The polemics surrounding the age-old Calvinist-Arminian debate are putrid. I was just involved in such antics, once again, on Twitter. It reminded me, actually of the (now) old theoblogosphere. Much of the blogosphere was populated by the same people who now populate theological Twitter. There is a lot of noise made, but without understanding. As such said debate[s] end up being interminable, and soul-rotting. There is an endless exchange of uninformed, unresearched, and unread jousting that never leads to light, only heat. I have participated, over the decades, in untold exchanges like this. They are never edifying, and always reduce to name-calling.

The Apostle Paul engaged with the pseudo-Apostles in Corinth, and at a certain point, in order to counter them, he went down to their level, and said: if I must speak as a fool, here are my accolades; top that! Did this ultimately shut the pseudos up? No, it probably enflamed them even more. But it made an important point: actual knowledge, experience, and even training do in fact matter; even if such training is not an end, but only an instrument. Even so, it is an instrument to be used for the edification, and not the tearing down of the saints. That’s why Paul was willing to speak as a fool: he had his opponents “beat” at the lowest common denominator; the denominator that his would-be opponents had elevated to the sine-qua-none of their relative chops. Paul was not phased by that, in fact, at that level, “the intellectual chops level,” he had no challengers. But Paul wasn’t compelled by that, he was compelled by the love of Christ.

Paul was so Christ concentrated that he wouldn’t be sidetracked by the pedantics surrounding him. He would engage, for a moment, for a reason, and then keep moving as he was energized by the resurrection power of Christ. He knew what the goal was, and he consummately pressed onward, forward to the high and heavenly goal of the prize and reward in Christ Jesus. I want to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ. There is foolishness, en masse, out there in the interweb. I’m not immune to such foolishness; I’m not “smarter” than said foolishness; I’m not on the outside looking in at the foolishness. I’m just as much a participant as anyone else. But by the Spirit I pray to have some semblance of perspective, even while in the heat of the foolishness. That I have enough Spirit induced wherewithal to repent, afresh anew, from Christ’s repentance for me, and keep moving forward to that final reward of consummate beatific vision.

As an aside though, let me press something I have pressed many times prior: the usage of so-called theological jargon is not inherently wicked. That is to say, that jargon, or precision language, when used contextually and meaningfully, is a help to the task of theological communication. Jargon is pregnant language waiting to be unpacked for various audiences. Jargon is like the handle on a drawer. Those who can recognize what a particular handle opens don’t necessarily need all of its contents exhaustively explicated. But in other audiences maybe they have never even seen the room where the chested drawers are. Maybe they need to become acquainted with the room, before they ever get to the chested drawers, and its various handles. That said, some people actually live in those rooms; they are familiar with its parts; they know what is in each drawer. Being sensitive to audiences is important, indeed. But the internet has a way of equalizing everything, such that the teachers and students look exactly the same. As such, I’ve found, at least in open metas, it is not ideal to try and be a teacher. A person can selectively be a student, if they have the proper critical apparatus in place. But often there is so much unchecked anonymity online that an actual pedagogical environment is not fostered, it is really nowhere to be found. Everybody is an expert online, especially on Twitter.

But this is kind of why I have always operated the way I have, even here at the blog. I used to have other blogs (like actual sites, not posts) where I was attempting to speak and write as a teacher. But that takes a lot of effort, time, and energy, that unless I’m getting paid to do it, I don’t have the wherewithal to in fact do that. Plus, the audiences are all over the place. I have scholars, students, lay people, and everyone in-between reading here. I ultimately, and this years ago, decided to just write the way I process things at an initial or raw level. That is to say, I write, typically, here at the blog in a way that is intended to help ME learn. I understand I am writing for the “public,” but I don’t actually let that curtail the way I am engaging with whatever topic or theologian that I am. So, I do have the jargon in my posts; but the jargon is used contextually, and in a way that makes sense to me (usually). If I had more time and energy, I would like to break things down further; actually, open the drawers and talk about its contents in more detailed and accessible ways. And sometimes I think I achieve that, even here at the blog. But if I do, it isn’t necessarily intentional. I’m typically trying to break things down in a way that make sense to me. Hopefully, in so doing, they, over time, begin to make sense to others as well.

Anyway, just some streamy thinking on polemics, jargon, and rationale, once again, with reference to the philosophy of my blogging. I’m really no longer interested in jousting within the never-ending Calvinist-Arminian debates (but that doesn’t mean I won’t use that debate as a springboard to go deeper with it, and behind it). I genuinely seek to be Christ concentrated in all that I do. Even if I get sidetracked, I always seek to get back on the Christ concentrated road, all the way to glory. And I’m sure the jargon will continue in my posts, but hopefully in such a way that will challenge others to expand their own lexicons, and learn along with me as I write.