“This contributes to the many proofs that McCall did not truly read Oord’s book in good faith, but quickly scanned it to write a personal attack in defense of orthodoxy.” I am shocked, SHOCKED by this accusation that certain people with agendas don’t read shit before spouting off. This doesn’t happen in Tolkien Studies—it therefore CANNOT happen in theological ones. /sarcasm deeper than the Marianas Trench
I’m so disappointed the society even decided to publish this in a peer reviewed journal. It should have been sent back with a lot of redlining. Of course the journal should regularly publish voices who disagree with one another, but if the paper wouldn’t have gotten a passing grade in a fundamentals of rhetoric class, why on earth was it allowed to stand?
Yea, everything you said is exactly why I wrote this critique. I'm for people challenging and disagreeing with one another - that's how people come to new knowledge and solutions. Like you said, this review does not do that. It's a full-on attack with little to no clear logic or evidence
Very apt description and excellent critique of the McCall piece.
Thanks, dude! 🤘🏼
thanks for writing this. important.
pompous theological takes are the worst. (not that I haven't imbibed in pompous behavior from time to time.)
We've all indulged, but if someone's gonna be pompous, they should at least properly back it up
“This contributes to the many proofs that McCall did not truly read Oord’s book in good faith, but quickly scanned it to write a personal attack in defense of orthodoxy.” I am shocked, SHOCKED by this accusation that certain people with agendas don’t read shit before spouting off. This doesn’t happen in Tolkien Studies—it therefore CANNOT happen in theological ones. /sarcasm deeper than the Marianas Trench
Not in academia, where everyone is SUPER professional and does their homework to make proper criticisms without diving into name calling and insults
I’m so disappointed the society even decided to publish this in a peer reviewed journal. It should have been sent back with a lot of redlining. Of course the journal should regularly publish voices who disagree with one another, but if the paper wouldn’t have gotten a passing grade in a fundamentals of rhetoric class, why on earth was it allowed to stand?
Yea, everything you said is exactly why I wrote this critique. I'm for people challenging and disagreeing with one another - that's how people come to new knowledge and solutions. Like you said, this review does not do that. It's a full-on attack with little to no clear logic or evidence
Thanks for posting this, Nick. I agree with all that you've written.
For sure, man! Glad you feel it's a good critique,
I'll also put a link to this in my upcoming newsletter and the Center newsletter. Can your nonsubscribers access it?
That would be awesome, dude! Thanks for that. And yes! No paywalls here 🤘🏼
Thomas, I need to catch up on your writing. I haven’t gotten to this one yet, but now need to read it just to be contrary.
:)
Did I forget you wrote a paper on punk v wesleyanism??
Dang dude. Can I read it or do I need special authority to access it? I clicked the hyperlink but maybe I did something wrong
It’s behind a paywall. I can send you a copied PDF if you want!
Oh heck yes
Idk if we’ve talked about it or not!