Intellectual Etiquette, or: How to Handle a Sect
Note: This is a re-release of a YouTube post that grew a little longer than I had anticipated. Nevertheless, I feel it a fair reflection upon the poor scholarship of some in the body of Christ, as a strong backdrop for how not to study scripture, as well as how to handle the criticisms of those who are not playing fairly.
*******
Excerpt from "How to Read a Book," chapter 10, by Mortimer Adler -- "Every author has had the experience of suffering book reviews by critics who did not feel obliged to do the work of the first two stages first. The critic too often thinks he does not have to be a reader as well as a judge. Every lecturer has also had the experience of having critical questions asked that were not based on any understanding of what he had said. You yourself may remember an occasion where someone said to a speaker, in one breath or at most two, 'I don't know what you mean, but I think you're wrong.' There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort. The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you -- the position they claim to be challenging. If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms. They are irrelevant, as all criticism must be that is not based on understanding. When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent." This is sound advice, when dealing with any sectarian view point, even in the body. My most prevalent experience in this online sphere with criticisms made apart from understanding were with the non-existence sect, which, to this day, major teachers of it -- Peter Meye, Liam McAllister, Richard Golko, Aaron Welch, Clyde Pilkington, and the like -- have yet to demonstrate that they have a fundamental understanding of the position they oppose (as it stands, they have not yet done so, and this has shone in their lackluster commentary.) I have received the criticism many times -- "I don't know what you mean, but I think you're wrong." I've gotten it from brothers in the comments, I've received it from the teachers of the sect themselves, and more. It's quite a shame, too. I have been asked multiple times by some -- "How do these guys not get it?" In reading this "How to Read a Book," Mortimer Adler posits that refusal to understand something is a willful choice. One is not "unable" to comprehend something, but actively refusing to do so. So long as such ignorance (ignorance which Paul himself is disturbed by many times over) remains in an individual, truth is continually obstructed. I write on this topic today not to convince any of the sect, who have self-avowed their own refusal to syntopically study the matter. I write, instead, as a warning for those who appreciate the facts as they have been presented: Do not waste your time with criticisms made apart from understanding on matters of scripture. Such criticisms manifest in a few ways. 1) When someone presents a reasoning riddled with logistical errors to attempt to refute a statement you make -- whether it be an appeal to authority, a category error, an ad hominem, or the like -- then they are demonstrating that they do not understand what you said and simply do not like it (and are feigning intellect to dismiss you -- in other words, they are refusing to be teachable.) 2) When someone restates their claim under the notion that this refutes a refutation of it, then the position of the critic is not understood. 3) When any argument is presented to you with a view to skirt around the simple definition of any given term, then the argument's nature is itself not in accord with the text, nor is it analytical toward the text -- it is reasoning above the text. As brothers, it is important that we give each other the necessary time to present a view, but it must also be important to give others a time to meditate and reflect on said view and reply. This, according to Adler, could be called "intellectual etiquette." When a broader conversation is going on, such etiquette should be observed, for without it, conversation is bickering rather than profitable communication. It would be easy for one lacking the ability to critically criticize to claim that such bickering is two-sided. But this could not be further from the truth. This idea is a facade incited by post-modernists who would wish for their opinions to be treated as fact -- as "their truth." Television news has especially accelerated this trend in the last 100 years by brainwashing audiences that truth is always a matter of balance -- that every issue has two equal sides, even if one side is completely fabricated. This can be called “dumb objectivity” -- the misguided belief that ‘fairness’ requires giving myths the same platform as facts. The result is an intellectual flattening, where reason and superstition share equal billing. It must be clearly understood, then, that the side which is not observing the intellectual etiquette -- studying multiple positions with a view to understand, instead of a view to prove anything -- is the side undeniably at fault for the difficult and tense conversation that the "existence of Christ" has become. When viewed like this, the proponents of the task force face a difficult and unsettling truth -- that, by continually evading the facts which do not immediately align with their opinion, and by teaching others that this is an acceptable method of dealing with criticism, they are indeed not defending truth, but insulating themselves from it — fostering a culture where personal conviction cultivates realization, and where error is preserved under the guise of "logical" certainty. ******* It will almost certainly be challenged that the task force has not done such a thing. On this point, I have what the young 'uns call "receipts," to verify what I'm saying, which I will now discuss here.
For any unfamiliar with the history, I may briefly share my experience with this debate, since Aaron Welch brought it up in 2017. I joined Drew Costen's discord in early/mid 2021, and rather quickly came face to face with the "non-existence" theory. I argued against some points from some in that discord for a while, before Drew Costen messaged me and said (paraphrasing,) "Hey, check out this Aaron Welch study. He did a great job compiling his notes on this. At least hear it out, that you can speak from a more educated position, or be convinced of the alternative." So I did. I reviewed his study, line by line, ensuring that I left no stone unturned. I learned quite a bit, and made sure to understand Aaron Welch's position (save for a few points on Philippians 2:5-8, which Aaron himself has since retracted, since it makes no sense,) and was not moved. I compared his study to the facts of the Greek presented, using Paul’s writings — Philippians and Colossians — as my primary base of operations. When I published this, a few years later, it seemed to incite a necessary discussion on the topic. Welch saw what I wrote in refutation, and rebutted. He did not go line by line (I wouldn’t expect that, of course, only I’m that crazy, I guess.) I did, however, expect him to rebut point by point, as this is a nuanced and important discussion to be had. He did not do this. He observed the first third of my refutation and ignored the rest. At the time, I accepted this for what it was, because writing is a far more grueling task than a 20-30 minute presentation. I figured he was merely busy. But this severely handicapped his writings, as they often supposed that points he had made (such as in John 1 or 6, or Hebrews 1,) had not been refuted, when if he had dealt with the remaining points, he would have found those points much more difficult to rely on. To this day, his refutation is the most I've received from this sect. When his refutation was published, the sect went wild -- folk like Norman Labelle and Jason of Christ Saved Everyone fame had responded with certain amazement. They loved the response. Simultaneously, I was booted out of the discord in mid 2023 upon calling out insults thrown at myself, Martin and others (claiming that we believed in "demonic teachings," and, in the words of one lacking critic, that Aaron's writings, in comparison, were the writings of a "real man.") In standing up for myself, I was cast out under the supposition of "arrogance." To this day, therefore, I have not returned to the discord, since, as students of Paul's letters know, per Romans 2:1, that what one judges another in, they condemn themselves. If the spirit of that discord was ruled by arrogance, I knew I could appreciate a realization of God outside of it (and, to this day, I have.) A few months later, the reply to Aaron Welch's writings came, and there was radio silence. Not one teacher in Christ -- from Drew Costen to Aaron Welch to Jason of Christ Saved Everyone fame -- considered the reply, for, if they had, most of the rhetoric and "logic" still pervading even this present day task force would not be treaded. This was further my first indication that the sect was operating under a deceitful spirit, and not one of a legitimate desire to apprehend the full facts of the matter. On the video side of things, a month or two before Aaron Welch's response, Peter Meye and crew did a round table discussion, with Norm Labelle, Dale and Mikael and a few others. Me and Seth went point by point through their ideas in extensive and careful consideration, refuting each point. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Bxe... To this day, the sect has never publicly dealt with any rebuttal made by me, Seth, or Gabe on the matters in this video, even after being informed that the video -- made by brothers who sought to PROGRESS, not regress, the discussion, had been made, and had founded their view in the exact Greek text, and were attaining to a pattern of sound words. Peter Meye released a 3 1/2 hour video professing belief in the “non existence of Christ” and his stance on it. Me and Seth again refuted the majority of this in two separate videos. You can view them both here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTuxZ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7KYW... The points made by Peter Meye here further caught Scott Hicko's attention, for he uploaded these two videos shortly thereafter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOMDz... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOlK... And still I was not done. I released a critical video talking about the Greek of John 1:1. To this day, only Jason of Christ Saved Everyone fame even acknowledged this important point, and even then, his rhetoric since then had practically dismissed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViOTD... To this day, the sect has never publicly dealt with the points made here by myself, Seth, or Scott Hicko. Later, Jason of Christ Saved Everyone fame created a short video series questioning the "divinity" of Christ ("divinity," in Greek, is PLACERship, for the uninitiated.) Against my better judgment, I further commented on his claims using more scripture here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwNLs... To this day, Jason of Christ Saved Everyone, or anyone else in this sect, has dealt with any of the points made here by me. Seth later found a wonderful video by Nelson Howe, where he, too, before his passing, dealt with the theory of the "non-existence of Christ," and the value of recognizing the full truth of this topic. Seth brought this to our attention here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8eLN... And you may watch the original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b72PO... To this day, neither Seth's comments nor the points Nelson made in the video have been dealt with by this sect. Instead, the sect, at this point, became rather volatile on the matter. What we received was one of the "stupid questions" that Paul warned believers about -- "Did the Logos Die?" from Adam of South America (BoC members know him.) I briefly dealt with this question here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiw55... To this day, the sect has not dealt with the rebuttal. And, when refuted firmly, both in writing and video, he was more than ignorant, by not only ignoring reproach, but further resorting to ad hominems which held no bearing on the points being made. It was more than clear at this point that the sect was not interested in any refutation on the matter. Instead of handling the objections with intellectual etiquette, the sect claimed that it simply did not like being called a "sect." Unfortunately for the sect, in order to demonstrate that you are not a sect, you must ground your view directly in scripture. To be in a sect is, as Rob Wile has pointed out in his word study, to "LIFT" oneself above what is directly written. Any view one attains to which "LIFTS" oneself above the directly written text should be challenged and discarded as soon as possible. And, since the sect had thus far refused the most avid and careful refutations to the matter, it was clear that the sect would be called exactly what it needed to be called, per Paul's regard on the matter. Then Richard released his study on the matter, as an epilogue of sorts to his large Trinity rebuke. He even recommended i observe some other parts in said series (specifically, sessions 31-34, concerning the Gnostic roots of the Trinity,) before evaluating any point he made in his “non-existence” video. I can’t speak for Seth on it, but I most certainly did do this. We responded to this across two separate videos, both here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwA8N... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmifG... To this day, Richard and the sect responded to neither of these collected points, nor the ruminations made by Gabe and Tony after the fact in part 2. Liam later released a 12 part study on the matter, and me and Seth observed the foundational points he made in his first three videos (most of which were actually rooted in philosophical ideas, such as “even if you have the Bible where God explicitly reveals Himself to you, you can't really know God,”) and refuted any new points made until he reasoned out that we were “rejecting the faith of Christ,” which logistically rejects our place as believers (given Romans 3:21-22, and is the only logistical conclusion to such a premise.) At this point, I was disturbed and refused to embark further. What we DID consider can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMjs3... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURnq... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQMBH... And, of course, to the surprise of no honest student of the scripture, there was, once again, radio silence, and to this day, the sect has not dealt with any points made in the prior three videos (which is a shame, as some of the most important points across ALL of these videos are compiled here, and have been evident for years -- yet still remain unacknowledged.
Thus: the reply? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Instead, what we got, over the last couple months, was a “task force." What we got was not a careful syntopical study inviting reverence for the exact word of God, or any breakdown of the Greek. Instead, we received the same refutable points were composed and projected under the same fallacious "logic," repackaged with new sheen. We received a rather tone deaf series of videos, with points that hardly touched upon the critical points of contact on these matters in Paul's letters, but instead with reasonings which seemed to operate on the assumption that their theory about the verses had been proven! If this were a religious camp, almost every knowledgeable student in the body of Christ would immediately be able to spot this negligence for what it truly is. There would immediately be acknowledgements that, psychologically, this is called "talking past you," and is arguably the most disrespectful anti-intellectualism there is. Given the topic, it is not only a sleight and affront to me, but an offense to God, Who is indeed hurt by false or painful claims and neglect toward needful edification (Eph. 4:29-30.) God's a big Guy; He can handle it, yes. But he who is injuring will be requited for that whom he is injuring. While I have a thick skin, I have indeed heard the hurt and shock of other students of the word who had gone into the videos of this task force under the impression that some answers and progression to the discussion would occur, and instead realized that they were witnissing a propagandist movement. What we received was a glorified celebration of the people that these men -- with their mighty logical pomp -- had convinced on the matter. We got a crew who kept crying, “Please listen, all we want to do is be heard,” while hypocritically demonstrating that they fundamentally would not listen. It was, to put it bluntly, a kick in the balls — especially for me, on a personal level, for I did listen to every point. I had watched almost every video. I couldn't have made half the content I had without carefully inspecting the readings they produced and the various videos that each of the major teachers had published, with careful note to understand the points each and every one of them had made (I even watched Norman LaBelle’s “Binitarian” video, where we were insinuated as “Binitarians” for an hour, which was passive aggressive insult, in hindsight, but I digress.) I had been their biggest listener, even in opposing them -- to what avail? To be told to "listen" again, and when I did listen, I was told to "listen more," and when I replied, I was told I was not saying anything of import ("weak and lacking," according to Richard Golko, beneath the first half of our rebuttal to his claims,) and to "listen again." Where does it end? When is the listening reciprocated? How long must we ride the coattails of the questioners, instead of shunning circular ravings of those who produce content but cannot endure reproach? In the words of Peter Meye, "I did not ask for your refutation!" Well, indeed, I am sure no Christian seeks a refutation to their doctrinal stances, either, but what sets the believer apart should be the willingness to heed reproach and endure correction, seeking first and foremost to stand in truth! I have not asked for correction from Seth, or Rodney Paris, and yet it has been some of the most needful edification I have received! Instead of heeding refutations, and seeking proper engagement on the matter, taking the express facts as they were presented, these men blatantly ignored them and played victim instead. And, through all of this, they have cried for debates -- debates, I muse! They portray this as a polite offering, and would demean any alternative. Given the full history laid out before you in this addendum, I ask you, reader -- WHY? Why would this crew seek debate, if they have not shown any interest in rebuttal the first 15 times? Why, if not to play a word game and confuse, to twist and spin with feigned critical thinking? How would any of us who have been following this topic over the last eight years believe the sect is truly studying all aspects of the matter, when, hitherto, not once have they even properly represented the position of the opposing view? If one cannot track their own arguments and their effectual refutations, whilst crying for a debate, do they not reveal themselves conceited as Paul himself pins in 1 Timothy 6:3-5? Are they not imposing a scenario where they can impose more stupid and crude questions upon a student of the word? Needless to say, I've lost quite a bit of intellectual respect for all of these men -- respect which is undoubtedly deserved among the carefully studious. Believers, aye -- but true and sincere students of the word, I can say, from actual experience with them all on a firsthand level — no, no they are not. When flaws are exposed in your logic, and facts from the Greek text are pointed at, and then purposefully ignored in favor of personal rhetoric, you are not indicating that you are a student of the word, or that you favor truth. Instead, your religious training is showing — the religious training which rejects the word of God in favor of emotionally resonant ideology.
There are many points which have yet to be addressed by this sect. If you deem it necessary to press on in or with a sect that has, not once, re-evaluated its own logic, and has, in Paul's words, "spread like gangrene," whilst refusing any notes from students of the Greek on the matter, then of course, feel free. But I believe, at this point, that I have demonstrated with the history above, that such a course is not expedient, and should be carefully traversed with a critical view -- and, I firmly say, on this topic or any other, should be readily dismissed, as you are entirely justified in ignoring the criticisms of the ignorant.
1 Tim. 6:3-5 - "If anyone is teaching differently and is not approaching with sound words, even those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the teaching in accord with devoutness, he is conceited, versed in nothing, but morbid about questionings and controversies, out of which is coming envy, strife, calumnies, wicked suspicions, altercations of men of a decadent mind and deprived of the truth, inferring that devoutness is capital." 2 Tim. 2:16-17 - "Yet from profane prattlings stand aloof, for they will be progressing to more irreverence, and their word will spread as gangrene..." 2 Tim. 2:23 - "Now stupid and crude questionings refuse, being aware that they are generating fightings." 2 Tim. 3:1-5 - "Now this know, that in the last days perilous periods will be present, for men will be... ostentatious, proud, calumniators... implacable, adversaries... fond of their own gratification rather than fond of God; having a form of devoutness, yet denying its power. These, also, shun." Tit. 3:10-11 - "A sectarian man, after one and a second admonition, refuse, being aware that such a one has turned himself out, and is sinning, being self-condemned."
- GerudoKing
Comments
Post a Comment