Re: Suggestion for the sake of list efficiency -Reply

From: Randy LEEDY (Rleedy@bju.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 12:11:41 EST


Carl,

Thanks for your note. Perhaps you've already seen my follow-up post to
B-Greek. Your question is a difficult one for me, because I sense a
personality difference between us that comes into play. I take it as a
guiding principle for my communications not to leave people wondering
what I'm thinking, and I appreciate it when other people do for me
what I consider to be the same favor. I don't mind a disagreement. I
think it can be beneficial when people express themselves forthrightly
to one another, and even get angry with each other, so long as they
mutually maintain one another's right to their own viewpoints and
continue to value one another as persons. And if they are in
co-operative relationship (e.g. on a church board), then the
overriding commitment must be for the good of the organization, not
the triumph of the individual. Perhaps this is an unattainable ideal.
But to fail to speak one's mind, it seems to me, often results in
conversation partners' talking right past one another. Perhaps they
avoid making one another angry, but have they accomplished anything?
or have they accomplished as much as they could have accomplished by
speaking more straightforwardly?

Further, there are some questions that will automatically be
interpreted against a theological background whether or not that
background is explicitly noted. I think your example of
imputation/infusion would be such a case. To put that question with or
without an explanation of its background would seem to me equally to
invite exactly the same controversy. My approach to avoiding
controversy would be 1) not to be paranoid (probably too strong a
word) about its possibility so that posters feel uneasy about
expressing themselves, and 2) to be as firm in prescribing how to
RESPOND to questions as in how to FRAME the questions. In other words,
give a little more liberty in how questions are posed, and ask people
to exercise restraint in how they respond to them.

When I think back to my exchange with Edward Hobbs on Ephesians 1, for
example, I think what really angered me was not so much what he said
about the passage, but the fact that he said it as Chair of the list
and one of the persons responsible for clamping down hard on listers
who argumentatively promote conservative viewpoints. If the general
practice of the list were to give liberty to express oneself strongly,
then I don't think I'd have responded to Edward as I did, if at all.

Though I've said all this, I must also say that I know your policies
have been developed in response to actual problems on the list and
that people who will not control themselves must be controlled by
others, anarchy being the only other option. And so I'm happy to
acknowledge that the approach you've taken, all things considered,
probably really is best.

But to sum up my view on the specific question you've raised, I don't
really think that the way certain questions are posed will have a
material effect on how they are debated. Those that are intensely
theological will be immediately seen for what they are; those that are
otherwise might as well be posed with a clear indication of why
they're being asked.

I hope this makes some sense. Perhaps I'm inconsistent with myself.
And I don't want you to think that I go around angry at everybody all
the time. I can hardly recall a single disagreement with Katie that
was sharp enough to be called a fight. And I do serve productively on
the board of my church, and we recommend nothing to the congregation
without first attaining unanimity on the board of 13. For some reason,
though, B-Greek is different, and I suspect the difference is the lack
of common purpose that pervades these other relationships. In order
for B-Greek to work as I envision, we'd have to acknowledge one
another's competing purposes, and agree that, after the expression of
a certain amount of heat, we would simply accept the impossibility of
resolving an issue, give the chairman the last word ("Drop it!"), drop
it, and go on with other things. Probably impossible.

I won't be back at this email address until sometime Wednesday at the
earliest. In the meantime, if you want to write me, please do so at
SCLeedys@juno.com (that's for South Carolina Leedys, in case you're
wondering).

Best Christmas wishes in Christ,

Randy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:11 EDT