Here are a couple hypotheticals. Both have to do with the ways people may take offense selectively.
First, say I am a political theorist who greatly admires the Federalist Papers (which I am not) and the arguments found there about the need for a Constitution that specifies the branches of a new federal government and their powers. If someone came along and said that federalism was the most wicked political notion ever known to man because it violated the divinely ordained rule of monarchs, would I not object because of my federalist convictions? In other words, would it matter to my federalist convictions that the attacker of federalism did not name John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, or James Madison explicitly? Wouldn’t I understand an attack on federalism to include those figures most identified with developing federalist thought (at least in the United States)?
Second, say I am a huge fan of the Coen Brothers’ movies (which I am) and someone comes along and tells me that the Coen brother’s are some of the least gifted and most adolescent of indie American directors who dabble merely in fashionable postmodernism, would I not feel my aesthetic toes trod upon even if this critic of the Coens did not mention their two best movies by name, “Miller’s Crossing” and “Hudsucker Proxy”? I mean, is a general put-down of the Coen brothers easier to take simply because it is general and lacks specifics? Or is the general rejection more sweeping because it lacks specifics that might provide wiggle room for hurt feelings?
The point here is that a criticism of a general category would certainly seem to involve the specific embodiments (whether in persons or texts or artifacts) of that larger truth or expression. Again, if I say Russians are a beastly lot, would not admirers of Alexander Solzhenitsyn naturally think I had him in view until I explained that I had in mind rather the kind of Russians one associates with Stalin? Or if someone attacked the regulative principle of worship without mentioning T. David Gordon or W. Robert Godfrey, would it not be fair to think that the criticism of the building block of Reformed worship applied not simply to the idea but also to those who maintain and defend the idea?
Why is it, then, if someone criticizes the spirituality of the church or the two-kingdoms doctrine that this criticism is somehow in good taste as long as it does not mention specific proponents of these ideas? The critic of two-kingdoms may not know the entire cast of characters who espouse this view – those such as Mike Horton, Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, and the bloggers at oldlife.org. And if the critic found out that these people held the spirituality of the church and wanted to change his criticism because he personally respected one or more of these men, he could conceivably do so by offering an explanation of his initial criticism. But short of such amendments or revisions, it seems eminently reasonable to conclude that those who argue for the two-kingdom perspective are included in any general critique of two-kingdom doctrine.
What then of a spirituality of the church advocate who only objects to criticism when one of the doctrine’s expounders, say Mike Horton, is criticized but feels no twinge about general complaints about the two-kingdom view when Scott Clark is holding it? It seems reasonably fair to conclude that such a reaction would be selective and personal.
Carl Trueman makes a similar point when he issues his Second Law, namely: “in any exchange of views, sooner or later one or more of the participants will describe themselves as hurt or in pain as a result of somebody else’s comment; and at that point it is clear that they have lost the real debate.” He explains this rule with the following hypothetical:
What, for example, should I do when I receive a note from someone who claims to be “hurt” by something I have written which she described as a “personal attack,” despite the fact that I have never heard of her and was completely unaware of her existence until she chose to contact me? Now, I am no philosopher, but it would seem to be logically necessary for me to know of the actual existence of somebody before I can launch a personal attack upon them. Thus, to respond as this person did would seem to point to one of two possible explanations: she was a narcissist and thus incapable of understanding that articles written by another could possibly not be aimed at her; or (and frankly, more likely), she was clueless about controversial discourse and unable to separate critique of a particular viewpoint from a malicious attack on any person who might hold to said viewpoint. Whichever was the case, however, the use of the language of hurt and pain as primary involved both a trivialization of those concepts in themselves and a sidestepping of the real issue, i.e., was the argument I proposed right or wrong?
It is a good point and one that many seminary administrators, theological faculty, and church officers should consider before concluding that the sort of criticism that traffics at this blog or in the Nicotine Theological Journal, let alone the pages of Ordained Servant or the Westminster Theological Journal, is beyond the pale of Christian charity or intellectual and doctrinal rigor.
Old Life 
A bit confused here. I read your post as follows:
DGH: John Jay would be within his rights to take criticism of Federalism personally. Thus 2K advocates have the right to take criticism of 2K theology personally.
Trueman: The one who cries “hurt” (i.e., takes criticism of his beliefs personally) loses the debate. If an attack is launched on a belief system, and someone takes that attack personally, that man is narcissistic or clueless, because the attacker was probably unaware of the particular personhood of the offendee.
My reading may be muddled, but these seem to be at odds. Should one take it personally, or not?
LikeLike
Andrew: whether or not Jay takes the criticism personally, he may plausibly sense he is included in any condemnation of federalism, no?
LikeLike
Hm, I wonder if you could expand the Coen analogy to include “Raising Arizona”? I know this suggestion may distract, but I can never help myslef when this clever gem gets overlooked, as frequently happens. (Yes, I know, Nick Cage sold out after “Honeymoon in Vegas,” but don’t hold that against Joel and Ethan.)
Thanks for your consideration and support.
LikeLike
In offering criticism/critique of a certain position, I too frequently find it prudent (these days, esp. in Christian circles) to give the obligatory preface that this is about the issues, not the persons. Wearisome indeed.
I also find it useful to relate a specific argument made by a particular person to a school of thought or general viewpoint and vice versa to accomplish both relevant argumentation (avoiding strawmen, etc), and emphasizing the absence of ad hominem.
I think in almost every article I wrote as contributor or editor of the “Issues” section of my college paper over 5 years elicited an administrative complaint of personal pain. I learned to respond with a genuine personal attack and told them to grow up.
LikeLike
I agree – I guess I’m trying to figure out how anything in the Trueman quote could be construed to support any of your points. You imply that criticism is “applied not simply to the idea but also to those who maintain and defend the idea”, while Trueman says that if the criticiser is unaware of some particular defender of an idea, that defender cannot be a target of the criticism. Yet you say Trueman “makes a similar point” to yours, when they seem opposite. On what point do you and Trueman agree, exactly?
LikeLike
I confess, I don’t understand the “it’s the issue not the person” position. I thought “out of the heart proceedeth all things …”
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=3274
LikeLike
DGH,
This is a little off target. I suppose the subject matter of this particular post doesn’t interest me a great deal, but one of your comments in the post does interest me. Would you mind helping me understand your dislike/disapproval of the Federalist Papers? I’m very interested to hear your opinion.
FYI – I’m not asking as some kind of ploy or to somehow set you up for some later comment. I actually really enjoy your books and writing, so this is an honest inquiry.
LikeLike
Caleb, I love that cartoon.
But I can never tell when you’re being facetious. So, let me say that personal attacks are real. One attacks another’s person in, for example, directly expressing that someone is subhuman should not be treated with any dignity befitting God’s image. This is significantly different than maintaining the fellow humanity of an intellectual opponent while presenting the reasoned case that their opinion on some matter is utterly erroneous. That one’s opinions (even, or especially erroneous ones) pour forth from one’s heart does not indicate that such a heart is not in the image of God.
I think it’s a pretty simple difference.
LikeLike
I’m simply saying that to assert that one’s “opinion” is entirely divorced from and unconnected to one’s “person” is ridiculous. The most basic principles of ethics would suggest otherwise.
So yes, an attack on one’s position is, in very real fact, a “personal” attack. In other words, it implies a certain judgment about the person espousing the opinion. To say you are judging the opinion only, not the person, is to concede ground to a counter-ethical view of the human person.
The real issue is whether or not the judgment is correct and true, and whether or not its expression is ethical.
LikeLike
Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, and Fargo???? How can we leave these out? How can anyone hate on the Coen brothers?
“All the dude ever wanted was his rug back.”
“We believe in nothing Lebowski…”
LikeLike
All I know is that I see this post as a personal attack! You may submit an apology in triplicate to my publicist.
LikeLike
The similar point is that the person who feeks criticized by Trueman may very well be an object of critique if the person holds the view that Trueman is criticizing. It is another matter whether that person simply takes offense or tries to respond to the merits of the critique.
LikeLike
Well, as good as Raising Arizona is, and it is is very good, it doesn’t have the polish or style of their later movies — that really happened with Miller’s Crossing. Plus, No Country for Old Men is a remix of Raising with hints of Fargo. Just think of the killer in No Country and the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse.
LikeLike
I’ll take my stand with the anti-federalists most days. I think they were the true federalists, and that the federalists were really nationalists, using the rhetoric of federalism.
LikeLike
No one, especially me, would want to leave out “El Dooderino.” The question is which are the two best Coen movies? I’ll stand by MC and HP.
LikeLike
Is it not true Daryl that you are an instrument of the devil?
LikeLike
Ralph: my beloved wife has yet to use that one on me. Thankfully, she won’t get any ideas from you because she blithely ignores blogs.
LikeLike
Not to mention Walter Sobchak’s zealousness for keeping the Sabbath.
LikeLike