Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
I think we should sick John after him....that will put a little hitch in his giddy up
-
|
UntoHim,
I appreciate your invitation to reply to Evangelical, which was seconded by Nell (#25) and, then, mockingly mentioned by Drake (#31). (Drake’s post reminded me of Goliath’s taunt, but I am not trying to compare myself to David.)
Some problems with posts
Let me explain, from the perspective of readers, how I view problems in posts, and use some of Evangelical’s and Drake’s posts as examples of these problems. I give readers credit for being able to recognize when a post:
- Does not differentiate between fact and opinion. For any interested, there are writings available that point out fallacies in argumentation. (Some of Evangelical’s posts could be used as examples of what not to do in argument. I pointed out problems with just a few paragraphs of one of his posts [“Woman’s Role” thread, #96]. Most of what I listed probably doesn’t even rise to the level of proper argument on his part but are simply problems with his use of English and lack of logic.)
- Avoids an issue by just ignoring it. (Example: In “Women’s Role” #96, I wrote fourteen points about Evangelical’s opening paragraphs in one of his posts. He responded to only half of them by number and didn’t address all of the issues in the numbered items that he did address.) When I see this kind of behavior, I realize that the person is not being intellectually honest.
- Avoids an issue by addressing a different issue, addressing it as if it was the same one. (Example: I brought up in “Women’s Role” #106 that Evangelical stated that Satan sowed Judas, and I cited a verse stating that Jesus chose Judas. I requested that Evangelical retract and repent. Instead, he gave an explanation that Judas was a tare (which was not the point) and concluded with, “God allowed Satan to use Judas.” As if that wasn’t enough, he then joked about it (#116) by seconding Drake’s joke on the matter (#110). This kind of sleight-of-hand does not clear him of ascribing to Satan what the apostle John attributed to Jesus. This kind of behavior is either disingenuous or displays an inability to understand the point being made.
- Is guilty of hypocrisy. (Example: Read Evangelical’s posts in this thread [“New Jane Anderson Website”] about Jane’s statement that the devil was behind lemon translations and compare it to his ascribing to Satan what Jesus did (as explained in #3 above.)
- Displays an attitude that belies its words. It’s somewhat captured in the saying, “What you are is speaking so loudly that I can’t hear what you’re saying.” (Example: Some of Evangelical’s posts have given away some of his true thoughts and feelings about women and what he thinks that their place should be. And, yes, this is an opinion; and, yes, this is something that I cannot know for sure. Note that I am not the first one to express such.)
- Reveals an agenda. (Example: This thread began when Koinonia posted one night what was basically just a notice that Jane Anderson had a new website. Evangelical, early the next morning, began a personal attack against Jane. He was joined by Drake, who mounted another personal attack. Next, Evangelical turned it into a joke and, this time, Drake was the one who joined in with the joke.) One thing that people do when they do not have a good answer to a question or response to a statement is to respond with a personal attack or a joke.
Motives of those in the Local Church and related entities
Why would Evangelical and Drake engage in such personal attacks against Jane Anderson, even mocking her and her writings? Of course, I can’t know
for sure what their motives are, but here’s what I think: It is apparent to me that they are members of the Local Church. As such (and I speak from twenty years of experience), they basically have a duty to protect and defend, at all costs, the Local Church, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), associated ministries (like Defense and Confirmation Project [DCP] and A Faithful Word [AFW]), Watchman Nee, and Witness Lee.
Jane wrote a book
(The Thread of Gold: God’s Purpose, the Cross, and Me) giving her personal testimony of her experiences in the Local Church, as well as experiences with the LSM of Witness Lee. This book was denounced from the podium by Benson Phillips, one who became a main ministry leader after Witness Lee’s death. As far as the leaders are concerned, Jane has to be denounced whenever possible, because her exposé negatively impacted them and their movement. One of the things that her story showed was the Local Church’s poor treatment of women. Regardless, her book has helped hundreds, if not thousands, understand how the Local Church operates, and her book has helped many recover from their experiences there.
Why is Jane Anderson still being attacked?
The Thread of Gold, which was published twelve years ago, is still having an impact today. After its publication, Jane began posting on Internet forums, first on what’s known as “The Bereans” and then on this one, “Local Church Discussions.” As those of us who were in the Local Church movement know, members are asked to present a good image to the outside world, and some even go into this “ministry” on a full-time basis. After one of Jane’s posts, a former elder in the Local Church wrote to AFW, stating that her post was not true. AFW, trying to discredit her, posted the man’s letter on their website. When Jane found out about it, she wrote
a long response to the attack.
My point here, of course, is that those associated with the Local Church and LSM will try to disparage Jane in any way they can. Objective readers can ascertain for themselves whether the level of attack in this thread is warranted, what might have caused the attack, and whether or not Evangelical and Drake are simply hanging out on this forum to try to prop up the images of the Local Church, LSM, Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, etc.
John’s reasons for this post
I would ask all interested readers to conduct a simple analysis: In my post about Evangelical’s post (#96 on the “Women’s Role” thread), did I make one disparaging or mocking comment about his person? My answer would be, “No,” but I leave the reader to decide. In this post, however, since he has, from the starting gun, attacked Jane personally, I have definitely tried to shine a light on him and Drake and some of their tactics. I am not claiming to be perfect, but I am trying to be straightforward and fair-minded.
My involvement on a thread will not be governed by Evangelical’s or Drake’s antics. I write this so that readers will understand why I do not post every time either of them makes some claim that reflects some of #1 through #6 above. If they would address
all of my comments in this thread (which also covers things they wrote on the “Women’s Role” thread), then I would consider treating them differently, depending, of course, on how they would respond.
My attitude and posture towards Evangelical’s and Drake’s posts will be that they all contain some amount of what I outlined above. My suggestion to readers would be to take every post of theirs with several grains of salt. You might think of their posts as I do—leaven. Therefore, no matter how logical many of their statements
appear to sound, they are probably not logical and probably poorly thought out when scrutinized (for example, see my #96 on “Women’s Role” thread).
About this Satan stuff
Now, to the substance of Evangelical’s and Drake’s attack, which I will not spend much time on or go into much detail about for the reasons stated above. Their histrionics seem to be mainly directed toward one quote from Jane’s book,
A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies. As you are aware, Jane is posting excerpts from this book on her blog at
LemonsToGrapes.com. She first posted “Lemon One: 1st Corinthians 11:1–16,” which occurs around page 149 of the paperback book. (By the way, it is gratifying to know that Evangelical actually read the portion that was posted, or some of it at least.) Unfortunately, however, the presentation that answers his attack is on pages 31–34. As Nell might write to him, “You do realize that the quote you are going crazy about is from a book, don’t you?” As Matthew might write, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23, KJV). For thoughtful persons, this should be enough to answer the Satan charge.
So, the bottom line here would be that if Evangelical is really interested in doing more than simply castigating Jane for what he thinks is a great “got-cha,” he might read the entire book first; and, in the process, he might actually learn something—from a woman. Oh, wait a minute, in some of his later posts, I see that he is actually admitting that Jane could be right regarding the translation in Genesis 3:16 (“turning”). Although he grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of the translation change, he still doesn’t want to admit to more. I hope that he continues to read
A Woman of Chayil, even if he is only reading it piecemeal. Maybe his Local Church perspective will be shaken some in the process. (And, this just in, he has now admitted this: “Jane’s book makes some very good points and is worth a read, as is Bushnell's. I have learnt things I did not know before” (#70). Well, what do you know, Evangelical was taught by a woman (er … make that two women)! Actually, I do appreciate him admitting this. It’s too bad that he had to go to such lengths to try to inflict damage before getting to this point.
Conclusion
I hope that this post has been helpful to some. I just wanted to let folks know that I think that people who are posting like Evangelical and Drake don’t really deserve a response from me. I just wanted to let readers know why I plan to treat them somewhat like static on a radio. This does not necessarily mean that I will never address things they bring up; I will just do so as I notice it and as it seems appropriate. For example, in “About this Satan stuff,” I quickly refer to some of the attacks, as they occurred to me. I didn’t, however, make a full and complete rebuttal.
I do plan for my next post to be more in line with the spirit of the opening post on this thread, that is, something related to the content on the Lemons to Grapes website. Actually, my next post will cover some introductory material and set the stage for the following one that will actually get into the real meat (lemon?) of the subject: translation.