarded as you think I am.

Russet - I don't think the Bible has a handful of "clear teachings." That's the problem. It would be nice if it did. Then, I could agree with you. But unfortunately, I find it to be just as aware of and responsive to the variability and contingency of everyday life as the postmoderns. Go to Africa, go to Latin America, go to Alabama, go to New York, and you will find very different people who have very different ideas about what the "clear teachings" of the Bible are, and of what is true and right and morally obligatory.

Did I not say something in my response about how I hate that the ideas and truths I've come to happen to be trendy, but I'm not going to refuse what I think is true just because it's popular? I don't think I said that, but I meant to. You can laugh, but I am just as much trying to do and live by what is true and right and good as you are. Sorry if that means I identify myself with the same people who sit in coffee shops, wearing tortoise shell glasses and listening to their iPods, but it is wear I find myself.

I don't know if my worldview makes much coherent sense on the whole. It seems to to me, but obviously not to you. But I think it makes much more sense of the magnitude of difference found in the Bible, across time and around the world.

Brooke - Please do not call me babe.

Me - Response to Random Onlooker #2

merry widow - wouldn't it be a shame if you found in the end that that solid rock you stand on is in fact only sandstone? it is modern evangelicalism that is passing away.

Russet Shadows

Jen: "I don't know if my worldview makes much coherent sense on the whole."

If so, then you espouse something which makes sense only to you. By definition, that is not a shared faith, but it is part and parcel of the self-congratulatory mindset whose prime purpose is to make the holder feel good.

Again, this is the easy road to take, because it looks at differences and rather than bothering with orthodoxy, it simply says, "All viewpoints are valid." It is quite similar to telling children that anything they put in their mouths is good for them.

Jen: "...but I am just as much trying to do and live by what is right as you are."

I'm certain that you are, because you have redefined "right" to mean a morally ambiguous (and probably unknowable) concept. Naturally, anything that you try gets you towards that goal. Am I laughing? I am laughing at the concept, because it's a kind of theology-by-parlor tricks or a shell game for the intellectual set. Again, what power does such a faith have to save?

It's a moral paralysis, which frees you from any sort of evangelism (for doubtless God cannot be known well enough to speak of Him) or moral obligation. It's comfortable. It's easy. It's the perfect out.

RussetShadows - Response to Random Onlooker #2

TMW: See, she goes so far as to claim that Jesus Himself is but sandstone. One of the fun parts of debating emergent church folks is that they don't have a coherent world view, and they contradict themselves in the course of explaining their concepts. Now, let's see how she explains how Jesus is in fact, not our bedrock.

As for "modern evangelicism is fading away", that is a case of circular reasoning if not more word game-playing. Define "modern" as you wish and then claim that your own definition of it is fading away.

It is mental masturbation with no power to save.

Me

I feel like all you're giving me is rhetoric, so I'm pretty sure this conversation will get us nowhere. Most of your posts leave me more confused than anything else. I probably just have a smaller mind. That's ok.

Like here: "As for "modern evangelicism is fading away", that is a case of circular reasoning if not more word game-playing. Define "modern" as you wish and then claim that your own definition of it is fading away."

I think you feel like you've really handed me a zinger here, but I have no idea what your critique is. You've just called it "word game-playing," but I don't know why.

When did I say that Jesus is sandstone? That is not what I meant. I meant that the modern evangelical worldview, that way of understanding the Bible, that set of goods and values is sandstone and fading away. Sorry if that terminology offends you somehow. Fine, your definition of orthodoxy, whatever you want to call it, is fading away. You'd like to think it has been around since Jesus' day, because that would make you feel like it was permanent and universal, but it hasn't. It's a peculiar fallout of the church's attempt to counter post-Enlightenment thinking, and the world is moving past it.

I think it's strange that you think my position is "easy." Your position seems to me to be the simpler and easier one, perhaps because it's the place I've come from, the place I used to live where I felt safe and assured. It is a far more difficult thing for me to recognize my own limitations and admit that someone besides me might be right. That doesn't mean everyone's right! You, for instance, I don't think you are right.

My last paragraph wasn't saying that my worldview is incoherent. It said "eh, maybe it is," since you seem to think so, somehow. I don't think it is. As I said, I think it makes much more sense of the world than your orthodoxy does. Your orthodoxy says "we are the only holders of the truth," and I think that is demonstrably false. Sorry.