But I’m going to have the last say, since that’s my prerogative.

For the record, yes it’s possible to start a discussion with conjecture and rhetorical flourish. It doesn’t mean it’s a good start. Especially if you want a sympathetic hearing. Lobbing an inflammatory comment that is critical of an entire institution, without support (anecdotal or no), then being charging those who call for further comment with being unduly defensive—well, I’m honestly surprised. Furthermore, turning up early to the discussion doesn’t give you a right to the conversation.

Lionel’s and Mark’s comments on the general norms of giving (and hearing) criticism are excellent. They happen to be the norms here, but I think it’s great advice elsewhere on the internet. And any given site, this one included, quite fairly reserves the right to set the norms of discussion. We don’t allow anonymity here, to discourage ungodliness. Other sites do, but we don’t.

I don’t expect that all (or even a substantial portion of) commenters here will be great friends of Moore College, or the Sydney Diocese, or Matthias Media, etc. I’m sure many will have more criticisms than not. You don’t have to start of by softening me up by saying good stuff, and then rip in.

If you want a sympathetic hearing, though, regardless of where you are on the spectrum of supporting the above institutions or individuals, you’ve got to speak in a way that can be heard sympathetically. That’s both in terms of content and manner. Mark’s made this point above in a number of ways, but again for the record of how all of this started off, essentially calling me close-minded and disrespectful of others with no reason I can tell from the comment or context doesn’t give me much to listen to sympathetically.

Finally, one point that’s been missing from all of this talk about MTC producing closed-minded graduates, etc.: engagement with what Phillip actually said about MTC has been pretty lacking.

TP: It’s really interesting that your experience was after receiving that training, that theological framework, it actually equipped you to keep growing and changing your mind. The perception might be that you go to somewhere like Moore College and you learn a body of knowledge that is fixed forever more. But in fact what you learn is a framework and a set of tools to keep learning and growing.
PJ: Yes, that’s exactly right. That’s the exact reverse of expectation. My youth fellowship group took me through Louis Berkoff’s Systematic Theology. And so I went to Moore College thinking I knew it all. But instead they dismantled much of what I’d learned—especially the sense that here’s the question, here’s the Bible verse, here’s the answer. They said, “Well, what does this proof text verse say in its context, and what does the book say?” And it just didn’t actually prove the point that Louis said it proved. What Moore College did was radicalize my mind to think biblically and creatively, rather than giving me all the answers so I didn’t have to think any more. I had that before I went to College. College freed me from it.

My initial thought about this was amazement that his youth group (at a Sydney Anglican Church, note) took him through Systematic Theology. But talking about the merits or otherwise of that approach of MTC, or how in certain places/churches/experiences that’s not particularly evident—that would have been a good start to putting forward criticism.

The commenting rules and norms are basically about getting people to not be jerks, to listen to one another, and engage with the arguments. That’s been the case elsewhere on this site, but here it looks to be less about giving constructive criticism and more about having a fight. So, comments closed.

That’s all. See you next time.

Let me put it one last way, and bring the critique on our culture back to a critique on the college.

It seems to me that there are many issues which Australian evangelical culture hates to discuss. While we love to discuss how to do ministry, sexuality, “worship” and Calvinology, we hate to discuss stuff like beginning times, end times and baby washing. It’s rare to hear balanced discussions on beginning times and I’ve never heard one on end times or baby washing. I’ve suggested two reasons why this may be: there could be a fear to discuss these things, or people are so convinced that these issues must be flexible ones that they won’t discuss them (maybe to avoid offending those who disagree.)

But discussion is important, for all of us. The search to discover the truth of God in all topics should be something we all have. I honestly don’t know what to believe about end times and baby washing (well, I have half formed ideas) and our culture’s unwillingness to discuss these doesn’t help. I’m sure there are many other people with these unpopular questions too.

If these discussions are happening with Moore, then great! But something is wrong if Moore Graduates refuse to carry the discussions on outside the walls of Moore. And that’s my experience.

Just as David used struck out characters, rather than being forthright in calling me prejudiced. Say it or don’t say it.

I thought it was a very forthright way of calling you prejudiced. At least it seems to have been since you got the message loud and clear.

Okay, I can see how that can cause offense. I wouldn’t necessarily react that way myself, but it’s an entirely reasonable complaint. (It was me, and not someone else who wrote the offending phrase in question.)

I apologise for how I said it, and will seek to say things more directly to you from here.

While the main contributors in this phase of the conversation are, in the main, ‘pretentious gyts’ who use big words, a large amount of the readers are not. Some of them resent commentators showing off large vocabularies, others simply feel completely disempowered by it. We’ve had comments in other threads to that effect.

This isn’t a ‘rule’, but if you have to use a word that is unusual, or a technical term, explain it first clearly is my personal rule of thumb, even if the person you’re talking to probably knows it.

Comment threads aren’t quite the same thing as a private conversation, and so you can’t just move the conversation to the vocabulary and technical precision that the main commentators might be able to do privately.

And, obviously, I think that if you’re offering a lot of free criticism and want to get heard you don’t use all resources your vocabulary might offer. In that situation I think clarity and simplicity trump precision. And yes, that’s because of the pretentious factor. If you think that’s not the case, then you’re free to act differently – that’s not a ‘the Briefing norm’ I was gesturing at, just my take on things to Dannii.

It’s not his criticism. It’s how he did it.

If he had stated directly to me that my use of polysyllabic botanical terms made me sound pretentious, and even if it was followed by gyt, would have been fine by me.

It was his burying of the insult that was the issue. Just as David used struck out characters, rather than being forthright in calling me prejudiced.

Say it or don’t say it.

I chose that word specifically because it conveys exactly what I mean. If you can suggest an easier way of stating: being closed minded, while at the same time passing on the closed mindedness to future generations from within a closed system. I’m all ears. Given the level of scholarship here, I also feel that it is an acceptable word for the situation.

My point is that many of us have proven that these rules are quite supportive of rich, sustained, and even hotly contested discussions. We’ve done that by having those conversations. So to claim that they’re designed to stop this particular conversation is demonstrably false.

And what a surprise that you opted for conspiracy on a simple question of how the site operates. Sam can speak better to this, as he midwifed this much better system than the old Sola site. Nonetheless, as I understand it, once you get several rounds of replies, then all further replies must be done off the immediately earlier comment, and are simply listed in chronological order irrespective of which futher comment they are responding to. I take it that’s because at some point you don’t get enough text in a line to make further embeddeness worthwhile.

But gratz on going for the most gracious and generous possibility in your speculations about how Sam runs the site.