Re: The Inescapable ("Irresistible"
conclusion of Calvinism: John 3:16 is not true.
What I wonder is how your average Eastern Orthodox believer would respond to seeing this program of evangelism. I've been amused to learn that in many monastic traditions, a person is forbidden from teaching until his understanding has been thoroughly scrutinized by someone else; even if that person is correct, one doesn't want loose cannons. One Buddhist teacher doesn't let monks even meditate until they've learned to stop slamming doors, regardless of their intellectual capacities.
I am reminded of a moderated conversation I witnessed between two relatively famous monks, one Christian, one Buddhist. After some chat about deep questions, they opened the floor to questions. A young man angrily asked why the Christian wasn't actively trying to convert the Buddhist; why waste time discussing contemplative practices if the other man was going to hell?
The Christian monk handled it gracefully, but was clearly embarrassed. Both knew there were severe differences in belief and practice, but didn't think it would be appropriate or fruitful to try to change the other's mind on such deep disagreements. The Christian monk said something I'll never forget: there
are other conversations worth having.
It's not an isolated phenomenon - some believers can't maintain their belief structure without struggle, debate, or attention. Having watched Scott's crusade against the Filioque, for instance, I wonder how often it would come up as an issue if he weren't actively making it one. I get the image of a man in the temple, thanking God, a little more loudly than necessary, that he doesn't practice this particular heresy. I'm aware of the occasional contrite, self-aware threads, but those really just seem to serve the same purpose.
This is especially true in Christian communities like this. In the beginning, I was a little put off by the casual topics in the chatroom. I've come to understand, however, that this is
not the arena in which my Christianity should play out primarily. I've observed that those who talk about Christianity the most among Christians seem to be using this as a proxy. This is especially true of those who are clanging about relatively inessential doctrines - I remember a guy whose entire Christian life was
not playing instrumental music in church.
It's also not an isolated phenomenon - converts are often more zealous, in the wrong way, than those who have been practicing the faith for a long time. The shininess of the new vocabulary and cultural forms wears off and the practitioner gets down to the actual business of the faith. I suspect, though I don't know, that Scott was not always EOC.
In any case, it's been interesting to watch. I'm skeptical anyone's mind has been changed in any direction that anybody intended, but it's been interesting to watch.
