Interesting that the Gospel is the subject we had launched earlier and
remains my subject.
Brant said in a recent comment:
I actually don't have a big goal here to persuade
Here is where I will take great exception with Brant. Brant is a
Christian, which obligates him to proclaim the Gospel, which in a
broad sense is life, which is exactly what Schiavo is about.
So why in the world does he take the stance of not making it his big
goal to persuade people?
On bioethics, I've asked questions of and debated numerous
activists, philosophers, professors, and lawyers. And I've read on it
for years. I have formed some opinions. "Undertones" notwithstanding,
I want to communicate them clearly.
Reading through Brant's comment, he is an ideal person to develop and
proclaim a gospel statement on life.
As for rhetoric, writing is rhetorical. Any opinion column
in any newspaper is rhetorical. One may reasonably not like the genre.
I can tell you I'm worlds more graceful than most of the writers in
the papers I read (NYTIMES, Palm Beach Post, etc.)
You are comparing the wrong writers. The Apostle Paul was in fact
fairly good at rhetoric ("go ahead and emasculate yourselves" would
have irritated me on Paul's blog. I would have called him on it.),
but he also has difficulty communicating with much of our culture.
Your message is plain and simply the Gospel -- the offer of life. I
don't see Brant as a journalist. He has a heart for the Gospel. In
my mind, he is not meant to be a commentator, but a proclaimer. If it
had been any old blog ranting about Schiavo, I would have moved on.
My heart is about the Gospel (Life) and about encouraging proclaimers
I do think I'm right. That's "ugly" to Bono, who also
thinks he's right, but I do think that what I think is generally
correct. I've changed my mind on stuff, and will change my mind on
other stuff, but I do think I'm right.
The Vertigo tour has commenced. Bono offers his grace to you. I
would really like to go.
I also tend to think I'm right, but there is the thin film (used to be
thicker) of arrogance attached to it. "I'm right. You are stupid not
to see it. And in fact, because I'm obviously pretty intelligent, you
shouldn't make me engage into working it out with you, you should just
take my word for it." That describes me not Brant, though it applies
to most brilliant young minds that I have encountered.
God did not give me intelligence to hoarde. He gave it to me to help
others develop their thinking. Perhaps Brant was given a prophetic
role (Krusty). Perhaps he was given a role of just thinking and
commenting with no real purpose. But I don't think so, and I think I
am right. Given the right tone, people would long to hear Brant's
words as the country thirsts for a moral base for issues of life.