Somebody smart once told me that his one of his most effective methods of persuasion was to make his point as diplomatically as possible and let it run in the background like a Unix process.

A light in the darkness is never wasted. Have faith you are reaching people, my friend.

Janet,

First, since I can't say I remember you posting by that name (perhaps another?) I'd like to say: "Nice to meet you!"

Second, I appreciate your criticism, and understand completely where you're coming from. At another time in my life (and perhaps in a few days) I might think that was a wrong move too. And you may be entirely right: I'll ponder that as seriously as I can.

In defense of that particular comment, I'd only plead that one has to try different approaches. And I think there's good biblical support for that.

I'd already tried the "let's reason together" approach (for which I got, essentially: "See how unwilling to embrace new ideas this guy is?"), and felt maybe (perhaps wrongly) it would then be instructive to point out that he could examine his own comments to see how open he was to new information.

And I took a chance that I could communicate, honestly, how absurd his charge was (all conservatives (me) are closed minded, liberals (him) were much more open-minded) using his own words and previous stances. Sometimes, that requires an emotional overtone, not just a flat, polite, computer-voice.

"Please return to your seats and fasten your seatbelt. We are losing altitude. Thank you." ;-)

Also I'd point out we're supposed to grow into the image of people like Paul and Jesus, both of whom could be extremely blunt with the truth at times. Had I have written any of the following statements, I expect you could have said (correctly) I was being not-nice.

Paul: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish?" (Gal 3:1-2)

Paul: "As for those agitators [who are preaching circumcision], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12)

Jesus: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning..." (John 8:44)

Sometimes the truth isn't nice. It's never unkind (and I didn't unduly demean or attack him -- I just expressed disbelief), but it doesn't always come tiptoeing, bowing, and smiling.

When is it right to use each mode? I honestly struggle with that, Janet. I agree it's better to err on the side of caution, but sometimes, you just have to point out where things fall.

But, you know, you're probably right.

Somebody smart once told me that his one of his most effective methods of persuasion was to make his point as diplomatically as possible and let it run in the background like a Unix process.

That's wise advice -- thank you!

And probably agrees more with Janet's critique.

Hmmm... what do you do for a living, Tracey? Real estate? Police work? Fruit grower? Orthodontist? I'd never guess from the analogy you used... ;-) (LOL)

A light in the darkness is never wasted. Have faith you are reaching people, my friend.

Thinking about my own: "Why do I bother" moment above, I'd suggest you've probably put your finger on it. We're supposed to be, as you say, lights, and that doesn't happen without communication.

Things are sliding downhill, so fast, and I don't see anyone sometimes making the arguments I think need to be made (y'all know I try not to be a "me too" blog), and that's probably part of it.

Well, here I am, flaws and all. Thanks for being my friends and friendly adversaries. Love you all for it.

Most sincerely...
- Tim

My goodness, I read the first paragraph of his post and wanted to wretch. Most unfortunately, this guy is so full of pride I don't know how you can help him. (Short of Jesus' or St. Fracis' amazing way of coming up with the right words to pierce a persons heart, i.e. a miracle.)

In terms of when to use strong language, I'm all for having more of it, and making people grow a bloody backbone again. (Sinking frail weaklings) What ever happened to "sticks and stones..."? If you read the Church fathers, or, for that matter, Jesus' words, they weren't *nice*. In fact they were very far from nice most of the time. The biggest thing they were is honest and piercing.

I think the 'nice' nonsense is just a tool to silence discourse. There is room for politeness, but once you get past that, and are engaged in a debate, you should be ready to take some blows. After all, words are better than sticks and stones...

(Then again, this position is why my wife is coming up with a 'take-a-number' system for people who want to kill me. :-) )

I think you've done your best to attempt to reach CD. You have to try to remember that you can't reach everyone. Some people, like CD, are so hung up on what they believe that they are no longer open to other points of view. I worked with kids for 10 years and I had to remember that on a daily basis. You can't save everyone, but it is most often worth the effort if you can help even one.

I have observed that some of the most liberal people I've ever met were fine with what everyone else had to say (freedom of speech etc etc) right up until someone contradicted them. Then they were persecuted, angry, and basically on the war path.

I have yet to figure out the benefit for them in being this way. I often find that listening to other opinions leads me to reflect on my own in such a way that I either feel more strongly that I am correct, that the matter might require more reflection (and often more research), or that I was totally wrong. I like to think it makes me a better person in some respects. I don't know why other people wouldn't want that (or that they can't see that they trapped themselves inside the box).

Keep the faith and keep going. Even if you reach one, it's totally worth it.

Thinking about my own: "Why do I bother" moment above, I'd suggest you've probably put your finger on it. We're supposed to be, as you say, lights, and that doesn't happen without communication.

Or darkness. ;-) It's never a good sign when you talk about "turning-points," Tim. Though I don't see your efforts here as wasted at all. I suspect that that was just a momentary reaction, as you say.

The other posters have expressed things far more eloquently than I could have, but I wanted to chime in anyways with a 'thanks for your work.' I do refer to things you write or post links to other places on occasion. So you may be getting an audience a little larger than what you see in the comments collumn.

Tim,

FWIW, your ongoing efforts encourage me. Our battle may just be a blip on the timeline of all humanity, or they could be the culmination of centuries of the human struggle. We just don't really know. Whatever the case, each effort to encourage the pursuit of truth I believe has a compounding effect.

Repeating the words from Sprugeon: "If a crooked stick is before you, you need not explain how crooked it is. Lay a straight one down by the side of it, and the work is well done. Preach the truth, and error will stand abashed in its presence."

Thanks for all your 'sticks' in this blog!

Then again, this position is why my wife is coming up with a 'take-a-number' system for people who want to kill me.

LOL! You crack me up, Michael. Thank you!

Ryan: It's never a good sign when you talk about "turning-points," Tim.

I guess I should clarify. Though I often speak otherwise, I keep harboring hope that many/most of my political opponents are simply misguided -- unintentionally wrong. And I have close friends who try to encourage me toward that view.

In particular, I chose "Christian Democrat" because I wondered if the "Christian" part of that might make him slightly more open to someone who (at least initially) came in kindly, not insulting, but simply explaining what he'd seen and learned, as a brother, not an adversary.

But, as I soon learned (when I was soon accused of being greedy, being on the take, and hiding my true identity as a political lobbyist) that isn't necessarily true. Politics, in some cases, seems to supercede one's purported religious beliefs.

(I didn't want to play that card (hardly useful) but he's actually not to supposed to do things like publicly accusing me of greed without evidence, etc.)

But, as the evidence accumulates, I can no longer simply say: "Oh, they care, but they're just mistaken about what works." People who (for example) actually want to help the poor won't also be those refusing to have any discussion as to what policies best help the poor.

This doesn't mean I'm planning to cut off contact or debate. Or now be rude or accusing from square one. It simply means debate will happen less often (or perhaps even, strangely, more often), and with more of an expectation of this particular outcome.

I still think he's simply misguided at some level, but it's not simply factually misguided. It's something deeper.

Notice: Even though I'm willing to credit to him completely good motives (I honestly still believe he thinks, at the surface, that his politics reflect his faith, for example), in contrast he seems unable to even think that perhaps I simply have an honest disagreement about policy with him, based on similarly good motives. To him, I must always have bad motives instead: greed, "corporatism", being "the kind of person" who is unwilling to consider new ideas, etc.

Now, it true that we all occasionally mistake other people's motives. (Especially in text!) But it says something when a person will insist otherwise at their first opportunity, even when you're saying: "Hey, I totally share your end goals! But here's my concern..."

That 'tell' says something profound about the underlying psychological process at work.

I do refer to things you write or post links to other places on occasion.

Heh! Don't I know it! I've often wondered about your discussions elsewhere, but I purposely don't take any steps to find out.

I particularly enjoyed the visit from the Gnostics. I've been meaning to write a retrospective on that experience. Strangely, the one with the most openly hostile and crude website was actually the nicest and most principled among them. That speaks well for him.

Regardless of where we're coming from, I think it's always useful to figure out what's true (as best we can ascertain it), what works, etc. Thank you, Ryan, for being an incredibly instrumental and important part of that process here.

Since I don't understand Democrats, I fantasize, deep in my heart, that I could find one who I could disagree with and who would explain why he holds what I view as such odd stances. Not the surface policies -- I understand that, since I once held many of them. (More taxes is good, for example. I completely get that view.)

No, what I mean is that they could explain the underlying reason -- the reasons behind the reasons. But I always get the irrational freak-out on the second or third layer of "why?" questions -- the same level at which I realized I might be wrong, and considered other things.

I thank you for your rational areas of disagreement (and helping me to be better at the same; iron, as they say, sharpens iron) -- and also for bringing your wide variety of interests and thoughts here.

Best to you, and best in your career and personal relationships.

Don: Whatever the case, each effort to encourage the pursuit of truth I believe has a compounding effect.

I agree entirely. Go get 'em, and let me know if there's anything I can do to be of service, or be more encouraging. Perhaps we should start a series of local support groups, for people in the same situation.

Hmmmm... (*sound of gears grinding*)

Likewise, thank you for your encouragement and participation! I'm pleased to talk with you, and honored by your presence here.

Dear Tim,

I must confess that I am IrishOboe but I didn’t mean to deceive. I wanted to show that I was the ‘Janet’ who posted on CD’s blog and that happened because I have a blogger identity I didn’t know about and it filled in my name. It was ignorance and oversight, not craftiness.

Thank you for explaining the reasons for your actions to me. You clearly have respect for your readers, I can’t see why anyone would choose to be offended. I understand that being a ‘nice’ Christian all the time is sometimes another way of saying one follows the Devil and not Christ. However , at my age (20’s), I am hesitant to willfully use the harsh words of Christ and Paul. I’m always reminded of the plank in my own eye and Jesus’s command to love. I don’t know how to have righteous anger while loving. Maybe I’ll learn. Toward that aim I have a few questions.

First, as far as I recall, Jesus’s “woes’ were always spoken to those who had spiritual authority. To the mistaken lay person he was always humble and kind. He didn’t rebuke the rich man right away for his sin, even though he came to Jesus with quite a bit of spiritual pride. Instead, he waited until the matter was pressed, and then only told him to sell his possessions if he wanted to be perfect. He said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom, not impossible. I see this scene played with great love for the proud, greedy rich man. Jesus was always expanding our idea of mercy, forgiveness, and love. Obviously my question is this: should we reserve such ‘note-nice’ language for those claiming to be spiritual leaders? On the other side, I never see Jesus as ‘tiptoeing’ or ‘bowing’ and you are right the same should be for us. We should be strong and loving. Meek is not weak.

As for the second, I won’t burden this comments thread with it. Follow the link to my blog for my thoughts on the appropriate time to use ‘woe to you’ language. I’m not sure I haven’t gotten off topic anyway. We can always be better, more loving, and more Christ-like. And I never know when to stop writing . . .

Peace,
Janet

I have to confess that I haven't read any of these postings that everyone else seems to have read, sorry I missed them. I'm pretty new here. But from what I've seen so far, you need to keep doing exactly what you're doing. Please.

I did click on "this guy" and read that posting of his, and I noticed a disparaging remark about Fox news. (What a surprise!) I have to say that I used to watch CNN and Fox pretty equally; that ended the day we broke through into Bhagdad. Fox had live coverage of this; at one point, it looked to me as if the camera person was running right behind a US serviceman. Meanwhile, over on CNN, they were running yet another human interest piece on the female marine who was captured and rescued. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, so I switched back and forth a bit, but sure enough CNN was ignoring this US advance. That told me all I needed to know about CNN, and "this guy"'s comments about Fox tell me a great deal about him.

Keep on telling the truth your own way. We all need it. Thanks.

I didn’t know about and it filled in my name. It was ignorance and oversight, not craftiness.

No problem: just assumed it was someone I didn't know. I've looked around your website a bit in the past. The only time its "deceptive" to post under several different names is when one does it (you didn't) to try to create the impression of a conversation when there isn't one.

Tim: Boy, are you being unreasonable!

Bob (really Tim): Yeah, he's right.

Fred (really Tim): Yeah, what a loser. I can't believe anyone would listen to him.

Etc.

I am hesitant to willfully use the harsh words of Christ and Paul...

As I said, I think you may have been right, and I may have been wrong. While I'd probably never suggest anyone actually, um, emasculate themselves, but there's a place and a time even for strong words. The question is where and when.

But I also think it's always better to play it on the safe side, in general.

I’m always reminded of the plank in my own eye and Jesus’s command to love. I don’t know how to have righteous anger while loving.

Jesus commands us to love, and not hate, right?

But if so, then why does the bible say:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9)

If we really love people, then we must also "hate what is evil." Loving someone means you hate the thing which harms them. If we don't hate things which are evil (i.e. which harm people), then our love, this verse suggests, is insincere.

To illustrate, here's a "harsh" saying from Jesus:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. (Matt 23:25-26)

Why is Jesus doing this? (Saying "He's God" is a cop out. :-) We're supposed to learn to grow into that image anyway.)

(1) Jesus must call a spade a spade. Why? Because it is false love to allow someone to go on doing something wrong or harmful without warning them at least once. It doesn't mean we should be unduly harsh, think we're perfect (we're sure not), or rag on them forever, but you should at least let them know what they're doing. And Jesus is passionate about it: he really hates the teachings they're spreading!

Our society tells us this is "judgmental" but if your motive is because you're trying to snap someone out of it, and you can look in your heart and say you really do care for them, then it's absolutely right to do it. (Maybe not in that way, but in some way certainly.)

The bible and society teach us different things in this area.

So, and perhaps my tone was wrong (as I've admitted), but I stand by the idea that I had to, somehow (for example) point out to CD that he was saying it was wrong to condemn people, and being very judgmental and condemning towards people.

(2) If there are onlookers, they also need to have the problem pointed out. Contrary to our view, the Pharisees were actually extremely popular and well liked. On the outside, pretty much everybody thought they were a "good" group of people, and they certainly did too. The crowds had probably never heard, in their whole lives, anyone "go off" on the Pharisees like that -- it was probably fairly shocking to them.

But Jesus had to explain, also, to the onlookers, that this wasn't good -- that they were taking their reinterpretation of the law too far. In fact, he was so concerned about their teaching that he told his disciples, time again: "Beware the yeast [teachings] of the Pharisees!"

Had he said: "Uh, guys, I could be wrong, but I think you might be mistaken about this idea..." it wouldn't have had the same impact. And it would have been untrue.

Because he knew that the teachings of the Pharisees were misleading people, and even keeping them from heaven, he was extremely angry with what they were doing, and the example they were setting. He had to speak forcefully against it.

(3) It must be specific. You can't just say "you bite!" or "you're a moron!" You have to point out exactly what the problem is, in ways a willing person can understand.

So see above: Jesus is explaining exactly what his gripe is.

(4) You must have evidence for what you're saying. Though the quote above doesn't illustrate this, other verses do:

... you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matt 15:5-6)

The Pharisees claimed that if they'd 'dedicated' all their property to God (they could still keep control of it, though) then they didn't have to support their parents. Jesus explains this is here they're placing love of money (greed) above love of God.

(5) Criticism must be constructive. You can't just condemn people: You have to give them a way out.

For example, when he said it was wrong to pass legislation to control people -- I suggested that he himself favored doing that. But I wanted to make it clear I wasn't trying to trick him or "win", so I said: Hey, nothing wrong with that -- I favor that too, sometimes, hoping that my admission would make it easier for him to admit he and I had common ground there.

Sometimes, this won't work out at all. In CD's case, after I kindly and carefully explained a view, he wrote (my underline):

I can't imagine why someone with such well scripted opposing views such as yours would come to this obscure section of the web and spend the time to rant when nobody hear is listening.

In saying so, he admitted he wasn't even listening to anything I presented. Not that I was wrong (which I could have been) -- but he was telling me that he refused to even consider what any non-Democrat (me) might say.

(Sigh. He condemns himself with his own words.)

Also, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm not all that impressed with "spiritual leaders". Jesus taught us not to get to impressed with "spiritual leaders" by saying:

... they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.' But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. (Matt 23:7-10)

I'm not saying we should disrespect authority, nor greater experience, but I am saying that being a "spiritual leader" doesn't insulate people from the same standards that apply to all God's children. We are all taught by Jesus, so any one of us could potentially have something relevant to say to anyone else. Every part of the body needs every other part.