I do remember, for the most part, how it is we became friends. I used to tangle with another friend of mine, a guy who is actually a personal friend and someone I know, ad nauseam. I don't remember the exact post or even the subject matter, but I remember my friend spouting something I thought was complete nonsense. Due to the fact it was his wall the majority of people that commented agreed with his view, whatever that happened to be. When I finally decided it was time to bow out of the lion's den I offered a challenge to anyone commenting or reading the thread to "friend" me if they wanted to see how the intellectual people on my wall engaged in conversations. David was the only person to take me up on that offer. Ironically, my other friend is no longer on my friends list and, in fact, is invisible to me on Facebook, literally. It's the darndest thing.
The first thing that became apparent about David is his deep faith. He identifies himself as a Calvinist on his info page and I totally agree that is what he is. It's always wonderful when someone else agrees with what you think you are. This essay will have very little to do with religion other than this setup of how his Calvinistic views influence his philosophy on all of his other views.
Calvinism is a reformation on, mostly, the Catholic Church. It actually seems a tad limiting because of the name but the movement was large and encompassing. It truly was motivated by a large group of people that simply interpreted The Bible differently than the Roman Catholic Church. There are several, normally listed as five points, ideas that separate the Calvinists from the other denominations.
The idea of "total depravity" basically means man is born into sin. Beyond that, man is enslaved to sin and cannot, on his own, be anything better than that. Man desires to seek his own best interest and it isn't natural to want to obey God's will. The next idea focuses on "unconditional election". This means there is nothing you have done or can do that will change if you were chosen or not by God to be saved. "Irresistible Grace" is somewhat along the same lines and is explained like this: "God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. However, the Holy Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ." Paraphrased by me: God makes you who you are and what you do but you, if you are lucky enough to be chosen by no doing of your own, will feel like you did this by your own free will. "Limited Atonement" is the idea that the message sent by Christ was meant for a select group. It is workable for everyone, but it wasn't intended to be delivered for everyone. Which actually makes sense since God has already chosen who will be saved and damned. The last of the five points involves the idea of the "perseverance of the saints" and basically claims those that break from God were never really with God in the first place or they will return to God. Convenient way of looking at things.
I threw in a couple of observations but I truly tried to represent the reformed view of Christianity in a fair light. To be candid, this way of looking at The Bible makes the most sense to me. There are plenty of things I take exception to but I can understand how they connect the dots. It actually takes on the dynamic of predestination and answer it in the most honest fashion of any of the other Christian interpretations. It's not a pleasing answer and I give a lot of credit for a religion to stick to their guns and not just appease. It's also consistent with their view that it isn't natural for man to want to do anything but serve himself. Predestination doesn't really allow for the individual needs. God chose you or didn't and your wants and desires are animalistic, evil, and not godly. It's my observation David C. Moyer believes all of the tenets of Calvinism.
David's faith isn't in your face, so to speak. David's opinions are in your face. His opinions are molded by his faith but he doesn't ram his faith down your throat, he rams his opinions down your throat. That's a subtle, but significant, difference. And, it's not what his faith leads him to believe that causes the most issues for him when tangling with people on my wall, it's how his faith has created a perfect environment for him to be "chosen" and rarely (notice I didn't say never) wrong. He comes across as smug to those who disagree with his views. If he was selected by God to enjoy eternal bliss then how could he not be arrogant at some level?
Even with our differences in theological beliefs, it is still possible for David and me to search out common ground on an array of issues that affect all of us. I think this is possible, at least on my end, because I understand what motivates David. His propensity to fire people up on my wall or to downright sound delusional to others is alright by me. He doesn't harbor completely insane views (conceding people that believe in a magic being existing in another dimension that has predetermined my eternal fate isn't crazy - it is what it is) and have ideas that are exclusive to David C. Moyer. The vast majority of time David represents a very large sample of our population regardless of his particular side on any given issue. Even more important than that, he's able to clearly explain how he reasons through things. That trait is invaluable to all of us.
David is a great sport. I'm very confident he understands the dynamic when he takes on a particular stance on one of my posts. Just as I know I'm more than likely going to be in the minority when I bang my drum on David's post, I'm sure he knows what he's in for when he enters my den. I know I have made a couple of fans on David's wall and I'm sure he's probably gained more of a fan base from my friends list. I threw out a challenge for those interested in intellectual and meaningful conversations to join my army and he's been a great soldier.
David's a skeptic. Not so much when it comes to some of the oddities in the universe that he's willing to have faith in, but mostly about man's ability to understand things. I'm down with that, seems reasonable. He comes across as a "know it all" or arrogant or abrasive at times. I'm down with that too, he means well. He has strong opinions about his faith but he really seems to walk to walk more than most. I'm totally down with that, refreshing.
It would be so easy to narrow down our friends list to only people that shared all our views. Well, it wouldn't be that easy for other reasons but theorectically it would be easy and something most of us would do if it weren't for the other complications. However, if we chose to enact that option then we would limit ourselves and our ability to see and understand the world around us. I plead with people to think about their views and walk them down the line a view steps before marrying them. Draw your own conclusions but use some form of reason and leave a trail of breadcrumbs so we can come find you when you get lost. Rely on intelligence to guide you and those around you when forming opinions or making decisions. David brings all of this to the table and I love him for it.
Lastly, I want to address David's demeanor when frolicking on my playground or handling me when I'm peeing on his parade on his home court. It doesn't seem like the guy ever gets mad or takes things to heart. I really appreciate that. I know it seems to others that I'm often angry or upset when I'm engaging in a discussion. Believe it or not I can't remember a time when I've gotten upset from a conversation on Facebook. I participate for my own sanity and not to torment myself. I suspect David is in the same camp. He has very strong views about some very controversial issues. A lot of people do. However, he's intelligent and has given thought to his opinions. Obviously, I don't agree with some of them and we go toe to toe from time to time, but never does it cross my mind that I'm dealing with an idiot on the other end of the discussion, no matter how much I disagree with him.
If you've followed some of my lengthy battles you'll notice I try very hard to thank the other person when the discussion starts to wind down. David has received more of these thank yous than most people. In part that's due to his willingness to partake in the dialogue. But, another factor is his great sportsmanship. I'm not attacking him personally nor harbor ill will toward him when I'm trying to destroy one of his worldviews. I'm very confident this guy, despite some of his self professed oddities, is a solid dude. He's got a great looking family and he sincerely tries to be a positive influence in his community. He writes his congressman. He meets his congressman. He donates time and money to those in need. He finds a way to at least try to make a positive difference in people's lives. He posts his views on Facebook and is willing to discuss them. He comments on others views and is willing to entertain other ideas, even if he is seldom convinced to change his view. He's admitted he's been wrong about things from time to time. He'll break ranks and take a counter position from the average party loyalist. He's a realist and will shoot you as straight as he sees it. I wish I had more friends on my friends list like David C. Moyer.
No comments:
Post a Comment