With Apologies and What I Have Learned
Well, first I need to apologize to anyone who was following with great interest the discussion of the last day and a half. I deleted two articles and all comments. I did this after a phone call with the main person I was debating. We decided that the discussion was generating more heat than light.
Meanwhile, I have learned a lot of things since I first decided last week to denounce Michael Brown’s paper read at the recent LCJE meeting in San Antonio (I wasn’t at the meeting but received the paper from a friend).
Since my fateful decision to denounce Dr. Brown’s paper I have learned some lessons. I am young and naive.
1. People rarely if ever change their public position in a debate (I knew this already, but being hopelessly naive and optimistic, I always hope for better).
2. In a heated debate, people inevitably focus on the peripheral issues and personal angles more than the theology. I admit to succumbing to this temptation myself, so I am not singling out my disputants.
3. Debate is fun and I have a killer instinct in debate, but aside from entertainment, unchecked debate produces more misery than transformation.
4. There must be a better way to point and counterpoint ideas than heated debate.
In the future, I would enjoy featuring some point and counterpoint with thinkers like Rich, Dr. Brown, and others with whom I disagree on substantive issues. If I do feature such point-counterpoint, I will devise some tests of fairness (such as allowing my disputant to preview and suggest edits to my responses before I post them).
At any rate, I also apologize to my friends who largely agree with me. I apologize for removing some articles and comments that were worthwhile beneath the heat. I do still believe that certain views are anti-Judaic, even of the ones holding those views are Jewish and lovers of Israel. I do believe that supersessionism needs to be repudiated in theology. I do not think that labeling a view as supersessionist is faulty rhetoric any more than citing a specific logical fallacy (the genetic fallacy has come up several times) is inappropriate.
At any rate, if you make a comment on my blog, I may respond with passion and for that I do not aplogize. I do commit to having better point-counterpoint discussions in the future. I never intended to become a shock-blog.
Seth, I look forward to many discussions on the subject we are both passionate about: Tanakh studies!
Derek Leman
