tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post115129244909467658..comments2024-01-04T07:33:10.137-05:00Comments on Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt: The Coming Buzz: Balmer's Thy Kingdom ComeJon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151352021691930992006-06-26T16:00:00.000-04:002006-06-26T16:00:00.000-04:00You are not dense, Dustin. You are the model of po...You are not dense, Dustin. You are the model of polite consideration. I could learn something from you, but it would spoil my sarcastic fun.Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151351217021917532006-06-26T15:46:00.000-04:002006-06-26T15:46:00.000-04:00SWNID,I appreciate the response. I agree with the...SWNID,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the response. I agree with the differing mediums you mentioned and their intended purpose. There may be times when I am a bit dense when it comes to understanding the full satirical weight of this blog, when it is employed and when it is not. That is to my detriment. <BR/><BR/>Without having the opportunity to read the work yet, I understand how my lack of knowledge of said work limits my ability to make a full comparison. Thus the need for my original question.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00269341644791437029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151346589356256272006-06-26T14:29:00.000-04:002006-06-26T14:29:00.000-04:00Did someone clone Jim Wallis? Seriously, I've rea...Did someone clone Jim Wallis? Seriously, I've read this book before a couple years ago. Different author, title and cover art, but essentially the same.Bryan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06571780870560590747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151340971822258772006-06-26T12:56:00.000-04:002006-06-26T12:56:00.000-04:00It is a strange blogger who keeps commenting on hi...It is a strange blogger who keeps commenting on his own post, but I want to add one more point of clarification about my perception of Balmer.<BR/><BR/>What makes Balmer's work "insufferable," as our friend in California puts it, is that his rhetoric that Christian morality demands not just that a particular social problem be addressed but that it be addressed by a particular means. He doesn't acknowledge that there are serious minds who argue from the same Christian principles to the same issues but who come to different conclusions about the best policies to address those issues.<BR/><BR/>That what makes it all so sanctimonious. And that's how I try to tailor my response. I don't for a minute want to impugn the grasp of Christian morality evinced by Randall Balmer, Jimmy Carter, Jim Wallis or any other evanelical of the political left. But I will always find problematic and irritating their rhetoric that draws a short, straight line from Christian concern for the poor to higher marginal tax rates on income and capital gains.<BR/><BR/>Balmer, for instance, calls for evangelicals to move from antiabortion politics to adopt Cardinal Bernadin's pro-life "seamless garment" that is also pacifistic and anti-capital-punishment. He speaks as if the failure to do so is patently inconsistent. <BR/><BR/>Well, it isn't. There's an obvious moral differece between abortion and just war or capital punishment. It has to do with the restraint of human sinfulness. Unborn humans are innocent of wrongdoing (unless we style "invading a womb" as a crime, which some do). Executing murderers is retributive justice. One can argue whether it is done justly in this country (as Colson does) or whether it is effective in restraining more murders (as many do), but it doesn't equate to abortion morally. There's no retribution in an abortion.<BR/><BR/>Balmer postures as frustrated that evangelicals don't put on the seamless garment, but maybe they don't because the weakness of its moral reasoning is so readily apparent.Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151332622808663252006-06-26T10:37:00.000-04:002006-06-26T10:37:00.000-04:00Excellent question, Dustin, and one that I have an...Excellent question, Dustin, and one that I have anticipated.<BR/><BR/>It's primarily the difference of the community of discourse: this is a blog, and that is a book. We deliberately strike an opinionated and partisan pose, largely satiric and self-depreciating, both to advance a point of view and simultaneously to note ironically that all political pronouncements are tentative. The nature of blogs is to be personal and opinionated.<BR/><BR/>And blogs are brief. We can't write much. We do this on the fly and on the side. On the web, no one reads anything over 300 words anyway.<BR/><BR/>Also, we don't have an editor to tell us where to lighten up or tone it down.<BR/><BR/>Balmer, on the other hand, is writing a book. He has an extended form to make an extended argument. He seems to do it without a hint of sarcasm or self-depreciation. He presumably attempts to call his evangelical family to a different mode of behavior. But by failing in any way to acknowledge the theological seriousness of theo-conservative political views, he alienates his audience.<BR/><BR/>Now a couple of other differences. We have our opinions, and they tend Republican, but note how often we decry the lack of seriousness on the other side. Lately we do this even more than criticizing (or "attacking," as you style it; "ridiculing" might come closer to the truth) the substance of the so-called arguments of the left. We'd personally love to see a real political debate in this country, like the ones that Kennedy and Nixon had in 1960, as opposed to the noise that has come from the minority party for the last several election cycles.<BR/><BR/>You've already acknowledged the differences: sarcasm matters, and so does the medium. Joel Kilpatrick's <I>A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat</I> reflects an analysis and point of view pretty close to Balmer's. But it avoids the "insufferable" tone that Balmer strikes with its deft sarcasm that invites evangelicals to laugh at themselves.<BR/><BR/>So fault Balmer and his editor. If he wants to write this way, he is condemned to the same fate as Jimmy Carter, whose rhetoric Balmer's sadly resembles.Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151329013427293312006-06-26T09:36:00.000-04:002006-06-26T09:36:00.000-04:00With the utmost respect, I must ask how this blog,...With the utmost respect, I must ask how this blog, satirical or not, is of any different substance, just on the other side of the issues, than the author of said book? It seems like quite a contradiction of sorts, as SWNID seems to believe the solution to said problems is most readily found in conservative Republican politics and employs the same attack mentality of those who disagree. I guess I find myself a bit confused by it all. Please correct me if I am wrong and simply misinterpreting the entirety of SWNID's pursuit called a blog.Dustinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00269341644791437029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-1151300912352632392006-06-26T01:48:00.000-04:002006-06-26T01:48:00.000-04:00Apart from the stuff about Iraq, Balmer's new book...Apart from the stuff about Iraq, Balmer's new book sounds an awful lot like his old PBS series, "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory," which I found insufferable through and through for the same sort of reasons you mentioned above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com