Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Piers Morgan and Rick Warren

January 8, 2013 by Paul Buller

Here’s an interesting little snippet of an interview between Piers Morgan and Rick Warren on the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality and whether it should be “amended” (not clear what that means). I found a couple of things interesting. Morgan is right to observe that these conversations need to be respectful and that they have a habit of turning poisonous. He would seem to be the kind of guy with whom you would want to discuss issues of this sort. But notice the comment in the second-to-last paragraph. The author of the blog entry that summarizes this exchange (Paul Mirengoff) points out that Morgan’s previous comments in another context are not respectful. Note also that Mirengoff ends the blog entry with a cutting remark against Morgan. Irony of ironies.

Here are a few observations that we can all take away from this little exchange:

  1. Morgan is right that we should be respectful in these conversations
  2. Morgan got burned in the blog entry by having an inconsistent approach to these conversations. He is disrespectful at one point, and in one conversation, and then respectful in another. Integrity is the key here; consistency in our actions and attitudes.
  3. Morgan’s previous comments are a matter of public record. Once again this demonstrates why people should be very careful about engaging in these kinds of conversations in a digital manner in our digital age. Even a single poorly worded email, Facebook post, discussion forum comment, etc can haunt you! Tread carefully online and give preference to in-person discussions.
  4. Mirengoff is not respectful in his treatment of Morgan. It is one thing to point out that somebody else has been inconsistent in their words and actions – there is nothing disrespectful about that – and quite another thing to end off the article with the deliberate and unnecessary dig at the person you are critiquing. He has revealed himself to be no better than the one he is criticizing.

If we only had the YouTube video snippet of the interview to go on, that would be a fairly good illustration of how to have these kinds of conversations. As it stands, though, the article provides a great different example by contrasting the right way to converse and the wrong way to converse.

This article was originally published at Arguing with Friends.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Incarnational Apologetics

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance