Of Course, I Repeat Myself!

The persons generous enough to read what I write will suggest that I repeat myself. I confess that this is a truthful assertion. But I have reasons. I believe repetition is a necessity. Those who recognize the repetitions in my work are commended for being careful readers.

As to the necessity, I offer an analogy from parenting. As I often said to my children as they rolled their eyes, “The lessons must be repeated” or they will be lost. I think repetition is required by the nature of the arguments that I most frequently feel a need to refute or at least offer a dissent.

If I write something one time and evangelical preachers say the opposite 1,000 times, my one time has become a proverbial “needle in a haystack.” I have long held the conviction that misinformation, false assertions, bad arguments, and rhetorical fallacies require a dissent or refutation each time. They are not ever allowed to take the field, so to speak, and be the only argument advancing.

Of course, I respond to Ken Ham, David Barton, Robert Jeffress and other evangelicals because I am convinced, they are wrong. I find their assertions unbiblical, unchristian, and dangerous. Therefore, repetition becomes a necessity. It’s irritating to have evangelicals and other conservatives constantly repeat that they have the “Christian view,” “Christian worldview,” Christian position,” on every issue that impacts people’s lives. What is it about “point of view” that evangelicals can’t grasp. They do not have “the” Christian view. They have “a” Christian view, one view among other views.

Beyond the primary doctrines of Christianity, on which most Christians are in agreement, there are layers and layers of doctrines. These secondary and tertiary doctrines are often embraced by fundamentalists and evangelicals as “the” truth. In fact, there is no such thing as “the” Christian truth.

I write for one basic reason: I am attempting to provide other Christians with necessary knowledge, arguments, and points of view as an alternative to the unrelenting barrage of fundamentalist-to-evangelical messages. The idea held by many progressives that it is a waste of time to respond to such messages suggests an attitude that progressives cannot afford. This is no time for elitism. Shrugging our shoulders to dismiss evangelical arguments may offer some self-satisfaction, but it doesn’t add to the breadth and depth of progressive arguments.

Stanley Hauerwas has strengthened my resolve at this point, although I am convinced Stanley thinks that I sometime write with too much harshness. Hauerwas, speaking of repetition offers a liturgical response: “Repetition is not foreign to the most common of Christian activities. For example, we go to church Sunday after Sunday where we, hopefully, do pretty much the same thing. We rightly do not tire of such repetition because it is ever new. Moreover, through repetition we discover that we are empowered with resources to resist those powers that would have us forget what God has done to us through our baptism—baptisms we must learn to remember since our baptism cannot be repeated. Yet just as repetition is never the “same,” simply because it is impossible for it to be such, so I hope readers who are good enough to read my work will find changes that are surprising and enlivening.” (Hauerwas, Stanley. In Good Company: The Church as Polis.

Repetition is another word for worship. I never tire of praying with all Christians around the world the prayer that Jesus taught us, saying, “Our Father (Mother), who art in heaven hallowed by your name.” Or the hymn lyrics, “Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.”

I have also been inspired by American historian David Blight: “Yes, disinformation has to be fought with good information. But it must also be fought with fierce politics, with organization, and if necessary with bodies, non-violently.”

Let me repeat myself: “The only way to face fundamentalists is to punch them in the face – rhetorically, of course.” That, of course, makes me a fierce but non-violent writer.