Sam and I just had a big smack-down over my spot-on fisherman post. Surprisingly, we both made cogent arguments. Early on Sam appeared to be hung up on a point about exegesis, but in the end he came to a rather startling conclusion.

Below is the transcript of the exchange, edited slightly to make us sound even more cogent. What do you think of Sam’s conclusion?

The big S says:

did you see my scathing comments?

Brian Beers says:

!

Brian Beers says:

You do seem to be missing my point: we interpret fishing in terms of recreational fishing which is completely invalid, and as a result of this we understand evangelism incorrectly

the big S says:

i guess i feel like you're trying to make a point out of the fisherman passage that wasn't valid then and thus shouldn't be taken out of it now.

Brian Beers says:

My target is to dismantle our unjustified model of evangelism which is based on recreational fishing rather than the kind of fishing that the disciples were familiar with.

the big S says:

if you run across people citing the fishing passage and talking about using lures, then yes, you have a right to contradict them, but not on the basis that these guys are commercial fishermen, but on the basis that that isn't how they fished....

Brian Beers says:

The over-application of the fishing model for evangelism is a related issue, but I was taking that as a given since it is so widespread

the big S says:

in bringing up commercial vs. recreational, you are encouraging interpreting scripture by experience.

Brian Beers says:

You seem to be splitting fishing lines here: I characterized the disciples method of fishing as commercial (and justifiably) to give us a framework for comparing how we interpret and use that passage

the big S says:

it is only justifiable as far as you make the correct distinction, namely that it was a profession...

Brian Beers says:

Yes. I was not discussing exegesis. I am discussing application and Interpretation, and that the methods were vastly different than those that we usually think of than we think of fishing

the big S says:

you have to discuss exegesis –by ignoring exegesis, we develop right actions from wrong texts...

Brian Beers says:

exegesis isn't the point there

the big S says:

exegesis must always be the point.

the big S says:

everything you've said is right, but it doesn't come from the fishing passage.

Brian Beers says:

Aaahh…Yes. that is a different point of attack on the fishing/evangelism model that pervades Evangelicalism.

Brian Beers says:

My exegesis of the passage agrees with yours

the big S says:

thank goodness

Brian Beers says:

my attack is on the ideas of evangelism that stem from recreational fishing

Brian Beers says:

My point is that they are so far off that they don't even interpret *fishing* correctly - let alone evangelism

the big S says:

the best thing to do is to jettison the idea of being fishers-of-men as an evangelistic model, it draws too much attention to means... which was not the point.