Dan Oudshoorn, one of the leading radicals that was critical of Tyndale Seminary and University College for having a fund raising event featuring U.S. President George W. Bush, claims that Tyndale has stifled dialogue with dissenters, such as their accusation that the Tyndale president Gary Nelson censored professors–after a meeting with Nelson, Oudshoorn wrote:
When pressed on the ways in which it appears as though Tyndale is muzzling professors who present an opinion that is more critical of the ways in which the administration has handled this process (i.e. the puzzling redaction of the Christian Week article written by Arthur Boers, compared with the remarks made by Carter and Masson), Gary was adamant that he would never muzzle any professor and that he is a very firm believer in academic freedom. Instead, Gary presented a fairly compelling narrative as to why the article was redacted but I don’t want to get into the details of that, or the details that I have heard from another reliable source that provides a somewhat different narrative (which I mention for the record because, in this case, I don’t want to appear as though I have taken a stand one way or another).
So, we see claims of transparency yet a refusal to speak with us, which was only broken down due to the threat of ongoing pressure (NB: I’m not claiming that this means that Gary does not value transparency; the conclusion I’m drawing is that he is in an institutional position that is situated amongst the elites in such a way as to have certain blind-spots about what transparency does or does not mean).
Yet try commenting on Oudshoorn’s blog. I did once when he mentioned me by name, and he summarily erased my comment, though he has come here and commented so far without censorship. So I conclude that his intention is to insist on dialogue on our turf but won’t permit it when he is in control. This is typical of the radical Left, which insists on the freedom to say what they want but then will attempt every sort of speech code to stifle what they don’t like.
PROOF: At a recent blog post of Oudshoorn’s, I made the following comment that he later erased:
Later it looked like this (all that is left is sycophantic praise from a leftist radical echo chamber):
As usual, Peter, you got your facts wrong. I never erased your comment. In your screen shot, you’ll notice it says that your comment is awaiting moderation. That means only you can see it, nobody else can (except for me, the moderator). I didn’t erase your comment, I never permitted it to appear in the first place. Hopefully you will have the integrity to correct the original post.
Anyway, I’ve had a very clear comment policy in place for a long time. Anybody is allowed to comment… except for you. I believe it is the same policy that John Stackhouse has.
That said, I told Craig I would post any debate we had on my blog and said he wouldn’t need to post it on his blog. Apparently he is scared that his students might find my arguments more convincing than his own and so he didn’t want it to show up on his blog.
Nice you could stop buy. My comment is accurate in that you don’t allow me to comment on your blog, even when my name is mentioned. That makes you a coward in my eyes.
As for Prof. Stackhouse Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology Regent College, he feels free to insult people on his blog but he, like you, doesn’t have the courage to face those he’s insulted. So I had to post a series about my interaction with him, and how he claims to want diversity, a white privileged male with an academic job who suffers because of being white and male and employed, but he has no room for diversity when it comes from unemployed half-koreans like me. He is just like you in that respect. In my opinion (notice the caveat!!!) thin-skinned and cowardly. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, eh?
So if you please scroll down (you can use the down arrow key to do that, it’s a nifty invention I can show you how to use it some time), so if you will scroll down just a bit from that first picture, you will see the second screen shot, which I made this morning from the same browser, which shows that my comment has now disappeared which means it is no longer awaiting approval. In any case, there is no question of my needing any integrity on this issue. Sorry. You are just nitpicking.
I guess the reason you block me is that you would find that readers would see that you are not the dazzling New Testament scholar that you portray yourself to be on your blog. So they come and say, “Oh how wonderful and clever you are!!” Give me a break.
Can you point me to a spot on my blog where I claim to be a dazzling NT scholar? Granted, some pretty dazzling NT scholars read my blog, but I don’t remember making claims to being one of those.
As for your remark about Gallio, well, I fail to see how it is substantial. Gallio also wouldn’t be checking blogs, and I doubt they were using twitter hashtags when they talked about things back in the day… maybe you were trying to say something innocuous in order to see if my comment policy had changed?
PS — I’m not sure why your comment disappeared from your view. I haven’t fully trashed it yet because I was actually thinking about changing my comment policy. Weird. Speaking of weird, all the cheerleaders who showed up on my last post was kinda weird. I don’t think I’ve ever got that much positive yet insubstantial feedback on a post before…
It wasn’t intended to be substantial, only a test, as you guessed. But guess what? You failed.
Actually, I think you were hoping I wouldn’t permit the comment, so that you could use it as the premise for this rant, so really I did you a favour.
You can thank me later. Maybe you and Keith Brooks could take me out for beers when I’m in Toronto next. I reckon that would be an interesting night.
I would have been extremely surprised had you permitted the comment, since I know that you cannot abide my criticism, just as your mentor, from his lofty perch as Sangwoo Youtong Chee Prof. at Regent, was not able to accept my dissent. I did not deserve to be banned from his blog, as my comments, while matching his own tone, were measured and representative of the opinion of the diverse people he was calling for at Regent. Perhaps it was indeed lost on him that two of us (myself and Elderj) were indeed minorities, and his reaction of insulting me and then not allowing me to respond was an act of racism–a white male professor, calls for diversity, then stifles the speech of an Asian man who disagrees with him. That’s called pathetic. In your case, however, it is just the fear of having your views challenged and your scholarship called into question, because I have made it clear the reasons that I think you are a poor scholar.
As for the beers, I have decided not contribute to your sustenance and thus your ability to spread false teaching. Though the idea of taking Brooks for a beer appeals to me.
Well that settles it. Your post wasn’t ‘deleted’ because Dan was afraid of correction, it was ‘censored’ because he is afraid of correction. Much higher moral ground, that. Bravo.
Come on, Don. You’re just nitpicking.
Peter is free to offer any correction he wants on his blog. So is Craig. So far, these guys have just demonstrated that they are incapable of understanding what they read or even understanding what it means to offer a substantial argument. I would spend more time engaging with them, but it’s clear that they are akin to the dwarfs in the stable in The Last Battle. The want to sit in the dark and eat dirt and get hella mad at anybody who suggests to them that the kingdom of God might be more glorious and life-giving than that. Talk with them all you want — they have deliberately blinded themselves and it will go nowhere. They’re free to do what they do, of course, but it’s not the way others of us want to live. And it should be resisted to the extent that they also want to drag others into the dark with them and force them to eat dirt, while calling it the bread of life.
I find it fairly amusing that you chose to delete your last comment in a threat about censorship and me choosing not to post your comments. Got a little carried away, even for yourself, eh? Too bad I didn’t have a screen shot! How open are YOU to dialogue when you delete comments posted by you? 😉
I do sometimes censor myself–it is in my belief an aspect of free of speech: freedom to say or write something, or freedom to withdraw what one has said or not to say it too. In my judgement, some of the things I write are perhaps more important for the moment, as that last comment that I’ve taken off the public blog, than for the record. You read it and that satisfies me for now.
Translation: I [Peter] wanted to say something really vain and vent my anger but I didn’t want other people to see that side of me, so I deleted my own remark after you [Dan] read it.
I don’t require a translation, since I was writing in English. I allow you to comment on this blog without censorship (until you start using language I cannot allow). But you feel free to use my name on your blog and not allow me to respond. That still makes you a coward, in my opinion. The name coward, poor scholar, etc. which I allow to stand, is as strong as anything that I’ve taken down.
Translation: I [Peter] can’t deny what you wrote, so I’ll just deflect attention elsewhere.