Our view of events is colored significantly by whether we agree with, or denigrate, the opinion. Even if some radical quote is uttered I might look past its stupidity because I agree with what he is saying.
Consider what our own Reiggin Hilderbrand wrote:
In reading over the opposition's Facebook group, it seems that there are plenty of problems (hard to pinpoint the greatest... but I'm leaning towards a purely un-Christ-like attitude) but one that jumps out at me over and over again are the fallacies.
Appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, misleading vividness, guilt by association (the latest attack perpetuated against Mr. Wingate), bare assertions, false dichotomies, and of course a ton of red herrings.
While I fully support those who have spoken up in support of the Commission on the "Alumni for Erskine" group, it seems that the radical contingency has taken control of the group and made it impossible to speak without being attacked. There's a lot of malicious intent and it's frightening.
What he sees is truly is frightening! I am not actually sure what Mr. Hilderbrand is referring to (there was a lot of discussion about “war,” but also a lot about praying for reconciliation and for God’s will to be done). Other views are encouraged, though challenged, and they do not erase contrary wall posts like we do. Silly them!
Now consider this quote taken from a random ARP Talk document (from #24) in reference to Dean Alston’s memo on integrating faith and learning:
Is Coach Alston serious? Is this a joke? Is this memo his idea of the integration of faith and science!? It is ludicrous. This is embarrassing. The Editor does not know whether to laugh or cry. Unfortunately, to the extent that this sort of banal thinking represents the majority of the Erskine College faculty on the integration of faith and science, to that extent they do not have the slightest idea of what integration of faith and science is. Buzz Aldrin’s “moon communion” is a reflection of his piety; this is not a statement regarding the integration of faith and science. Indeed, Coach Alston’s memo is prima facie evidence why a new Academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP!
Chuck – you took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo! But regardless, consider the language he used. "Banal thinking." "New academic Dean needs to be secured ASAP." "Embarrassing." Pretty heavy language. Will Mr. Hilderbrand denounce this as un-Christ-like? Or does he agree with it and therefore sees it as a just thrashing of an ignorant, “banal” man?
My point is not that Wilson is wrong; my point is that we agree with what he says and therefore accept the manner in which he says it. Imagine Mr. Hildebrand’s fright if an alumni wrote that quote above in reference to Paul Patrick! Great balls of fire how the Supporters of Synod group would light up! Fortunately, the heavy hitter is on our side. Go on Chuck – knock those administrators over the head! I mean good grief – Alston is only a Coach!*
So go on, Oberle. Continue unabated, Wells. Say what you will – our friends love what we say and so won’t care how we say it!
Or prove me wrong, friends. Publicly condemn a direct statement made by Oberle, Wells, Chuck Wilson, etc. Give a direct quote and condemn it. Of course such a thing will never happen. I’ll correct this post when I see it.
Update: I wish to publicly state that two commenters on this blog have publicly stated their disagreement with Chuck Wilson’s rhetoric, and good for them! I thank them for it.
*Oh dear. An ad hominem attack. Whatever shall I do? It’s OK – Chuck made fun of him a couple times about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment