An Obama Campaign for Marriage
by Steve Watters on 02/20/2009 at 12:03 PM
The Obama administration is funding a $5 million campaign holding up the value of marriage. An article in USA Today offers some details:
Research suggests a bevy of benefits for those who marry, including better health, greater wealth and more happiness for the couple, and improved well-being for children.
Some say the government has no business using tax dollars to promote marriage. But others say the campaign is just like those conducted by other federal agencies to encourage the use of seat belts and discourage drug use, smoking and drunken driving.
With ads on social networking sites Facebook and MySpace, videos on YouTube, spots on radio talk shows, ads in magazines and public transportation and a new website (TwoOfUs.org), creators say the aim is to start a national conversation about marriage.
To determine how to shape the media campaign, The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, commissioned a research company called TRU to get insights on the 18-to-30 age group. In their online surveys, they found:
•14% express strong sentiments against marriage.
•22% aren't ready but say they eventually plan to wed.
•23% have a practical view of marital unions and often live together first.
•19% are enmeshed in the magic of love.
•22% have a strong belief in the institution of marriage.
Numerous quotes in the USA Today article and the comments after the article appear to come from that 14% who have strong sentiments against marriage as well as the 23% who often live together first. They say the government shouldn't spend tax dollars to encourage marriage. "This is 2009," writes one commenter, "and marriage is a bad idea. Why are so many people clinging to a provincial idea that simply doesn't make sense?"
The reality, however, is that many people who think marriage is a bad idea still end up having children at some point -- especially considering that half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Those children are statistically more likely to face financial and wellbeing disadvantages. Additionally, some of those children have needs that taxpayers end up absorbing. Those social costs dwarf the $5 million that has been given to this marriage campaign. What's wrong with the Obama administration spending a little money to encourage couples to commit to the kind of relationship that has proven to best for children?
1. Brian said the following at 12:27 PM on Feb 20:
1
Maybe the government is realizing the families are the foundation of a society? That would be a welcome sign, though $5 million is a pittance compared to the million of dollars authorized by Obama to fund pro-abortion organizations.
P.S. You should have had Ted post this positive store about Obama just to mess with people's heads ;-)
2. brx said the following at 12:47 PM on Feb 20:
2
Wow! Even if it doesn't produce more healthy marriages, this is at least a brilliant PR move to win more support from conservatives.
Sorry, I'm skeptical; I would buy in more if I saw some kind of significant, results based incentives for the campaign. I'm thinking 5M$ isn't much... what's the Focus budget?
Grace, peace, hope & prayer!
3. Stephanie said the following at 12:47 PM on Feb 20:
3
Wow! I have to congratulate Steve and Boundless for pointing to something that the Obama Administration is doing that it finds to be positive. I kept waiting for the "But they aren't doing so and so ..." part of the article and was shocked when it wasn't there.
This is a step in the right direction - the more even-handed and fair the discussions of the current administration become (pointing out BOTH positives and negatives), the more hope I have that we can engage in spirit filled, instructive, substantive discussions that don't disintegrate into negativity and name-calling, and more importantly, are salt and light to those who are not Christians and may be reading this website. I appreciate this.
4. keightie said the following at 1:05 PM on Feb 20:
4
I feel like...all the information on the website can be found on Focus on the Family, except that TwoOfUs.org has extracted every explicit mention of God, so as to legitimize the use of government funds. At least there is no section as of yet on the website for gay married people! I was pleasantly surprised by that!
Still...the money could be better spent elsewhere...we already have resources like FoTF that Obama could point people to. It's mostly the same kind of people who will read both websites.
5. (The Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 1:17 PM on Feb 20:
5
If it's an idea from Obama, I am in favour of it 100%- everything he does is perfect and I will never disagree with him.
Okay, kidding. But this actually is a great plan that will hopefully produce fruit. And I'm amazed that Boundless, for once, did not take a critical view of the President.
6. obewan said the following at 1:18 PM on Feb 20:
6
I can't believe my eyes. A positive Boundless post on Obama. Hopefully he will do more things right and we will see more posts like this one. $5M may be a small investment, but if it results in fewer welfare queens it will be money well spent.
7. elaine said the following at 1:23 PM on Feb 20:
7
Nothing is wrong with it. As it is coming from a man (Obama) who enjoys being married with a wife and children. I'm not an american but this man and his wife really enjoy being together than the other presidents who were before them. He wants other young persons to enjoy this.
8. The G said the following at 1:33 PM on Feb 20:
8
But what sort of marriage do they have in mind? "Traditional" or something else? Is this a ploy to integrate unorthodox notions of unions into the mainstream understanding of marriage? I was surprised to see a bride and groom on top of the wedding cake in the image.
The last place I'm looking for support of family and marriage is the government -sadly. But that's being realistic.
9. Adam said the following at 1:52 PM on Feb 20:
9
We have a winner!!!!! Congrats to Steve on posting the first positive Obama posting!
Do you suppose we could get Ted to write the one about how Obama doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine? I would think that topic would be a big one considering how much FOTF deals in radio. And it would be beating Citizenlink to the punch! Think about it...
10. Dan said the following at 1:54 PM on Feb 20:
10
This great news isn't news at all. it is NOT the Obama people who are launching the public relations campaign promoting the value of marriage. It is the Healthy Marriage Resource Center funded by Congress during the Bush Administration in 2006 without any support from Democrats. The Dems in the House and Senate have spoken openly about cutting the small $100 million a year in marriage education funding. Or they may alter it by rebranding it as "Relationship Education" and make all the current grantees add a large job training component to their work. The sad think is that there is not a single voice by Democrats in the House or Senate in support of continued Federal funding of marriage education programs. We must help the Dems find their voice on this critical issue.
11. Adam said the following at 2:07 PM on Feb 20:
11
I guess I need to rant a little. Government shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to fund little pet projects - whether it be for Bridges to Nowhere or abortions overseas, or marriage promotion here. And we definitely shouldn't be bailing out the person who decided to buy too much house for their salary. It just punishes all of us who are being responsible.
I hope this $5M causes a lot of people to think and yields positive results. I hope that many people do get married as a result of it and maybe even reduce reliance on the government for support.
I really hate all the pork, but I suppose I won't complain as much about this type of pork.
12. Kari said the following at 2:13 PM on Feb 20:
12
I am sad that people don't want marriage--it is one thing when unbelievers hate it or could care less about it, but eventually their attitude becomes the previaling pop-culture norm and it DOES influence believing men and women negativly.
I sometimes even find myself in ungodly fear of marriage, and I am someone whose biggest goal in life is to someday be a good wife.
Well Dan, I assume you are right, and if so, it is not terribly nice for Obama's administration to take credit for something he didn't help create or fund.
I suppose we could give him credit for not having the marriage campaign funds secretly siphoned off for use elsewhere....like in family "planning" clinics... maybe THAT'S what Obama thinks Planned Parenthood does--they help people plan families through encouraging marriage! So that is why he is so eager to fund them! It all makes sense now! (Maybe that was too "snarky"?)
13. Kyra said the following at 4:55 PM on Feb 20:
13
I think it is a great idea. I'm a single mom who has had to take advantage of partial government assistance due to my inability to work full time as well as a total lack of child support. My son has many medical issues and is often in and out of the hospital, which makes it very difficult to hold down job commitments.
Not a day goes by that I don't think about other single moms younger and less educated than myself, who have to depend on the government for needs that should be provided by absent husbands. Not a day goes by that I don't think about my numerous peers who "cohabitate" for years and then "end up" pregnant. They often split, not always amicably, and even those educated single mothers often end up needing some sort of financial assistance in the form of welfare, Medicaid, food stamps etc. I am in wonderment that these types of "trial marriages" continue to proliferate our culture when the damage they do is so obvious even from a statistical standpoint.
Practically speaking, it seems to me that an investment in marriage education would actually SAVE the government money in the long run, because it would teach fathers to begin taking responsibility for their own children (novel idea...)
I also get annoyed by the apparent viewpoint of many people that it is impossible for a person to be sincere about family values issues unless he/she is a conservative Republican. Why do conservatives feel they have the market cornered on this issue? Last time I checked, President Obama is a husband who has been married for over ten years and is also the father of two children. Sounds like a family to me! Why is it that even if liberals tout an idea that agrees with conservatives, they see it as some sort of political ploy? Sounds like a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't"
14. BDB said the following at 5:26 PM on Feb 20:
14
Hopefully when these ads start showing up on facebook I can "thumbs up" them and try to block some of the more annoying ads.
15. Cassandra said the following at 6:33 PM on Feb 20:
15
Dan #10 "Government shouldn't be spending billions of dollars to fund little pet projects - whether it be for Bridges to Nowhere or abortions overseas, or marriage promotion here."
I agree. This feels a little Orwellian to me. Or Huxleyan... except that we wouldn't be allowed to be married but would be encouraged to participate in group orgies instead. Same principle, though, with the government telling us what's best for us. Even though in this case it's something I agree with, marriage, I don't like the trend I see the government going in.
16. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:28 PM on Feb 20:
16
Kyra (#13): it's really quite simple: leftists want other people to be dependent on the government so they have a reliable voting block. But they know very well that conservative lifestyles are better, so often choose them for their own families. Leftists are elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others. For more examples, see Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer.
To apply it to the above, Obama is happy to extend welfare which has already wrecked black families more than slavery or Jim Crow laws ever could, because welfare recipients vote Debtocrat. But he wants an intact family for his own girls. He opposes school vouchers, that would allow poor families to escape atrocious government schools, but chose the best school money can buy for his own daughters. Obama likes to spread other people's wealth around, but was extremely stingy with his own wealth. Hillary is infamous for "It takes a village to raise a child", but raised her own daughter strictly and conservatively.
Other liberal hypocrites include global warm-mongers who travel in private jets (Al Gore's producer Laurie David and many other celebutards), pro-union politicians who hire only non-union labour for their private jobs (Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader), high tax advocates with their own fortunes sheltered in offshore tax havens (Teddy Kennedy and George Soros), denouncers of alleged American racism who hire hardly any black people themselves (Mike Moore), supporters of minimum wage laws who are miserly and to their own staff and where possible hire labour in Canada where it's cheaper (Barbra Streisand).
17. Jethro said the following at 8:56 PM on Feb 20:
17
Two things:
First, given that conservatives constantly bicker about government spending, I can't see why you're not exercising consistency and complaining about this too.
Second, all these obvious and tangible benefits of marriage make me wonder why gay marriage is so vehemently opposed...
18. Beckie said the following at 10:16 PM on Feb 20:
18
President Obama has said repeatedly that he cannot accept the term gay "marriage" because of his religious beliefs. He's proposing a civil union for the sake of civil rights... somehow I don't see "civil union" fitting neatly into an initiative targeted at marriage... however, I'm also the sort of person who believes words have meaning.
Did anyone hear the man's Father's day speech? He took that opportunity to call African-American men to greater responsibility to their families. His support for marriage isn't a new thing- seriously, look at Michelle Obama. How could any guy married to her not be pro-marriage?
Kari, #12, given that I have friends who have for years used Planned Parenthood as their primary healthcare provider (young broke students don't have much of a choice sometimes) I definitely don't think they're a bad organization.
19. Brian said the following at 7:11 AM on Feb 21:
19
Dr. Sarfati,
You make some excellent points in your post, and I agree with most of them. However I still wonder why a person of your education has not learned that the tactful representation of the truth is much more effective. I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from using slurs ("debtocrat", "celebutards") that degrades other people and puts them in groups. It reduces the effectiveness of your arguments and introduces personal insults to a debate about ideas. A good rule I've heard about blog commenting is that you shouldn't use any language you wouldn't use in person with someone with whom you disagree. Or another rule would be to use the same language in your comments that you would use in a professional email or paper.
Can any left-leaning commenter confirm what I'm saying? Are you less likely to lend credence to his arguments when he uses such slurs?
Again, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I feel that sometimes it detracts from the cordial discourse we seek here on Boundless.
Respectfully,
Brian
20. Matt said the following at 10:00 AM on Feb 21:
20
#16 and #19,
Dr. Sarfati,
I agree with Brian - your use of faintly veiled insults, blanket statements, and grasping at straws destroy any credibility that your arguments may have. You stated that "Leftists are elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others", but I am sure that you would probably be angry if I made the statement that "Conservatives are rednecks who believe that rules don't apply to them because they are white Americans".(*) Both statements are inflammatory, stereotypical, and wrong!
In regards to the actual post, thank you, Steve, for giving us a post that isn't a shot at Obama. I hope that we all can agree to support Obama despite our differences because we have been commanded to do so.
Romans 13:1-7:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
-Matt
(*) Please note that I do not believe either of these statements - I am just using them as examples.
21. farmer Tom said the following at 10:44 AM on Feb 21:
21
Or in other words, since I really don't like the Jews all that much, I consider what the Nazi's did, really just doing the world a favor.
Killing babies is ok, cause they also give out free health care to women.
The KKK helps widows and orphans, so all in all they are doing the Lords work.
I don't mind eating lunch with cannibals, as long as I'm not on the menu.
I've run out of absurdities to demonstrate the absurdity of that comment.
aaarrrrggggghhhhhhh I think I will go away for a while before I blow a gasket. Some of you people are intellectually and morally bankrupt.
22. farmer Tom said the following at 10:57 AM on Feb 21:
22
19. Brian said,
You obviously hang out with effeminate people pleasers who don't have the spine to speak the truth to your face.
I personally refer to the Repugnant and the Demoncrat parties in public constantly. To do otherwise would suggest I actually have respect for either of those organizations. They both have sold their soul to the devil for the power of government.
You'll grow up eventually.
quote Winston Churchill,
Winston Churchill
23. Onely said the following at 11:58 AM on Feb 21:
23
Brian,
Regarding your response to Sartafi:
I am a left-leaning commentator who stumbled upon this site. I appreciate your explaining to Sartafi that his discussion style is not only inappropriate, but drives his readers away. I stopped reading him in paragraph one and was wondering if he composed it while wearing a tinfoil hat. And yes, I would say that in person to him given the opportunity. Thank you for supporting a mature, respectful discussion.
Also, I disagree with this discussion's focus on marriage as a panaceaea for social ills. It's not--it's an artifical construct whose supposed benefits could also be acquired by opening our minds to fresh ways of structuring society so that both singles and marrieds receive equivalent support from the state and society. People support each other through myriad kinds of relationships, and some of the strongest bonds may not be those between spouses. We need to respect and encourage those relationships as well. The pro-marriage ad campaign will distract from this greater need.
--Christina at Onely
24. Onely said the following at 12:00 PM on Feb 21:
24
I read that the Bush administration actually started this campaign (shocker), and the Obama campaign may or may not continue it.
--CC
25. Jethro said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 21:
25
Dr Sarfati,
It's very fortunate that no-one on the right is a hypocrite, isn't it?
I'm sure that if someone chose to describe fundamentalist Christians as closet homosexuals with meth habits (think Ted Haggard) you would be up in arms.
But that's different. Right?
26. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:04 PM on Feb 21:
26
Jethro (#17): two things in return:
1. This conservative does object to such government spending. The answer is for the Federal Government to stick to its enumerated powers as per the Constitution.
2. Why do lefties usually despise marriage—except among homosexuals?
Beckie (#18): check the White House official website to see how ardently Commissar Obamov supports the pro-homosexual agenda, including "Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage". Lefty Evanjellyfish fell for his lies about opposing gay "marriage".
Obamov also wants "Hate crime" acts (as opposed to "love crime" no doubt) after the mendacious propaganda surrounding Matthew Shepard (which actually had nothing to do with "homophobia"), but of course they wouldn't cover hate against Christianity as per the Catholic mother-of-four Mary Stachowitz murdered by a homosexual.
Brian (#19): thanx, points noted. I might point out that Jesus Himself used the challenge-riposte method. Also, I am counteracting the long-established leftist tendency to try to define the terms of the debate. E.g. they support "war on poverty", while their opponents of bloated welfare bureaucracies "lack compassion".
27. Dr. Ransom said the following at 8:04 PM on Feb 21:
27
Brian (no. 19) has worded his constructive criticism perfectly. Just a few changes in Dr. Sarfati's style, to remove the name-calling and over-generalizing, would go a long way toward making the truth of the arguments even more poignant.
Dr. Sarfati, I would agree with you that in some situations, even Coulter-esque invective can be entertaining. But coming from a Christ-follower, the juvenile verbiage seems unnecessary. And I would even more strongly suggest that it is also un-Christlike.
Sir, I greatly respect your work for the apologetics and Scripture defense cause, but is a more-powerful argument, and furthermore Scriptural, to "speak the truth in love"?
28. BDB said the following at 10:51 PM on Feb 21:
28
Hmmm...looks like it's time for a whippin'...
Others have addressed other facets of Dr. Sarfati's comments, so I'd like to make three observations:
First, the tone of many of Dr. Safarti's comments is "dismissive." This tone is present in the demeanor of many of the conservative talk-show hosts in the U.S. They wasted too much time ridiculing their opponents, rather than engaging their ideas. The result is the widespread perception that Republicans in general, and religious conservatives in particular, are out of touch with the concerns of normal Americans. The guy who achieved his policy objectives was Bono being respectful, not the ones screaming about Bill Ayers. Being dismissive is a failed approach.
Second, the graduate school I went to expected competing views to be discussed respecfully. I'm surprised that your dissertation committee didn't pin your ears to the wall. Perhaps I attended a more demanding school.
Finally, the Office of the Presidency of the United States deserves to be treated with respect. While I will likely disagree with President Obama on a number of policy issues, he is President Obama; a Kiwi doesn't have standing to use terms like Obamanov.
29. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:22 PM on Feb 21:
29
Matt and Jethro: yes, there are hypocrites on the right, but as Peter Schweitzer points out in Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, when conservatives betray their publicly stated principles, they harm themselves and their families, showing up exactly why conservative principles are good. But liberal hypocrisy shows how liberalism itself is unworkable, and merely oppresses the poor and powerless.
Haggard is a case in point. As our article The Haggard tragedy: ‘Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!’ points out, hypocrisy is the compliment virtue pays to vice. Haggards actions merely show up the virtues of what he was preaching but not practising. He would probably be a leftist hero if he hadn't repented but instead denounce the repressive sexual rules of biblical Christianity.
Another example of leftist hypocrisy is all the mimophantism at the slightest riposte from a conservative, but were happy with viciousness from the Left towards GWB and Palin.
How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be "un-Christlike"? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like christ only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte.
30. Jo said the following at 2:10 AM on Feb 22:
30
Dr Sarfati, 26...
I actually don't have much of a problem with your tone in this particular thread (shocker!) however, I really do think the the number of people who have, very reasonably and kindly, criticised your frequent use of what you keep calling the 'challenge-riposte method' should make you think about whether that 'method' is always appropriate or helpful in every situation.
"But Jesus did it too" is a dangerous argument to make, because if your motives or good-judgment are even slightly inferior to his, you're condemning yourself by your own words. Unless you can claim that you are perfect in the same way that Jesus was perfect, and that you can see people's hearts as clearly as Him, you need to justify your use of the 'challenge-riposte method' in the incident that you are being challenged about. Many times you have not even attempted to do this, as though just saying 'challenge-riposte' gets you off the hook; in this instance however you did explain your reasoning, which at least allows your opponents to see where you're coming from and suggests that you have put some thought into how you have expressed yourself.
But consider this quote from the article your own website links to:
"What place does satire and the like have - what place can it have-within the defense of a religion based on a God who is Love? In my own experience, I have found that my employing such methods within dialogue is somewhat selective. I'm usually not inclined to use it on skeptics. Perhaps this is because, being extremely skeptical myself for some years, I have a certain sympathy towards them. On the other hand, if I find someone aggressively denying the divinity of Christ, the gloves have a tendency to come off. I don't especially like being satirical (though I like reading it), and I never use it on a person with an honest disagreement or question."
J P Holding (whose writing I love, by the way) recognises both the validity of the 'challenge-riposte method' and the extreme caution required to use it fairly and effectively. I would suggest that employing it in 90% of your comments on a blog (as you have done on Boundless) is unhelpful and often rude. The number of people who have raised questions or complaints about it - many of whom do not in fact oppose your actual arguments - is evidence that your tone does sometimes detract from the good points you're making.
31. Jethro said the following at 2:55 AM on Feb 22:
31
Brian (#19)
I certainly find Dr Sarfati's 'style' infuriating, and it is indeed true that you catch more flies with honey than vinager.
Having said that, I personally feel that Dr Sarfati's argumentation problems stem from unsupported, illogical and wildly skewed viewpoints far more than they do from his abrasive manner.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily categorize myself as a lefty. I consider myself centrist/moderate, but people of all stripes can be offended by Dr Sarfati. That much is clear.
32. Matt said the following at 9:04 AM on Feb 22:
32
Dr. Sarfati,
The other thing about your "challenge-riposte paradigm", as I understand it from the link that you posted, was that this particular method of arguing was used in Jesus' time as a method of debate. In your article, you write how you understand this method:
"But this fails to realize the historical context. Modern western culture is engulfed in political correctness with a victim culture, where we simply mustn’t offend members of liberal-appointed victim classes. But ancient public forums, and some modern ones, were often conducted under a challenge-riposte paradigm. In the New Testament cultural milieu, ‘the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public.’8"
You very clearly state here that this method of arguing was used in the "New Testament cultural milieu". This may be true (and for what I know, it probably is), but you also state that "Modern western culture is engulfed in political correctness with a victim culture, where we simply mustn’t offend members of liberal-appointed victim classes". Learning about your method may help us understand Biblical dialogue, but (as you clearly state) your method is from a different culture from two thousand years ago. Not to indulge in chronological snobbery here, but an old method which clearly does not apply, or will not be understood clearly in a different culture should not be used.
Respectfully,
-Matt
33. Jo said the following at 10:13 AM on Feb 22:
33
Pssssst, BDB - Aussie not Kiwi. But apart from that, hear hear!
34. Leeandra said the following at 10:44 AM on Feb 22:
34
Re: Planned Parenthood. I am NOT a PP supporter in any way, but I will agree that unfortunately they are often the only game in town for poor women to get gynecological services. They do NOT just do abortions--many women rely on them for their yearly PAP tests and prenatal care because they are the only affordable and convenient option in the neighborhood.
Christians have opened up a whole host of crisis pregnancy centers, some quite good, with trained medical staff that can assist women with pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption or raising the baby. But what there is a real shortage of, outside of Planned Parenthood, is sliding-scale women's health services for women who are NOT pregnant.
35. BDB said the following at 1:51 PM on Feb 22:
35
Jo, I may have been hasty. I was referencing the wikipedia page which lists him as dual citizenship in New Zealand. I should have been more specific.
36. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:08 PM on Feb 22:
36
Jethro (#31), like other lefties, can call himself a moderate (or maybe a "progressive" all he likes, but leftists like him exploit emotions not intellect. "Envy + rhetoric = social justice" — Thomas Sowell.
Jo (#30): "Jesus did it too" is surely an irrefutable argument to make against the charge that my methods are "un-christlike"! J.P. Holding is a good friend of mine, so I'm pleased that you like his arguments. If you don't have a problem with my tone in this thread, couldn't it mean that others are being a bit sensitive? After all, even the strongest riposte I've used is mild compared to typical misotheists.
Matt (#32) and BDB (#28): it seems to me that the widespread softly-softly approach among many Christians hasn't prevented aggressive atheists from encroaching more. Nor did the Repubublicans' widespread self-censorship avail much against the viciousness of the Leftmedia and gutter websites like Daily Kos (see Michelle Malkin's book Unhinged for evidence that the Left relies far more on invective than the Right).
37. Jason said the following at 2:20 PM on Feb 22:
37
I'll second #28. Name calling similar to conservative hosts such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc... really serves to put off people and make them not listen to you. All you have to do is look at the success of the Colbert Report to see that people are sick of this. So far in this thread alone, six people, most of who probably agree with you in principle but not tone have told you that you aren't being helpful. I'll add my voice to the crowd and make it seven.
To farmer Tom, that Churchill quote seems to be misattributed. See
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
and
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112
38. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:44 AM on Feb 23:
38
There are aspects of Jesus' approach to dissenters that people would find offensive. And if anyone else were to use them, they'd get quite riled up.
Calling the pharisees a "brood of vipers", I'm quite certain, is not along the lines of "polite and loving discourse" as would be defined by much of the Boundless readers.
Flipping tables and driving merchants out of the temple with a whip (that he MADE for this specific purpose...displaying pre-meditated anger) would be "over the top" to some of Boundless's readers.
However, Dr. Sarfati, I can't even read what you say even while keeping this in mind.
While both of you have much the same beliefs and agree with the challenge-riposte method, somehow I find Farmer Tom much more palatable in argument than your own responses.
However, Comment 29 was MUCH better, gets your point across, AND is somewhat more convicting because it isn't laced in name-calling from someone who is still subject to being wrong =p
But maybe you cleaned it up a bit too much =p
39. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:29 AM on Feb 23:
39
I really think I will lose my proverbial lunch if I read on here one more time:
"Jesus was mean and nasty and called names, therefore I, a holy Godlike Christian, may feel free to be mean and nasty and call names!"
40. John said the following at 10:05 AM on Feb 23:
40
"I agree with Brian - your use of faintly veiled insults, blanket statements, and grasping at straws destroy any credibility that your arguments may have. You stated that "Leftists are elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others", but I am sure that you would probably be angry if I made the statement that "Conservatives are rednecks who believe that rules don't apply to them because they are white Americans".(*) Both statements are inflammatory, stereotypical, and wrong!"
Matt, look up the term "non sequitur". You just stepped in one waste deep. Both statements are not inflammatory, only yours is. Neither are sterotypical, though they are both generalizations. A generalization is not entirely wrong, though can be wrong in some cases.
41. Cassandra said the following at 10:06 AM on Feb 23:
41
"Name calling similar to conservative hosts such as Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc... really serves to put off people and make them not listen to you."
Fox News has been the highest-rated cable news network for 7 straight years, and Ann Coulter has written 7 best sellers, so I challenge the assertion that people aren't listening to them.
42. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:10 AM on Feb 23:
42
(The following is edited only slightly from a column that I am "reposting" -- ha ha -- from elsewhere.)
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Biblical apologetics whizard extraordinaire, is a New Zealand native, chemist and spectroscopist. His Refuting books — two against Evolution and one against religious Compromise — are among the best to be found in any Biblical-creation library. For years he wrote great web-articles and especially rebuttals for the Answers in Genesis global ministry and website. Now — for reasons too complex and difficult to get into here — he’s part of Creation Ministries International, with most of his material imported over there.
More recently, Boundless has been publishing columns by him and other CMI staff. And Sarfati has also been getting into several blog discussions — and riling reactionary responses.
That’s not surprising. Skepticism will always assail someone who believes, and much more so proclaims, such ideas as: God created the world 6,000 years ago; science has limitations in proving origins beliefs and is never “objective”; the global flood of Genesis, not millions of years, is responsible for almost all fossils; evidence fits better with creationist presuppositions.
But Sarfati likes to get into politics, too, and as one friend of mine once said, he seems to know American politics and the Constitution better than most Americans. His style and criticisms are very reminiscent of Ann Coulter, another favorite conservative writer of mine (I’ll admit it).
In a recent comment, Sarfati generalized Leftists as “elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others,” and employed the use of amusing names for Liberals such as “Debtocrats” or “celebutards.” Other Boundless commentators blasted him back — some of them are left-leaning professing Christians — yet a few others, such as myself here, agreed with the content, yet questioned Sarfati’s style:
To that, and other objections, Sarfati noted, It seems Sarfati’s response bears a more-direct and comprehensive answer. Dare I go up against one of my apologetics heroes and suggest he’s wrong? No, I dare not. Rather, I prefer coming alongside him as a Christian brother, and admirer, and hope only to suggest graciously a more balanced approach to dealing with folks, and especially professing Christians.
Responding to ‘riposte’
The “challenge-riposte” sidebar in Sarfati’s Refuting Compromise book offers a fascinating background to why and how Jesus mixed it up with the Pharisees, Herodians, and whatever obnoxious bad-guy-of-the-week tried to trap him with questions about coins and taxes or widows and the resurrection. It’s vital reading especially for those Christians who, as Sarfati notes, “claim that any rebuke is ‘unloving’.”
But many Boundless blog commentators aren’t claiming that any rebuke is unloving (as some seemed to during a certain Shack situation last summer — ahem). Rather, they’re pointing out specific examples of how name-calling and “challenge-riposte” unnecessarily undermines the truths Sarfati does present.
In his sidebar, Sarfati observers that “Jesus often rebuked His opponents,” and later notes:
Yet the question of whether to use sarcastic style to combat skeptics is not so either/or — either yes, you should, because Jesus did, or, no, you never should, because Jesus was loving and we should be, too. Instead, Jesus varied His approaches based on His wisdom and His audience. To imply that because Jesus was often sarcastic, then any use of the same kind of counter-questioning and insults is rationalized, is itself questionable.To apply this thinking in an exact-opposite manner would be equally bad. Let’s suppose I’m one of those Christians who has decided I don’t need to defend the literal Word, its creation account, or my faith. My reason could be that I’m just a wuss, or perhaps I’ve been given more “caring” gifts and not much discernment, or God just hasn’t yet brought me up to speed with renewing my mind to be conformed in His image (Romans 12: 1-2).
Whatever the case, I might decide that Scripture backs me up in my slowness of speech, tongue and mind. I can refer to passages like Luke 23, in which Jesus, challenged by Pilate and then Herod, says nothing. Look here, I could insist. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is persecuted for righteousness’ sake and doesn’t strike back. That’s what I’m doing — a spiritual peacenik.
Discerning Christians recoil from this, and rightly so. Jesus was silent because He was supposed to be silent then; His time had come. His reaction was based on situational context and who His audience was. He dealt with challenges on a case-by-case basis: with the Pharisees, religious hypocrites who spiritually abused the people, He struck hard and often with the razor-sharp sting of sarcasm; with the hurting, He was firm yet comforting; with honest yet often dense seekers such as His disciples, He was truthful, yet gracious.
Thus, doesn’t it follow that we as His people, who delight in His truth and grace and who are daily immersed in the Scriptures and indwelt by His Holy Spirit, would desire the same discernment gifts to vary our approaches on a case-by-case basis?
Post and riposte
Discerning others’ state of faith and motivations is hard enough to attempt in real life. So how much more difficult is it for committed Christ-followers to engage people on blogs and forums who seem not to care for truth — especially those who also claim to follow Christ.
But on my part, I hope never in real life or online to use any single rhetoric “method” — whether sarcasm-and-challenge or “lovey-dovey God wuvs you <3 tell ur friendz.” And I hope to Heaven never to react to either extreme and thus overcorrect to the opposite error. Instead, I hope God will help me keep Him and His Gospel in the center, a Biblical balance of Grace and Truth — and know when to share more of one or the other with those who need to hear it.
So for those who use Sarfati-style sarcasm as reason to reject all apologetics arguments, or sneer about how obnoxious all those Christians are: I’m sorry; yes, charged rhetoric might be wrong sometimes, but do not use that as an excuse not to think about the actual issues.
Yet to those who find they’ve had it with wussy, touchy-feely Christianity who have decided it’s time to kick butt for Jesus 24/7, I have issues with you too. Yes, as Sarfati points out, very often Jesus kicked butt, and because He is the Creator/Savior, He is perfect and perfectly within His rights to do so. Yet often He also withheld His wit and showed love toward the unrighteous.
Today, His Church is comprised of people with many different spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12). Some have gifts of teaching and discernment; some have gifts that emphasize mercy and caring. It seems clear that those with one “bent,” such as teaching and discernment, could be lacking in other areas, such as ability to relate to others in “mercy” areas. That’s why the Body needs all its members to work together, and listen and learn from each other — apologetics whizards and even touchy-feely Christians alike.
43. John said the following at 10:19 AM on Feb 23:
43
"Having said that, I personally feel that Dr Sarfati's argumentation problems stem from unsupported, illogical and wildly skewed viewpoints far more than they do from his abrasive manner."
And you examples as proof to back up this statement are...
Nice veiled attempt at ad hominem.
44. Jo said the following at 1:13 PM on Feb 23:
44
Dr. S, 36:
"If you don't have a problem with my tone in this thread, couldn't it mean that others are being a bit sensitive?"
I'm not sure why so many people have challenged you in this particular thread. I'm inclined to think the accumulation of what you've said across the board has finally got people riled enough to properly 'riposte' back atcha, kinda like a snowball effect.
I really do, genuinely think it would be wise for you to re-evaluate your tone in many of your comments. Yes, you've provided evidence that Jesus often used this technique, or something similar to it. But He didn't ALWAYS use it, and what I liked about Holding's article was that he acknowledged that it isn't ALWAYS helpful. I would argue that it isn't always Christlike, either. Christina mentioned Jesus turning over the tables and she has a good point - but no one would suggest it is ALWAYS Christlike to act in this way.
The difference between Jesus and you is that Jesus saw the hearts of the people He was speaking to, He knew exactly what they were thinking and so when He called the Pharisees 'a brood of vipers', it was accurate and it exposed their sin and it was necessary. You cannot possibly speak with such knowledge and authority, and therefore you need to be extremely careful about what you choose to say, and how you choose to say it. I don't mean that you should NEVER use this method, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you should never rebuke anyone - but just be careful.
And listen to your challengers, because we aren't all out to discredit you or beat you to the ground or ignore what you've got to say. We're simply telling you that the way you're expressing yourself is not helping us to hear what you're really saying.
45. Jethro said the following at 3:57 PM on Feb 23:
45
Wow Dr Sarfati, you describe me so well that I feel like you've known me all my life.
Despite your input I think I will stick with my own understanding of my political beliefs. Given that I know me a little better than you do. If that's ok with you...
46. BDB said the following at 5:31 PM on Feb 23:
46
Dr. Sarfati, you may not realize that you're attracting the wrong kind of attention from a variety of long-time Boundless line commentors, and between us we hold a number of graduate degrees in various fields.
In #36 you write:
>>Matt (#32) and BDB (#28): it seems to me that the widespread softly-softly approach among many Christians hasn't prevented aggressive atheists from encroaching more.<<
Too soft for you? Very well, I can be firmer.
Sir, the communication approach you seem to be advocating is exactly the reason that Religious Conservatives in America have been thrust from power. Why cite sources that inexcusably refuse to take seriously the concerns Americans face? Quoting people who agree with you certainly doesn't count as scholaship - it's actually the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority." This IS the problem, as is the failure of various opinion leaders on the right to grapple with the detail of the policy questions; instead they too often aim for high ratings through superficial talking points meant to distract from the real issues - talking points which merely serve to reinforce an us-vs-them mentality. It may sell books, but it certainly does not build a majority of support to actually affect policy.
It is absolutely and completely absurd to think that the Republican party was self-censoring. During the election I heard lots of whining that the Republican nominee ought to bring up Rev. Wright, as if the various talk-show hosts hadn't done an adequate job of filling the airwaves on that issue.
The Republicans were routed because they failed to address policy questions. There were MANY opportunities to discuss important policies, such as health care. It was infuriating to watch Sen. McCain be handed the ball during debates - and then wander off in a different direction without answering the question, and without explaining the principles underlying his policy positions. Obama's own economist advisors had written paper's supporting plans like McCain put forward! It would have been a home run to say, "Your economists support my health-care plan."
There was one election when the Republican party understood this. During the 2000 election then Gov. Bush flubbed a number of policy questions during the debates. Within a week, I would get a glossy, 2-page mailer. This mailer would go through all the mistakes Bush made in the debate. It didn't come out and say, "Bush blew this question." But I recognized the issues. One in particular was Social Security reform. The mailer had a thorough explanation of his policy goals, why it needed to be fixed, why it WASN'T the "privatization" he was accused of in the debate - it carefully laid out the principles behind the policy and why it was superior to his opponents plan.
In the 2008 election all we saw from the Republican party was political malpractice. A citizen says they're really concerned about health care, and I get a fundraising mailer and several robo calls about "Unrepentant Terrorist Bill Ayers." What the...did absolutely no one in the Republican party hear the question?!?!?
Until all these talk-show hosts bother to LISTEN to people's concerns, I assure you, religious conservatives will find themselves and their policy goals marginalized and ignored by the rest of America.
47. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:17 PM on Feb 23:
47
Thanx, Dr Ransom (#42) and Jo (#44):
I agree: a riposte is not the only method that can be used. Indeed, my actual lead articles on Boundless, as opposed to my informal replies, lack riposte and state the facts. It didn't stop christophobes and compromisers attacking them. My books are likewise mainly factual, without Coulteresque riposte.
My feedback responses vary too, and were the second most popular article type on the old AiG site when I was writing them according to a poll, after the front page articles and ahead of Creation magazine and Journal of Creation articles. Indeed, one respondent wrote:
“I especially enjoy Dr Sarfati’s rebuttals to various angry commentors. Dr Sarfati is so clear and precise in his counters, and so GENTLE. It would be, I suppose, easier to disregard such comments or to attack the anti-creationists in like fashion. But Dr Sarfati displays profound amounts of grace and patience in his replies.”
When it's pointed out that Jesus sometimes used riposte, it's common to respond, “Yes, but He was God so knew when it was necessary, and could do it perfectly, while we are imperfect.” But by the same token, Jesus also knew when to use gentleness and could use that perfectly; we are imperfect, and a wrong use of gentleness to wolves could result in harshness to the sheep they prey upon.
The command to be imitators of Christ said nothing about imitating Him only in the way He dealt with aldulteresses and Zacchaeus, but not in the way He dealt with Pharisees and Sadducees. There is as much Scriptural basis for saying, “imitate Christ's challenge-riposte to religious hypocrites but never imitate His gentleness to the downtrodden.”
48. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:33 PM on Feb 23:
48
BDB (#46): I agree that the GOP largely deserved to lose. But I think that's because they had abandoned conserative principles. Bush and Cheney abandoned the free market, and Bush was lax in defending himself against Dem invective—i.e. he didn't use challenge-riposte enough.
Being the lesser of two evils is hardly as inspiring as Reagan's clear explanations of pro-life and small government. Contrast that with Reagan, called “The Great Communicator” but himself thought that he was merely the communicator of great ideas:
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life.
If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?
The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being.
Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say "But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time."
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Now [1964] we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
49. Al said the following at 8:09 PM on Feb 23:
49
Dr. Ransom (#42),
Thanks. That was beautifully written, nuanced, and well argued.
I think it bears stressing again that those who Jesus, John, and Paul had strong words for in the New Testament were nearly always those who claimed religious righteousness and God's favor while oppressing others, or were those who blatantly contradicted the theology of grace and the gospel through legalism while infiltrating the community of believers. Paul also had strong words for some that he had spiritual charge over-- but His love, commitment, and life lived out for them is unmistakeable.
It was definitely not their default mode of operation, and citing their use of harsh words to justify liberal, unrestrained usage of the "challenge-riposte" method on all comers, including fellow self-proclaimed Christians on non-salvific issues, would be poor exegesis.
I have felt this way for some time, and say this in hopes that Dr. Safarti will be edified by this discussion regarding his tone-- especially because the articles he has written, including those written for Boundless, *are* able to convey his arguments clearly without unnecessary namecalling and disrespectful invectives.
His published articles and his blog comments appear to be written by two totally different people. And because I am an emotional human being like any other, I actually have a hard time reading even his measured writings once I find out they are written by the same author who regularly uses condescending language towards fellow readers.
If someone like me-- who actually sympathizes with some of his positions on evolution and American politics-- finds it difficult to read his articles because his tendency to dress others down has damaged his credibility for me, how much more so those who might actually disagree with him?
Perhaps I'm guilty of allowing my emotionality to affect my objectivity-- but I hope Dr. Safarti will recognize that the only people he will ever get to write to, who will ever come across his writings and who he can ever hope to persuade-- are those whose emotionality is enmeshed in some way with their rationality.
I had also hoped that Boundless staff would ask him to rethink his tone towards fellow commentors, most of whom are professing Christians, since it appears that they had invited him based on his familiarity with a particular subject and provided him with a platform and voice. Perhaps this discussion has happened already, or if not, perhaps it will at some point. Either way, I believe it will improve the quality of discussion here on Boundless, as well as increase the strength and persuasiveness of Dr. Safarti's arguments by improving his credibility.
50. farmer Tom said the following at 8:53 PM on Feb 23:
50
46. BDB,
I'm sorry but I don't follow your line of thinking here.
Are you saying that those who believe in a Constitutionally limited government should go ahead and discuss policy which leads to even bigger and more intrusive government in the name of "niceness"?
That statement is just patently false.
Republicans were thrown out of power because they acted just like the opposition. They claimed to be for small less intrusive government and in reality the government grew at unprecedented rates under Jorge the Younger Shrub. A man who claimed to be a "compassionate conservative" was in reality, a modern day Woodrow Wilson.
And that is also why I believe your criticism of Dr. Sarfati (and some peoples criticism of myself) is so silly.
Those who claim the name of Jesus Christ, (Christians) followers of Christ, if they have any integrity and intellectual fortitude must conform their belief system to what Jesus Christ taught and lived. Otherwise they are not truly followers of Jesus Christ.
When Dr. Sarfati receives comments from those who claim the name of Christ, yet they distort, mischaracterize or in some cases directly oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ, it would be sinful of him to pat them on the head and treat heresy as a simple misunderstanding, or a minor error in thinking.
The cause of Jesus Christ is harmed by allowing those who claim the name of Jesus Christ to go unchallenged when they portray the teaching of Jesus Christ in an untruthful manner.
If the religious right has failed, it has failed to really stand for the truth. They support candidates from a party which are traitor to the belief system that the religious right claims to follow.
Think of some of the politicians who claimed to be conservative which the religious right has helped put in positions of authority. Arnold Schwartznagger, Arlyn Specter, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George W. Bush, George H W Bush, and the list goes on and on.
Supporting those who claim your name, while acting in opposition to what you believe, is exactly what removed the republicans from power.
Allowing those who claim the name of Christ to say and do things contrary to the teachings and work Jesus Christ, is the same type of error. It allows false representations of what Christianity really is to be passed off to a public which does not know the difference. Just as claiming that those who called themselves "compassionate conservative republicans" yet governed as leaders of the socialist welfare state lead to downfall of the repugnant party.
51. Matt said the following at 9:44 PM on Feb 23:
51
John (40) - thank you for pointing out my error. I do not believe that this warrants a "non sequitur", though - I see both statements as inflammatory, and when I said "stereotypical", I meant "stereotyping", although "generalizing is a much better word (and actually what I meant). I know that generalizing is not always incorrect, however, it is usually unfair. It is hard to use words/phrases like "All X are Y" or "A is ALWAYS B" without being inaccurate when you are talking about people.
Dr. Sarfati,
You wrote:
Matt (#32) and BDB (#28): it seems to me that the widespread softly-softly approach among many Christians hasn't prevented aggressive atheists from encroaching more.
I would suggest that what you call "softly-softly" methods are actually ways that people show respect for each other, especially in a (somewhat) anonymous or public forum. If two people can treat each other with respect, and speak to each other respectfully, only then can there be any meaningful dialogue between them. I assume that most of the people commenting on this blog subscribe to Christianity in some way, or are at least aware of what it entails. Does it not follow, then, that we should treat our Christian brothers and sisters with respect, even when commenting on a blog response?
In response to (26), where you stated:
Also, I am counteracting the long-established leftist tendency to try to define the terms of the debate. E.g. they support "war on poverty", while their opponents of bloated welfare bureaucracies "lack compassion".
Regarding terms of the debate, the tendency to control the words used is most certainly not exclusively controlled by people who hold liberal views. For example, regarding abortion, some say that they are "pro-life", and others will say that they are "pro-choice". These people will most certainly not say that they are "anti-life" or "anti-choice" - but both try to define the debate on their terms.
Lastly, it is extremely unfair to lump people into "Left" and "Right" camps. This is a false dichotomy - there is a whole spectrum of possible beliefs and ideas. The world is not made up of "us and them" - it is made of people, more like you and I than we would like to admit at times.
Thank you for listening,
-Matt
52. Daniel B said the following at 11:18 PM on Feb 23:
52
Regardless of anyone's views on marriage, this study is $5 million of OUR MONEY being spent on things that the government is not authorized to do.
Imagine if any company spent it's shareholders money on things it's own charter prevented it from being allowed to do.
53. JB said the following at 8:15 AM on Feb 24:
53
It seems to me that a method of argumentation which worked well in an ancient Hellenic society with a rich oral tradition and a deep respect for the art of rhetoric might very well not work as well for written communication on a 21st century worldwide computer network. Surely Christ paid attention to His own cultural context in deciding how to address the people around Him.
This whole discussion reminds me of Karl Barth's argument that the Church should engage in "pragmatics" to continually help Christians make sense of the Bible in changing cultural circumstances.
54. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:50 AM on Feb 24:
54
Dr. Sarfati, thank you for your response. Others have pointed out that your articles and books themselves are much freer from "Coulter-esque riposte" and so any criticism leveled at their content cannot be because of style, but substance.
Unfortunately, the young-earth creation view automatically garners scorn and ridicule from even professing Christians, for a variety of reasons, some of them more understandable than others. Such scorn has nothing to do with style, but perceptions of creation advocates, rejection of willingness to take God's Word at face value, and often a very unloving attitude that's excused because supposedly it's only the other "side" that is being so unloving.
Thanks also to many of you others for your responses and comments. It seems many other Boundless contributors are advocating a Biblical balance between "riposte" and gentleness, instead of overcorrecting to either extreme out of fear for the opposite error.
At the same time, let us bear in mind the rightful warning in Sarfati's "riposte" sidebar and other sources: playing it "nice" all the time only because of pragmatic concerns is the wrong motive and is not Biblical. My motive for striking balance is not whether it will work, but whether the Bible says one way or the other.
By contrast, I've been reading some of this worldly pragmatism here: if we're mean, we'll keep losing; or, if we're mean, people will be turned away. Let's remember that people will very often be turned away anyway. Jesus said so. The message of the Cross is foolishness and idiocy to them.
But let's make sure, so far as it depends on us, that before God we are guiltless of having people stumble over our own style, and that they are only tripping over the Cornerstone.
I really think the heart of a Christian debater, apologetics artist or writer will be manifested in his or her communication style. However, let us not use even harsher rhetoric to ignore the truth, then delude ourselves into thinking it's only that "meanness" that's turning us off from it.
After all, strong Christ-followers ought to be able to put up with even their stronger-speaking brethren without either shrieking back in fear, or being embarrassed and hastily explaining to others that He Doesn't Speak for Me.
Some Christians tolerate secular folks who drink and listen to sensual music much more easily than they do their overextending brothers and sisters in Christ.
So why the disparity?
If you are really so free in Christ, why do you react so strongly to strong words from someone like Dr. Sarfati or even Ann Coulter with more intensity and aversion than you would do to those who enjoy strong language or drinks?
Instead, let's try to appreciate the truth that is said even with harsher rhetoric or a style that seems questionable.
Don't overtly disavow such a Christian.
Don't play good-cop-bad-cop to try to impress unbelievers with how supposedly Tolerant you are and how much a Nicer Christian you can be. You're not going to win many points with many non-Christians anyway.
But even worse, you're being unloving to a zealous Christian apologist who, flaws and all, is also being used by God to proclaim his truth. This could not only galvanize someone into thinking even more than he/she is always right, but worse, such an attitude is itself self-righteous and results in excluding him from the community of diverse-gifted Christians that he or she needs.
Instead, even the "meaner Christian" is your brother! -- yes, just like the sappy, "inspirational," dude-be-cool-Jesus-loves-you Christian who could stand a little more discernment and sanctification of the mind!
Finally, while being so busy shooting at our own side, we tend to bypass stuff like the comment from the "left-leaning" Onely, who stumbled upon this site and posted no. 23, in which she not only accused Sarfati of such original sins as "wearing a tinfoil hat," but claimed things such as that marriage is "an artifical [sic] construct."
Mm-hmm. ;-)
To some extent, shouldn't inter-Christendom politics "end at the water's edge" in order to come together and wisely, graciously address even more anti-Biblical views such as this?
I'm not saying we shouldn't at all encourage each other toward more Christlike rhetoric or interaction because the "real bad guys" are out there and they're worse. But in the very least, we can encourage and graciously criticize our own while keeping the scale of their "sins" in much better perspective.
55. BDB said the following at 12:14 PM on Feb 24:
55
Dr. Sarfati (#48), I appreciate your more respectful tone.
You bring up a wide variety of points, but don't address the main thrust of my argument that politicians on the right failed to engage the key policy issue of health care; instead wasting time on distractions like Bill Ayers.
Farmer Tom did pick up on the health care issue - in (#50) he wrote:
>>That statement is just patently false.
Republicans were thrown out of power because they acted just like the opposition.<<
No - think about it for a minute. My statement was that the Republican party refused to listen to what Americans were concerned about.
How many people tried to tell them that they needed to control spending?
I know I did. Every time I got a fundraising call where they said, "Give us money or Hillary the evil one will become president!" I responded, "She will get elected if the Republican party doesn't control spending."
I had fundraisers laugh at me, hang up on me, etc. The Wall Street Journal was constantly running editorials - for about 5 years - about how the Republican party had forgotten the lessons of the past. The WSJ would highlight specific Congressman who were trying to take steps to control spending - and how the Party disciplined them, took away their committee seats, etc. for daring to speak up.
Refusing to listen to conservatives on spending cost the party support on the right. The best part of McCain's acceptance speech was when he slammed his own party for not being diligent on spending control.
Refusing to listen on health care cost them the support of the center.
What I'm saying is that when one side says "All Americans deserve access to affordable health care," the correct answer is NOT, "Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist." Hannity was whining about that again last night. This is hopeless.
The correct answer requires an analysis of how we achieve the objective of affordable health care for all WITHOUT giving it all to government.
The one I expected from Dr. Sarfati, was some kind of claim about how Australia's system was vastly superior to the U.S. Perhaps he doesn't believe that. His point about how welfare programs have overhead applies to health care, too. Did Australia solve that problem with their government-run health care? If so, how?
McCain's plan for a $5000 tax credit for health care premiums combined with allowing inter-state sales would allow people to buy private insurance that meets their needs. That addresses the issue of those who are fearful about growing government. But no one could ever explain how it would work.
Because the couldn't explain it and never responded to the plan's critics (preferring to whine about Bill Ayers instead), most people concluded that the Republicans really don't care enough about people's concerns to be trusted with power. Instead, the recently passed stimulus bill will expand government-run Medicaid to the non-poor.
56. Keisha said the following at 7:39 PM on Feb 24:
56
Hi Jonathan Sarfati,
I just wanted to thank you for refraining from using mocking names and sarcasm in the last couple of your postings. Yes, you argued your points forcefully, and as always I agree with some but not all of what you say, but the tone was much less personally offensive to me - I felt that you disagreed with people's ideas, and not that you personally disliked any of the other writers or people mentioned in your post.
You said:
"When it's pointed out that Jesus sometimes used riposte, it's common to respond, “Yes, but He was God so knew when it was necessary, and could do it perfectly, while we are imperfect.” But by the same token, Jesus also knew when to use gentleness and could use that perfectly; we are imperfect, and a wrong use of gentleness to wolves could result in harshness to the sheep they prey upon."
The good thing about this blog is that the sheep can speak; and for the most part, I don't think there are any wolves here that you are directly addressing. (I don't think that Obama is reading this website...) So the harsh language might be a little unnecessary. Maybe you think I'm a wolf because I disagree with you, but don't hate me and use hateful language with me even if you think I'm a wolf.
57. farmer Tom said the following at 7:43 PM on Feb 24:
57
Dr. Ransom,
IMO #54 was much more thoughtful and well reasoned than #42.
But, again that's just my opinion.
58. Jo said the following at 1:42 AM on Feb 25:
58
Dr S. 47:
"Indeed, my actual lead articles on Boundless, as opposed to my informal replies, lack riposte and state the facts. It didn't stop christophobes and compromisers attacking them."
Yes, I noticed that when I finally got round to reading them. I found your articles very good. I agree that people are going to attack us whatever we do, and I agree that we shouldn't water down the gospel or make it less offensive than it is. I just think we should be careful not to make it *more* offensive either. :)
"...by the same token, Jesus also knew when to use gentleness and could use that perfectly; we are imperfect, and a wrong use of gentleness to wolves could result in harshness to the sheep they prey upon."
Yep, that's a good point too. I guess we have to be careful whatever we say. I know that I for one err on the side of gentleness too often, and others make the opposite mistake. I do still think that a forum like this requires extra discernment. In 'real life' it's much easier to pick up clues from people's tone and body language, and to work out the best way to respond. When everything is written down, and you're talking to people you don't even know, it's harder to gauge their motives and that makes it harder sometimes to choose between gentleness and firmness. In this type of forum, I think it's wiser to start from a position of gentleness until you have more 'evidence' of your person's character.
Ironically I say things in writing that I definitely wouldn't say in person, but they're usually things I *should* say in person and don't because I'm a coward. :) So, there you go. We all have our problems.
59. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:22 PM on Feb 25:
59
Hi Keisha (#56): yes, most of my points are addressing ideas not persons; and no, you're definitely not a wolf. :)