Tim Stevens Refuses to Read Glenn Beck’s New Book.
Refusing to Argue with Idiots
– October 9, 2009
Tim Stevens Refuses to Read Glenn Beck’s New Book.
About the Author
Richard Clark (Co-Founder/Editor-in-Chief) has spent his entire life writing, reading, listening, and playing. He has a Bachelors in Theology from the Baptist College of Florida and has a Master of Arts in Theology and the Arts from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He lives in Louisville, KY where he is the classroom technology manager at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to writing at Christ and Pop Culture, he is also a staff writer for Kill Screen Magazine's website and has written for various other outlets such as Paste, Gamasutra, and Collide.
Email: deadyetliving [at] gmail [dot] com. Twitter: @deadyetliving. Xbox Live: deadyetliving 
Yeah lets not read a book that calls people idiots. Beck may be right, and have good arguments, but he’s being mean by calling them idiots. Sorry Tim, I bet you got hit by a lot of dodgeballs in your childhood. The “everybody wins” program was after your time wasn’t it? Sorry but the “calling people names” bit is a wee childish.
Really, if we call people “lost” they might become angry and not come to our church? I’d like to see that argument to God. “sorry God but they called me ‘lost’” Gods reply: “you are” If we call them sinners, fornicators, homosexuals, aduterers, liars and cheaters, we might offend them. Gasp!? I’ll bet Jesus never called them that. Actually…., he did.
But we shouldn’t. I mean, we too are sinners. What gives us the right to call them that? We are different. We are to call them what they are. They cannot repent of their sins if they don’t think they are sinning. How can they see their problems if we won’t show them?
I understand his reasoning, but seriously, get off your high horse. I am certain he has called someone dumb, stupid, an idiot, dork, duffis, meany head, jerk or some other form of name, after writing this article. quit being so critical about such foolish things.
Not to add any more confusion to this but in another article by Tim:
http://www.leadingsmart.com/leadingsmart/2009/09/kanye-taylor-and-beyonce.html
He states at the end “I hope he loses millions of dollars for being a ___________ (fill-in-the-blank and be creative)”
That doesn’t fit in very well at all with his philosophy of not calling people names does it?
Fill-in-the-blank: expresses that he would rather our minds ponder what words would fit in a blank. Hmm telling us to sin with our minds maybe? Also expresses that he thinks of Kanye in such a manner that he is unable to vocalize such words (probably because they are not good christian words). I want you to remember he is a pastor, a leader of a church, someone that many people look up to.
Be creative: Expresses that he wants you to use your wildest imagination. In other words see how many curse words you can put together in one long string. IN any case the “blank” part would make our minds immediatly go to the very uncreative vile words, that we learned, how not to use properly, when we were seven.
Sure he didn’t really call anyone any names, but we did do all the work for him.
Jason, I agree with you there, it’s not a super-helpful sentence.
BUT, are we really going to start dredging up old posts to help refute newer ones? This seems like a really tiresome form of argument.
Jason is a moron.
Actually, not having read either article, there’s a distinct difference here. And it’s not about using pejorative language. It’s about using pejorative language against the very person you’re trying to convince of your own perspective.
With Arguing with Idiots, the presumption is that one wants their perspective to win out through some level of discussion. Use of the pejorative (idiot in this case) against the person one is trying to win over—the purpose of the argument, I would imagine (hope?)—is at best counter-productive as it immediately sets a negative tone to an encounter.
See, I did that above. This discussion doesn’t at all have anything against Jason, but more than likely, by my imbecilic opening, Jason is a moron, I’ve coloured the conversation and made it more difficult for Jason to respect me enough to even listen to whatever point I have to make. That was, I gather, Tim’s point—and a delicious point it is.
Now the difference between that and the quoted pejorative against Kanye is that the author is not trying to win Kanye over to his perspective. He is not engaged in a discussion with the man and is not arguing a point that will be distracted from by concluding that the man is a jerk or whatever pejorative he used.
Apples. Oranges. Context is everything, Jason.
@ Rich
Your right it is a tiresome form of arguement. But none the less, to call someone a name then turn around an drebuke someone else for doing the same is down right foolish. Yes I really believe the whole thing is stupid to begin with. Not reading a book because it uses the word idiot. But if your going to be a critic, then expect to be critiqued.
@ Dane
? what? I’m not a scholar sir, I’m a common man, with common sense. Please use common language.
@Jason – I did.
Broken down further, Tim is not saying that it is in every case a bad thing to call names. What he does say is that if you are trying to have a discussion with a person, calling names (like Idiot) is not such a good plan. The Kanye example doesn’t have anything to do with having a discussion or argument with Kanye, so it doesn’t fall under Tim’s original criticism—and so, isn’t hypocrisy.
________________
As an aside, if you’re really as slow (common?) as you claim, finding my original words to be too scholarly, you might want to tone down the strength of your opinions—since if you couldn’t understand me, there’s a pretty reasonable chance you’re not understanding the points of the other people you’re arguing against. Or even the Scriptural paradigms you’re using to back up some of your more out-there claims in your other comments (the ones that made me think you were just a troll).
So what you are saying is, by calling an opponent an idiot, you have already set the stage. I can see that. I wasn’t so sure if that is what you meant before, thats why I wanted a clearer explaination. You know first you called me a moron, then used big words. If, as you say, I am a moron, then why would you use such big words? That is the point Beck is trying to make. These people just don’t get it, so his book is how to explain the truth in a way they can understand.
sure anyone can misread what an author writes, including myself. I am not slow, it’s just your explaination made no sense. You could have easily said what I said in my first sentence. But I do take issue of the not understanding scripture part. The Bible was meant for all men to read. It is not some secret message that you can only read with a decoder. It says what it means and means what it says. It’s simple. Yes you have to take it in context to how a verse fits to a story, and that I can agree with. What I disagree on is how msny “Christians” forget Gods laws, or completely and purposefully ignore them. Many of my “out there” claims come from laws. Not from dreams, or stories that can be misinterpreted.
My main (out-there) battle is against homosexuality. You cannot misinterpret what the Bible says about that. But we (Christians) have allowed these groups go on and get stronger to the point that now we look like the idiots for calling it wrong. If we simply did what God told us to do, instead of altering His laws to fit what we believe is His intentions were/are, then we wouldn’t be battling rampant homosexuality, and the diseases it carries, in this country. But to people like you, who have to search for a “better or deeper” explaination, killing the homosexual is wrong, even though God is the one who gave us that commandment. Many of the old testament laws I do find unimportant in our society, and in some sense, we have been given permission to walk away from them. But God is very consistant on sexual sins and how to deal with those kinds of people.
All sexual diseases, are passed on by someone who did not follow Gods plan for sex. That is their (homosexuals, fornicators, adulturers)punishment for not following Gods laws. The only people who don’t deserve those kinds of disease, yet still sometimes get them, are children of parents with a disease, or doctor and nurses, and innocent passers-by that get it by freak accidents. But we can blame only ourselves for those innocent people who have contracted AIDS, and the children born with an incurable disease. Those innocent people are our (Christians) punishment for ignoring Gods laws.
@Jason – When I called you a moron, I wasn’t really calling you a moron. I was, as you say, setting the stage. And I was doing so to illustrate a point. By setting the stage in such a way it made the rest of my post confusing to you. I didn’t actually use any big or technical words, but by the stage I set, I only muddied the waters.
If Beck’s book is solely about how to communicate one’s position clearly, then I am already mistrustful of it. Wholly because of the title. If you have to explain what a book’s title really means and its a book promoting clearing the lines of communication, than it has failed before it has even begun.
Beck may have numerous good things to say but he has sold himself in manner that makes him untrustworthy—especially to people of my generation. His evident arrogance, egoism, and charlatanry communicate—in broad waves—a disdain for truth. Even if his whole purpose is to find the truth, support it, and defend it, he fails because of the image he has built for himself.
He fails at communication.
So it makes it difficult to take seriously a book by him on how to communicate truth (or even just what one believes to be true), since he does so poorly at it himself.
@Jason – As to Scripture being understandable for the simple, I would simple ask then why does it have to be taught, discerned, and explained? You’re right that the Bible does not need a decoder ring to unravel, but it is when people approach it simply that they begin to misunderstand it. It is for this reason that God has ordained people to lead the church by preaching and by teaching.
For instance, while I’m happy to agree that Scripture speaks of homosexuality as sin, we have to see that Scripture doesn’t concern itself with the manner in which our government treats homosexuality. On the church level, the steps of discipline should be taken against active and unrepentant homosexual activity. On the individual level, we are required to love them as ourselves. Or at least as our neighbours. Or at least as our enemies. Whom we are to love as ourselves. In any case, Scripture has no clear teaching on how we are to legislate things that we know to be sinful.
As to the laws from which you plainly interpret in the way you do, if you did approach them from their context, you would see that the laws that require death for homosexual offenders and require us not to wear cotton/polyester blends are given in a very particular context as part of a very particular covenant. When God made his contract (or covenant) with Moses, it was concerned with some very specific things. It was a contract through which Israel would either (by their obedience) inherit the land of Canaan and prosper there or (by their disobedience) be driven from Canaan and cursed of God. The laws about homosexuality and mixing of fabrics were part of the guidelines to this contract. Ultimately Israel completed the negative terms of the contract and the consequences of the contract were fulfilled by God when he destroyed Israel.
Now just like when I make a contract with Rich, that doesn’t mean its rules are binding on you. And it certainly doesn’t mean that if you fulfill the rules of the contract that you will gain the rewards of the contract. Because the contract was not made with you.
Just like God’s contract with Israel (via Moses) on Mount Sinai wasn’t a contract with anyone other than Israel. So, to point to the Mosaic covenant as directive for your battle(?) against homosexuality is just a plain misuse of God’s word.
______________________________________
As far as law-making, since Scripture does not support either any particular governmental model or any particular model for legislation, we have liberty to decide which sins to legislate against and which to leave to conscience of the individual and to the province of the church. Idolatry was one of the worst sins under the Mosaic covenant and yet in America we not only allow it but celebrate our nations liberty to engage in idolatry if one so chooses. In fact, America was partially founded upon that choice.
Should America legislate against the sin of homosexuality? Perhaps.
But I rather think that to do so would be more harmful than to do otherwise. The laws that seem to make the most sense for a non-theocratic society such as ours are those that protect people from overtly being harmed by others. Vague threats to the national well-being are too abstract.