Jesse, guilt by association is a logical fallacy which only speaks to its validity wrt arguments and not to its reliability as an indicator of reality. That GBA is a logical fallacy says nothing about whether, in fact, in the real world, even in a courtroom, someone’s associations *may* be valuable and reliable indicators regarding someone’s actual viewpoints and sources of influence. Or maybe your mom didn’t care who you played with, and we should not have worried about Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers and who knows who else, right?
Bobby, have you or anyone you know ever tried to get a security clearance from the FBI? My dad and my best friend’s husband had and have, respectively, high level security clearances including physical contact with POTUS and AF1. Trust me, the FBI thinks that associations and networks are important. They are very interested in finding out who your fourth cousin’s dog walker is (OK, slight exaggeration for illustrative purposes.) Maybe the FBI is onto something when it comes to figuring out what people are all about by looking carefully at their patterns of association.
Israeli airport and airline security has been very successful by using means which you find objectionable. Maybe they know something, too.
And I am not equating FV sympathizers with terrorists, for the record. Just trying to inject some common sense into the discussion.
Another great hit from Eileen:
For the record, I like Ref21. Sean Lucas wrote,
“But I, for one, would not want to live in a world or a church where the thought police scanned my book shelf and told me what I could or could not read. I would not want to live in a world or a church that mirrored George Orwell’s 1984.”
I don’t know the reason he wrote this, but it’s purely a straw man. Who would want to live in an Orwellian church, and where is the evidence that someone is trying to make us live in such a church? What is truly Orwellian, on the other hand, is the way that FV adherents and sympathizers use language. FV is full of theological Newspeak, as many able theologians have observed. Someone with more knowledge than I can judge when one crosses the boundary between nuance and Newspeak, and I think some able theologians have done that with respect to FV. I don’t think Sean Lucas really believes that he we are in any real danger of being forced to live in Orwellian churches.
Another snippet from Sean Lucas’ post:
“All to say, that if someone was to try to discern my theological position from the books I have read (or have on my shelf, waiting for my attention), what could they say? Theologically confused? Potentially liberal? Beautifully eclectic? Intellectually adventurous? It would be foolish to render an opinion.”
Again, this is a straw man because no one is saying that one’s theological position should be discerned *solely* on the basis on what is on one’s bookshelf. I would be more likely to listen to his sermons or what he has written and consider the totality of the evidence. What is potentially hazardous, however, especially given Sean Lucas’ position and influence, is the use some might make of the last sentence (emphasis on “foolish”). This viewpoint might be invoked illegitimately in support of their effort to take the issues of sources of influence and associations off the table and place it out of bounds because such is “foolish.” I don’t think that is what is intended by his post, but it could be an unfortunate unintended consequence of it. Although I’ve been wandering in the intellectual wilderness for literally 40 years since I took freshman logic, I think that using the term “foolish” in his post looks a lot like poisoning the well.
Wise words, Eileen.
What I neglected to include in those comments was the flip side which bears somewhat on the Knox controversy. That is, those from whom one chooses to dissociate (or not) can also be indicators of reality. The original board members at Knox chose to dissociate themselves, by resigning, from false teaching. The session at CRPC–wellllll, not so much. If you are passive in the face of what is wrong, then how is that not cooperating with what is wrong or even furthering what is wrong? If you choose to enable or ignore or rationalize away what is wrong, then you are contributing to it.
Let’s stipulate, in order to knock down the straw man erected by Sean Lucas at Ref21, that a well-taught seminarian or scholar might have (I would argue should have) books which contain even grievous errors and written by obviously false shepherds. That is necessary and proper so that they are able to recognize and are equipped to refute error in doctrine and/or practice. But when those scholars are teaching those same errors from their pulpits or to their students and are supported in that by those institutions, then I think that we can’t reasonably deny the association between the ideas to which they have exposed themselves and their own false teaching. That’s the salient point that Sean Lucas is ignoring.
Reality testing and sound reasoning are valuable but under-used skills in the church, it seems at times.
Contra the both the Pharisees and some cultural redemptionists, we should carry the gospel to pot smokers and prostitutes and suburban materialists. But when we start to look more like them than the One whose gospel we proclaim, well then, there’s a problem there, too.
This is not really a difficult concept providing one really wants to know what the truth is and is willing to do something about it when those actions might be personally costly.
[...] can be done very badly indeed. But does this mean that all circumstantial evidence is useless? See Eileen’s very sensible comments on this issue (and don’t miss her additional comment in the comments [...]
Thank you, Eileen. I appreciate your wise counsel. I often think the counsel of my wife has been helpful to me in many situations. We do not often have women in these discussions, so it is refreshing. There is something to be said for “guilt by association.” If you spend time hanging around people who are not wise or have a bad influence that will certainly have an affect on you. It is not to say that we are to go on a “witch hunt” as some have falsely accused Wes White of doing, but those whom you network with and spend time with will certainly have an influence on you. The FV is a network of like-minded men who associate around a particular set of ideas.
I went and read this discussion that Scott Clark started back in April of 2010 (having not read it before) and it honestly frightens me that some people are not seeing the issue. I was amazed that Scott Clark saw the FV 10 years ago and was looked upon with scepticism. The easiest way for heresy to trive is to shoot the messanger and dismiss him as a trouble maker or one disturbing the peace of the church. Peace never comes at the expense of truth.