Jason,
I generally agree with everything you wrote. I also agree that we need to tread very carefully as we address this so as not to be perceived as using this forum as a means of bashing other believers who do not share all the same tenants of faith. I also understand that as an administrator you are more sensitive to the potential for this happening than ordinary schmucks like myself. Thanks for your post.
I realize that most UR people do not consider ECTers to be insane. But Zender is not one of those people. I anticipate that if he were to chime in on this thread he would remark that, in his view, the ability to accept the existence of ECT represents a departure from rationality so profound that there is no other word to describe it but “insanity”. It would not matter to him that most or all ECTers are able to function normally in other areas of life. It would not matter to him that most or all ECTers are able to assemble coherent arguments for their faith and appear rational. In his view, they are not.
Recently when sharing my serious consideration of EU with a biblically astute friend she said the arguments I was entertaining were very irrational and she expressed doubt that I was thinking sanely. She was very concerned. Do I find her words and sentiments offensive or un-Christlike? No way! In fact, it would be very unloving if she failed to express this. She had enough respect for me to share her honest feelings. She treated me like I would want to be treated and, I am sure, like she would want me to treat her.
Likewise, Zender would be unloving if he did not express his views in a frank manner.
However, this does not necessarily mean that Zender is doing so in a loving manner. This is where it gets tricky. I am sure we are all familiar with how 2 different people can say the exact same words and yet be communicating 2 different messages. The actual message depends on many things such as the context of the conversation, the background of the listener, the background of the speaker, the precise meaning of words as understood by both parties, the vocal inflection, the physical gestures, the physical environment, the expected audience outside of the immediate listeners, and of course the intent of the speaker. Therefore answering your final question about whether or not Zender is treating others like he would want to be treated becomes quite subjective.
For example, if Zender attended a Sunday morning Bible study at my church (or was writing on this website) and started spouting off about ECT and UR and calling people insane, I would consider that to be wrong. However, the context of the conference in the video was different. Also, if Zender is simply using the word “insane” for shock value and has not clearly thought through what it means, then I would consider that to be wrong. However, he attempts to couch his words in the background that he has carefully thought this through.
If Zender only used the words “irrational” or “illogical”, I doubt this thread on this site would even exist. However, it’s the word “insane” that appears to cross the line of decency. Maybe it’s my medical education background, but when I hear this word I don’t view it as necessarily having inflammatory intent. It’s simply an assessment. Now I also realize he used the word “nuts”. Did he really have to do that? That was probably not a good choice. But I also can sympathize with him on this as well. He seems to really believe in what he is saying and he seems to really be concerned about how this is affecting others. Therefore he may feel he needs to get people’s attention. He may feel words like “irrational”, “illogical, and even “insane” do not cut it. (And “nuts” is really just slang for “insane”. It does not add any new meaning to the word “insane” other than to alert people that he is really serious/passionate/radical/”freaked out” about this.)
Have we all not resorted to stronger words when we feel a listener is not really taking our concerns seriously? I am not saying we should ever use inaccurate words, but there are words that say the same exact thing but carry a little extra punch. “Nuts” is one of those words. I would not use it but I can see how he felt he should.
It should also be noted that I am interpreting his words in light of his somewhat comical (or silly) sequence tacked onto the beginning. From that I learned a little about his “edgy” personality which causes me to consider his use of the word “nuts” in a less abrasive manner than I normally would.
Personally I think we are living in an age of hyper-political correctness where people are too quick to perceive things in an offensive way and others are too quick to mince their words for fear of offending. Either way no progress is made. I say, let’s get it out on the table so we can deal with it (whatever “it” may be). The key thing is this: In areas of theological polemics, people should not compose language designed simply to tear the character of others down or subject them to ridicule. This is wrong in any age. We need to make sure the words we use are the words we mean, they are said in the proper setting, and are intended to get us all closer to the truth. (Between the two approaches is indeed a “fine line”, but so be it.)
So in answer to your question (“is Martin Zender treating proponents of ECT the way he would want to be treated by proponents of ECT?”), in my opinion based upon the one video referenced in this thread: Yes.
I always loved this quote though. Proudhon was no saint, but despite this I think he did understand the inherent message of the Christ better than most (he writes the most fantastic (secular) account of Christ in this book). It was only when I read it this evening, that I noticed it might be appreciated here amongst universalists! Thanks for the encouragement though. God knows we all need it.
