Even though chookwatcher has been told many times that his version of the New Apostolic Reformation is, at best, imaginative, and that people he claims to be ‘NAR Apostles’ are not, he maintains his argument, to the point of obsession.
Rather than accepting the obvious and moving on to something else, he and his cohorts at the polemics blogs have insisted in continuing his narrative, even though he has been told by people like Dr Michael Brown and James White that he is patently wrong.
Chookwatcher’s insistence on proceeding with his strawman arguments is so similar to an interview between Toronto professor Jordan Peterson and Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman that has gone viral on the web that it was worth presenting a shortened version of it to give an example of what the polemicists are doing.
Just imagine that Jordan represents Dr Brown and James White with their calm, unflustered, and even forgiving response to chookwatcher and the polemicists, represented here by Cathy Newman, who never really got her point across because Jordan Peterson was so relaxed and certain of his position that he breezed through the interview, intelligently dismantling every point the interviewer made, despite Cathy’s attempts at derailing his responses.
These things happen, and no disrespect to Cathy, but it’s a classic example of beginning with an incorrect premise and never getting to grips with what she is dealing with, which is such a mirror image of the polemicists and their quarry.
The moral of the story is that if you’re well prepared and well versed in your subject you can afford to be poised in your response to those who attempt to publicly call you out as something you are not.
At least Cathy respectfully admits, half way through, that Jordan Peterson has caught her out with clear logic. The ‘gotcha’ was on her own argument and the realisation of the potential hypocrisy of her position. See the full interview here. It’s an eye opener. You don’t have to agree with everything Jordan Peterson says, but his unfazed response is an object lesson in how to deal with strawman arguments.
The difference between Cathy and chookwatcher is that she can admit that she was shown to be inaccurate in her summation on a number of issues, and, ironically, that she was doing exactly what she accused Peterson of doing. She then had the savvy to withdraw to another issue. Nor was she particularly rude, either. It would be hard to be rude, actually, when the person you are addressing is so relaxed, open, and confident.
However, no matter what anyone says to chookwatcher and his pals, they are going to attempt to stick to their strawman arguments and direct the conversation into their own narrative.
For instance, Dr Brown says, ‘I’ve never been of NAR and I’ve never said I’m an apostle’, so chookwatcher says “so what you’re saying is… you’re a NAR Apostle!” Then he calls Dr Brown a liar and fabricates a series of articles to misrepresent his position.
The result is the same, however, and Dr Brown and men like him, despite being falsely represented by chookwatcher, will continue in the assurance that they are doing the work of the gospel regardless of what their critics say, because there is only one truth, and the critics don’t have it.
By the way, the actual ‘gotcha’ in the battle for truth is in chookwatcher’s own relentless quest to prove something that doesn’t exist.
Being wrong about something isn’t so bad. Going on with it when you’ve been informed that it’s wrong is simply a desperate journey into pride. Making up narratives to misrepresent the disproven wrong is wilful prejudice.