Questions of Truth and Condescending Crap

I have heard some condescending crap in my time, and this is right up there with the best with of it.

I don’t often bother with these kinds of shows, but I had some time today, so thought I’d listen in.


I feel for Tony Jones, who got to express some of his views, but was belittled and mocked by Russell Moore, all in the name of ‘TRUTH’. (Is it just me or is there something very ironic there?…)

This was not a genuine debate/discussion but rather an orchestrated stoush, where the views of the host (Moore) were clearly ‘correct’ and where Jones and those like him were clearly defined as heretics. If only life were so simple…

Moore used the title of an old Campolo book to describe how he saw the landscape ‘we have met the enemy and they are partly right’. When did other Christians ever become the enemy?!

I actually think Campolo would retitle that book if he had the chance because it was about how we engage with other religions – also not the enemy.

I haven’t read all of what Jones thinks on issues, but whether he’s right or wrong he certainly sounded like the better man on the day.

16 thoughts on “Questions of Truth and Condescending Crap

  1. Actually we atheists prefer the term ‘Wanker’.

    At an intellectual level that is essentially what he is doing – pleasuring himself with his own cleverness and with no consideration that his own perspective may not necessarily be correct and demonstrating an unwillingness to even consider that as a possiblity.

  2. I was going to point out the “2000 years of American Christianity” comment too Chris.

    While I really don’t think that was what Moore meant – it was kinda indicative of his attitude as a whole.

  3. I thought of a lot of terms I could have used for interviewer. I spend half my life working on a building site so I had quite a range I could have used. And if I wasn’t sure I could have asked the guys.

    But I thought the term wally still allowed a bit of room for love and to not reduce myself to his own gaceless behaviour.

    For example I call my son a wally when he says and does silly things. It is strong enough to say he is being a bit silly but loving enough to allow him to know that by my saying it I still care for him deeply.

  4. I’m not sure it was quite as bad as I was expecting after your comments. Not good, but not as bad as I expected (and not being emergent, maybe I’m not quite as sensitive to the issues?)… But it’s true, this Moore guy really didn’t engage or think through the issues.

    The intro said Russell Moore is on a SBC seminary staff. The SBC basically ran any thoughtful academics out of their convention (both uni’s and churches) a couple of years back. Anything that comes out of there is likely to be fundamentalist tripe. He can only see black and white party line.

  5. Maybe I should qualify the last statement. It may not be that all the individual churches have gone to that extreme, but I believe the convention as a whole and colleges/universities have been forced into some fundamentalist doctrinal statements.

  6. Ah… I’d have to go back and listen to be specific Mark, but the tone was very much ‘you are a silly man because you don’t think like us. Maybe one day you will snap out of it’.

    I can’t see how you missed it. I found the interviewer very patronising and disparaging.

  7. Without wishing to sound patronising and disparaging 🙂 Is that possible you heard it that way because you agreed with Jones, and disagreed with the patroniser?

  8. Indeed its possible Mark.

    I have heard plenty of critique that I accept and engage with though over the years.

    I thought this bloke didn’t listen, but set up Jones up to look dumb

  9. Fair enough…

    At least he had him on the show, and allowed him to speak….which means despite his commentary, people can make up their own minds.

    So often, and not necesarily referring to this guy, someone can ‘set someone up’ only for it to obvious to everyone who is really the wise one. There was a documentary on abc/sbs where Dawkins was ripping into some Christians for being arrogant, but it was seemed to me that Dawkins was the one acting irrational, angry and petulant.

  10. Yes – you’re right this can happen Mark.

    I thought this was an instance where Jones walked into an ambush and although he didn’t say anything silly, the interviewer made me seem dumb.

  11. I listened, and I’d have to suggest that I can be fairly objective on this issue – what I heard was a man (the interviewer) who found that is own voice and opinions were so enchanting that surely nothing else could matter. I found his approach smarmy.

    I also thought the ‘Emerging” guy was a bit soft – but from what I understood from the interviewer – that is typical of these emerging sorts anyway. . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *