"Neo-reformed folks, if you are moving conservative evangelicalism back into political action, just be honest about it. That will help the conversation more than all the faux umbrage."
Storm Clouds (Martin Farm)
Some months ago I signed up to receive Facebook links to articles featured at the Christian Post (CP). It's just one of the ways I try to keep up with the Christian trends. As I scrolled through my Facebook account this week, I read the following headline:
'The Bible Belt Is Collapsing;' Christians Have Lost Culture War, Says ERLC President Russell Moore (link)
This CP piece begins as follows:
"President of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Russell Moore, says "the Bible Belt is collapsing" and Christians have lost the culture war in America. However, the latest developments in the U.S. just "might be good for the church," he explained.
In a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, Moore conceded that traditional Christian values no longer define mainstream American culture the way they did up-to 20 years ago, but it could be good for the church because "we are no longer the moral majority. We are a prophetic minority," he said."
Is that how Russell Moore sees himself and those in his camp – a prophetic minority? If so, then this 41 year old soon to be installed as ERLC president is more out of touch than I originally thought. The CP article goes on to state that Moore "finds the political approach of 'the religious right' unattractive".
He instead wants "to direct the evangelical movement to serve as religious examples on life, marriage and religious liberty".
It seems that Moore and his fellow Calvinistas (you know, those who self-identify as YRR and Neo-Reformed) ARE attracting attention but not in the way they might like. Here is a case in point.
Zach Hoag, an author and freelance minister whose articles have been published over at The Huffington Post, wrote the following a few days before the Christian Post article cited above was published:
"A few months ago, I left a comment on the well-read blog of a friend (and hero) – and got into a little bit of trouble.
I suggested that the neo-reformed movement – the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” that emerged a decade or so ago and have consolidated most notably into The Gospel Coalition, segments of the PCA, Southern Seminary and segments of the SBC, and Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 network – is giving rise to a new religious right in the U.S.
I was immediately, and gently, corrected by my friend, who was seeking to build a bridge between anabaptist missional people and neo-reformed people – a worthy pursuit, to be sure. He felt the language of “religious right” was too harsh in describing what the neo-reformed are on about. Then, several neo-reformed folks jumped in too, saying that statements like mine make them feel “unsafe” and that they were super offended…"
Hoag goes on to say that he might have left this theory alone; however, he has seen more evidence that his " 'religious right' scenario is probably…right." Hoag then explains:
"And the oversensitive pushback from these influential NR leaders likely just confirms the validity of the point I’m proposing. See, it has been a mainstay of the neo-reformed perspective to officially eschew political preoccupation in favor of “the gospel” and staying “gospel-centered.” That is, where the moral majority and religious right that emerged in the 80′s seemed to equate evangelism with political influence (taking America back for God) and legislation on moral/religious issues, the neo-reformed have promoted evangelism through the message of the gospel apart from political action. But, as the movement is settling into more institutional forms and some of its leaders are getting into their forties and older, I am seeing a return to the political emphasis – even if the presentation is more coy and political action is more of an “implication.” That is, I am seeing neo-reformed gospel-centrality becoming something of a means to a conservative political end – getting Americans saved in order to get America back to the values which are reflective of “true” Christianity.
And I should add that there’s no need for oversensitivity here, nor avoidance of this reality. Neo-reformed folks, if you are moving conservative evangelicalism back into political action, just be honest about it. That will help the conversation more than all the faux umbrage."
Several days later, The Gospel Coalition made a major misstep (in our opinion) by publishing Thabiti Anyabwile's blog post, which headlined as follows:
The Importance of your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and "Gay Marriage" (link)
It was met with a firestorm of responses throughout the blogosphere, mostly critical. Hoag, who has been closely monitoring the YRR crowd, wasted no time in sending out this tweet:
.@TGC IS the new religious right: http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/thabitianyabwile/the-importance-of-your-gag-reflex-when-discussing-homosexuality-and-gay-marriage …. (In case there was any doubt.) #gaymarriage
He followed up with another Tweet:
And now is the time for any and all Reformed Christians with compassion & civility to break ranks with @TGC's politicized & abrasive agenda.
A most of our readers know, we steer clear of politics; however, it appears that the Young, Restless, and Reformed do not. Are they moving beyond their "gospel-centered" positions and into political action? We would be interested in your take on these recent developments.
Rest assured, we will continue to monitor the situation in the days and weeks to come. And to think I was reluctant to start blogging about Christian issues because I didn't think there would be enough to discuss. Little did we know what lay ahead almost five years ago…
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 33:14-34:33 Romans 16:10-27 Psalm 26:1-12 Proverbs 20:19
In this, they imitate their idol Calvin, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Geneva.
Political Power. How else can you Take Back America and Establish A Godly CHRISTIAN Nation?
“GOD WILLS IT!”
“A most of our readers know, we steer clear of politics; however, it appears that the Young, Restless, and Reformed do not. Are they moving beyond their “gospel-centered” positions and into political action? We would be interested in your take on these recent developments.”
I think what you are seeing is an attempt by the leadership of the YRR/NC movement to try to bring the movement in line politically. Their articles are not a response to what is happening, they are to indoctrinate. To get folks in line. Tell them how to think. (They are losing their grip and they know it. Time for a new direction? Al Mohler trying to throw a bone to the SBC since the SGM debacle? Prove his bonafides and continue the culture war?)
Russ Moore is much more liberal than folks realize when it comes to business, the economy, environment, etc. He worked for Gene Taylor in congress before coming to the seminary. And he has angered some businessmen here with some of his ridiculous views which were very uninformed ivory tower stuff. He is only a fundamentalist on gender roles, marriage, etc. Things that elevate him.
So, it depends on who you are talking about. The leaders most likely are because they need a new push? A new issue to push? But I think this will be a strategic mistake on their part because the younger YRR are simply not political in the same way that worked in the past. Many voted for Obama or abstained from voting because Romney was a Mormon, believe it or not. If anything they are much more liberal than Al Mohler. I know that is shocking but this is a fairly new thing. Maybe last 10 years or so.
First and foremost the YRR/NC leaders are about power. And if the government gave them some sort of civil authority, they would seize it in a minute. They are all about coercion/censorship. Does not matter if it was Obama or Ronald Reagan. They would sup with Satan for power.
The question is more if the young’uns will follow them? This could be a strategic mistake on the part of the leaders.
It is always interesting to compare exit polls from election to election. How do evangelicals vote? They elected Clinton twice. The whole issue about the “religious right” is moot. They died out years ago.
That TGC article says some of the wackiest stuff I’ve seen in awhile. Gag reflex apparently tied to our morality? By that logic everything that feels “pleasure” is therefore good and moral (which may be why he emphasizes that marriage is about procreation at it’s core). This means that everything from greed to promiscuity are okay because they bring about a sense of pleasure, while things like racism are okay because it brings about a feeling of disgust within a person. This is all slightly exaggerated, but still works within the same theory. Very dangerous statements to make, surprised they posted it, especially with all the heat they have been under.
@ Anon 1:
I don’t know how the religious right is dead. Having lived in Texas and now Georgia, in both places it’s pretty much assumed, without being vocalized, that if you are a Christian, you vote Republican. If nothing else, the abortion issue makes you a single issue voter in most people’s mind. I could count on one hand the number of self-identified evangelical Christians who I know voted Democrat in the last election. Actually, I cannot. I don’t know any. Not one.
I’m not saying that’s universally true, but at least in the south it’s alive and well. The only exception to this is the Libertarians, which I think are sometimes viewed with a little bit of envy by most evangelicals. It seems they really WANT to be libertarian, but just can’t seem to pull the trigger.
(I did vote libertarian this past election, but mostly because I can no longer stomach either of the two main parties. I’m probably not completely aligned with the libertarian party, but I can pretty confidently say I don’t trust either of the two main parties even a little bit).
And TGC shows signs of being on “The Religious Right”: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/03/how-to-change-a-society-in-5-easy-steps/
Now having said that, Tim Keller points out some excellent things about our religious affiliations in his book “Generous Justice”. In the book he points out the two concepts of “Justice” and “Righteousness” are linked over and over again in scripture. The first being defined as giving people their “due” as image bearers of God, whether punishing the wicked or elevating the oppressed, while the latter is a way of living that if everyone did it, there would be no need for justice.
He points out that the two political parties both major on one of these ideas to the exclusion of the other. That is, the Democrats try to major on equalizing everyone while the Republicans say the cure is to get everyone to start behaving rightly. Keller, at least, says that both sides are missing the full command of God by doing this. He also points out how party lines are not drawn down religious lines (as terms like “The Religious Right” imply), but economic and racial lines.
So all THAT to say, I think Keller has a lot of good things to say on the topic of politics. It doesn’t seem like TGC really follows his lead on this, though.
At any rate, I guess I don’t see what is changing. In my world, Christian=Republican and always has. If anyone ever admitted to voting Democrat, I think there would be serious questions as to that person’s salvation. Maybe this isn’t the case elsewhere, though.
Has anyone else seen the articles about a lawsuit which might force non-profits that are too politically involved to pay taxes? I don’t know if this targets churches or just other non-profits. I did a quick look this morning but haven’t found it yet. Will keep looking unless someone else links first.
@ Wisdomchaser:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/maryland-congressman-files-lawsuit-that-could-end-tax-free-status-of-churches-involved-in-politics/legal-issues/2013/08/21/73651
Here is the article I read.
They’re not creating a new one, just glomming onto the pre-existing one. No need to reinvent the wheel.
I know too much now about the Dominionist/Reconstructionist/Christian Nationalist connections on the religious right. If you’re a conservative and don’t idolize David Barton, R. J. Rushdoony and Ron Paul, you’re pretty much persona non grata in my experience – and I don’t even live in the South. It must be a thousand times worse down there.
Hester wrote:
Anon 1 wrote:
Then add to this the millennials who are questioning everything, including their gender paradigm, and they have a problem.
I know this post was political (I kid!), but I want to talk for a brief moment about why Mr. Anyabwile’s article is dehumanizing. Let’s start with a basic syllogism:
If you don’t have a gag reflex towards gay intimate activities, something is wrong with you.
LGBT people don’t have a gag reflex toward gay intimate activities.
Something is wrong with LGBT people.
Or, let’s try another variation. I’ll start, and then you can finish.
This activity is disgusting.
LGBT people want to take part in this activity (even celibate ones, though of course they abstain)
[do you see where this is going?]
Yes, I simplify, because not all LGBT people like all kinds of intimate activities, but I think the point stands that this approach sets up people who don’t feel an instinctive “gag reflex” toward such things to be more broken than people who do. If that is how Thabiti and TGC feel about LGBT people, then I’m glad Thabiti said what he did, and I’m glad TGC published the article. Now we know where they stand.
For better or for worse, a growing number of straight people are coming to the opinion that their gag reflex happens because they’re straight, not because LGBT people are disgusting. This does not bode well for Thabiti, who feels that to be more “winsome” [gag] he should be increasingly harsh, confrontational, and, well, not winsome in debates on issues pertaining to LGBT people.
Jeff S wrote:
There are still many in the South who adhere to the old time Democrat party. I also know a fair number of evangelicals who voted Democrat, including some on this blog. This next generation is going to challenge the wazoo out of this stuff.
Thabiti’s post showed a distinctive lack of understanding of this new generation. I called Deb when it first came out and said it would cause a ruckus. It did. Read Zac Hoag to get a pulse on what is to come-for better or worse. I am not advocating one thing or another. I am just saying that big change is coming.
And finally, before I head outside to partake in the somewhat manly activity of chopping down a small tree with an ax, I will bring to your attention a question that I’ve read from several LGBT authors recently. It goes something like this:
Does anyone else find it odd that [conservative religious and political leaders] spend much more time talking about gay 5ex than most gay people?
Josh wrote:
I have been deeply disturbed by some of the ties to groups that have a rose colored view of the South during the time of slavery. I am concerned by the acceptance of some of Doug Wilson’s thoughts on this matter. Slavery is the ultimate form of abuse.
Josh wrote:
It is the easy sin to discuss, especially if you are not gay. YOu can point fingers, huff and puff, and feel really good about your heterosexual ways. Meantime, there are many, many sins buried nice and deep that are hard to perceive from the outside.
@ Josh:
@ Wisdomchaser: That day is coming. I was in a church in which one of the pastors, on Sunday, handed out a list or who and what to vote for.
dee wrote:
And of course, when their tax-exempt status is revoked, they’ll be being “persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”
dee wrote:
That’s true.
Being that abuse is all about power and control over another, they are pretty much synonymous.
The slow, insidious rise of Reconstructionism — going from a small church of Rushdoony acolytes in Tyler TX to the default setting amongst conservative evangelicals (Reformed and otherwise) — is one of the most important untold stories of modern church history.
I can remember less than 20 years ago when just saying the word “Reconstructionist” to a Reformed Baptist would bring a sneer of disgust. Now, it’s what everyone believes, whether they know the word or not.
This is very much a redux of what happened with Young Earth creationism, which gradually became a set of specific doctrines the denial of which was made a heresy. We are there again with reconstructionism.
Josh wrote:
Yep-instead of acting like a jerk.
@ That Bad Dog: I am a double heretic by those standards.
dee wrote:
African American churches have been doing this for decades. Even Booker T Washington warned about the influence of pastors and keeping people down.
dee wrote:
The DO have a problem. You are right about the millennials. I am finding it interesting to watch them apply the same thinking of old to a new problem…a culture war. It is sort of interesting to watch Russ Moore and see how indoctrinated he has to be and cannot think outside the Al Mohler box….or perhaps not allowed to.
I mean they did embrace/accept/partner with Driscoll for a while until it got embarrassing. How can they teach the gag factor on sodomy when Driscoll was promoting it in marriage, for example?
@ Josh:
Josh, I think sodomy is unhealthy for anyone. That part of a body was not designed for that activity.
I think Thabi’s (or however you spell is name) approach sounds much like the approach an 8th grade boy would take to this issue.
Anon 1 wrote:
Like any mass movement that’s failing or been overtaken (from X-Treme Islam to Apple Mackinistas); when you start to falter, Double Down And SCREAM LOUDER! Increase Political Indoctrination! Sniff out Heretics and Traitors! Take over and Enforce Your Utter Righteousness! Khmer Rouge Time! God Wills It!
Anon 1 wrote:
Because with Driscoll, it wasn’t HOMO. Just Real Manly Man showing Animal Dominance Display over Widdle Wifey.
That Bad Dog wrote:
And remember: ALL HERETICS MUST BE BURNED.
(And you need to be in Power to burn all those Heretics…)
Josh wrote:
You mean that Peculiar Institution regarding certain Animate Property?
Where’s the gag reflex about child sex abuse and the cover up of this evil in the church?
@ Amy Smith:
Excellent comment Amy!
I’m not sure conservative evangelicals were ever as monolithic as portrayed by the so-called “mainstream media.” Therefore, I have to take Zack Hoag’s article with a grain of salt, perhaps more than a few grains. Hoag’s use of the misnomer “marriage equality” to describe same-sex marriage also gives me pause.
I’m no fan of the YRR movement, bur I think the jury’s still out on whether they’re becoming more political.
That Bad Dog wrote:
We have been researching reconstructionism and the ever-growing connections with the Neo-Cals. They must be exposed.
I, for one, am thrilled about the Gag Reflex article. It confirms for me once and for all that eating green vegetables has been immoral all along.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 — I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s about power and perceived “righteousness,” not really politics.
Just after the last election Mohler wrote a blog post admitting that it wasn’t a question of Americans *not* understanding the Republican message, it was that they had *rejected* the message. He had no answers at all, just some weak thing about holding the same views but persuading people more winsomely. Totally illogical.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s really about politics, it’s about circling the wagons by identifying a scarey enemy. Keep the emotions so whipped up that people cannot thing for themselves. You can keep Christians from reading the Gospels and from obeying Jesus if you tell them them that they are under attack from somebody or anybody.
That absolves us from loving our neighbor and trying to get fairness and righteousness for every person simply because all are made in God’s image.
I know a lot of lifelong Republicans who voted Obama or didn’t vote for president at all this last election. It’s still interesting to me, though, that a higher percentage of white Evangelicals voted for Romney than Mormons did.
I also am on the private mailing list of a major Christian leader/author and he is so out of touch he is *almost* advocating witch hunts to find the 6 million Evangelicals who voted Obama and reeducate them. (6 million — it has a ring to it, doesn’t it?)
But he says it a bit nicer than that: “The Christian Church is in desperate need of training in the Christian Faith.” Since when is fawning all over corporate America and Wall Street executives a sign of true Christian Faith? Jesus says a lot about the poor and none of it agrees with what I hear from pastors about the poor deserving to be poor, or the benefits of punishing the poor for being poor.
There’s a lot of this going on behind the scenes in Christian leaders both Neo-Cal and Non-Cals.
I know nothing about Reconstructionism, so I just looked it up. Yikes- I don’t know how that is even close to compatible with historic Reformed faith and beliefs. There’s a nice quote from J. Legon Duncan denouncing it in the Wikipedia entry.
@ Josh: Yes indeed! 😉
@ dee: Well, yes and no, because some of the most ardent opponents have, in recent years, been found out as being closeted gay men.
Oh, the irony!
@ That Bad Dog: Well then there is the *other* kind of Dominionism favored by the charismatic wing – New Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave types.
it’s VERY frightening. (I was once in a church where many held to that type of thinking – yikes!!!)
@ numo: One important thing to note is that NAR churches will often completely disavow any knowledge of the NAR and protest loudly that they have no time for such beliefs/political agendas.
Their websites and printed material will make them look very normal – there will not be a single hint at what is actually taught and preached. As for the out-loud sermonizing, the recording equipment is usually turned off when certain things are being said, or else, the speaker throws their tie over the lapel mike.
It is insidious, and it is more common than most anyone would suspect…
Josh wrote:
It’s amazing (and repulsive) how these actions can so easily be discussed at TGC in regards to same sex relations, but NEVER a word was heard from anyone when Driscoll was promoting the same actions between huaband and wives. It was all quiet on TGC front when Driscoll spoke.
Or, a la Doug Wilson, Neo Confederates. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Amy Smith wrote:
Well said!
Jeff S wrote:
Time to get educated. There are close ties between Calvinism and Reconstructionism in spite of Duncan’s denials.
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Recon_Manifesto.html
Jeff S wrote:
It’s not dead but it has been reduced pretty much only regional influence (RE: the south)
In the top ten most populous states(Which account for about 53% of the total population of the US), states usually considered as “the south” only take 3 spots (#2, 8 & 10) 4 if you count Florida, which is #4. As far as population share in that same list, they account for only 27% (38% if Florida is counted).
Also, it bears considering factors that will probably further diminish it’s power… the US is experiencing a population shift from the north into the south and west, making the population there more diverse and therefore more divided politcally. Also, What you mentioned about libertarianism is true, alot of the conservative right is trending towards libertariansism, which is completely incompatible with many of the goals of the religious right movement (which require a nanny state).
Also to add, most of the world at large is also trending away from religion(as it has been) in general, and that will hamper any movement with overt religion as the main anchor.
Anon 1 wrote:
Of course, never mind the fact that not all gay men participate in that activity. And never mind that lesbian intimate relations would be the safest of all types of relations. Why does Thabiti not make exceptions for these categories? My guess would be that he started at his conclusion and reasoned backward to justify his innate disgust.
I’m not saying that you can’t reach his moral conclusion by [other] logical means (I, in fact, have arrived at a similar conclusion, albeit without so much [self-]disgust). That said, if he thinks his approach is “winsome” and attempts to use it to further his side of the culture war, he’s almost guaranteed to lose. And frankly, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.
@ dee:
My! It seems the Reformed world is quite a mixture. That article is exactly why I don’t want the (c)hurch and state to co-mingle.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Battle of the Babies
Some Christians are convinced the way to win the culture wars and defeat liberalism and Muslims is to out-breed them.
This seems to have started out in the wacko Christian cult like groups but I’ve seen this thinking pop up in more main stream conservative Christian thinking too.
Josh wrote:
Not to mention the fact that many straight people *do.*
The hypocrisy and lack of education is just staggering to me. As for what gay men do or don’t do, I suspect that there’s quite a variety of preferences/activities, no? Thabiti and so many others equate sex with penetration. (And that’s a whole ‘nother topic altogether, one I won’t get into here!)
@ numo: P.S.: I don’t mean to suggest that I think *nal sex is a good idea; merely that the world out here is much more diverse than these guys think it is.
(written by a straight woman, fwiw.)
It comes and goes. You can’t take over society by out breeding other ideologies, because you can’t keep up the steam for enough generations.
@ JustSomeGuy:
The point is that the author says religion is on the increase, not on the wane.
@ Jeff S:
Some of my extended family, who are Christian, still vote Democrat, but they don’t seem to realize or care that the present Democratic party is not the one of JFK.
They don’t seem to realize that as a whole, Democrats support abortion, homosexual marriage, etc., and these extended family of mine don’t support abortion or homosexuality.
These Christian family members tend to vote Dem because they view Dem Party as being for the “working man” while they feel the GOP is anti- working man trying to make it.
But I do agree that many Christians tend to vote Republican / be Republican.
Daisy wrote:
True of many evangelicals, but not all. Not at all true of many Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans (aside from the fundy-type synods), and more than a few Presbyterians (PC-USA).
It’s “funny” how people tend to equate xtianity with evangelicalism; culture wars-type evangelicalism at that. (Daisy – *not* meant as a criticism of your post or views; just nothing that the world of xtianity is *very* big and most xtians are actually not American evangelicals. 🙂 )
@ Jeff S:
I forgot to add about the rest of your post in my last one that my political views these days sound very similar to yours.
I have always been a Republican and a social conservative, I will never accept the left wing’s views on social issues, but I am no longer comfortable with conservative Christians cozying up to politics or screaming about social issues as much as they do, which is a lot!
@ numo:
I keep seeing that point raised on this blog, and i’m sorry if non evan., non Baptists get tired of me thinking in that way, but it’s going to have to be a given that when I use the term “Christianity,” I am usually referring to Southern Baptist, other types of Baptist, Fundamentalist Christian, and evangelical.
At its lowest common denominator, Christianity = believeing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, of course.
But in terms of Chrisitan culture, churches, etc, because I come from a SB type background, I associate churches and Christian culture and Christian dabbling in politics with evan/ Fundies/ SBs.
Everyone seems to take for granted we are living in one of the greatest societal paradigm shifts in history. There are so many huge developments occurring at the time.
Women have never been treated as they are now. LBGTQ people have never been treated as they are now. Different ethnicities have never been treated the way they are now. We’ve never had so much hard insight into how the universe works than we do now. We’ve never been able to travel as fast and as far as we can now. We’ve never been able to communicate and exchange ideas as many people as we can now. We’ve never been able to learn as much as we can now, due to the previous two things. We’ve never had as good of health and healthcare as we have now. We’ve never had the type of globalization we have now.
Quite simply, the average human can now travel, talk, learn and experience exponentially more in their lives than ever before.
Obviously, all this change taking place in such a compressed time period (most of it had been taking place for 100 years or less) is going to cause turbulence, and upheaval and desperation for those that can’t cope with the fading good ol days. (That really weren’t all that good)
Daisy wrote:
I never said religion is one the wane… I said religion as we knew it ;p
Josh wrote:
That is true, but then, they tend to be obsessed about all 5ex, whether between heteros or whomever else.
About the only 5ex some of these famous Christian mouth pieces don’t talk about are 5exual offenses against children, as someone in another post brought up above.
They spend a lot of time telling people under 25 years old, who are single, whether hetero or homo5exual, not to have 5ex, but if you’ve made it to your 40s and have still not had 5ex/ not married, you don’t exist to most of them. I am an older celibate, and I don’t think about 5ex nearly as often as some of these married preachers do, such as Dricoll.
I find this funny, because according to some of these 5ex obsessed guys, all singles under the age of 50 or 60 are supposedly 5ex- obsessed, and they assume all of us singles are sleeping around constantly.
Yeah, I have am an older celibate with a normal libido, but I am no where near as fixated on 5ex as say, Mark Driscoll is.
@ Daisy: Gotcha – while at the same time, I get tired of the way so many evangelicals see “Christianity” as *only* being about them. (Even in publications names: xtianity Today, for example.)
There’s a big world out here!
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Well, I guess to me, it reads like the same difference.
I wonder if it’s more the outward show of religion is down, with church attendance being down in Europe and the USA, but even people who don’t go to church still retain a belief in God and so on (according to surveys of religious belief in America).
@ numo:
I don’t mean any offense by it, it’s just the automatic way my brain thinks of Christianity, in terms of Christian culture in the United States. (I don’t do it on purpose, it’s just how my mind works.)
dee wrote:
They can claim it, but they are wrong in their application. They say they adhere to the WCF, but they do not.
From chapter 19 of the WCF:
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
The WCF clearly considers aspects of the law “expired” or “abrogated”. The Reconstructionists cannot re-institute these as mandates of of the state and remain consistent with the WCF. They are also abusing Calvins “3 values of the law” ideas. What they are doing would not be what Calvin intended (according to everything I’ve been taught on this subject, as I haven’t actually read Calvin’s view of the law).
Also, I just disagree with their description of Calvinism.
Daisy wrote:
Well let me put it a different way:
Religion as we know it now is vastly different from religion way, way back in ancient times where you had all the polytheism and the human and animal sacrifices and temples etc.
And in a similar fashion, religion as we know it now will become like that shortly in the future. I don’t know what the new form will look like, but people will be able to look back on religion of this time like we look back on ancient religion and see a marked difference across the board.
@ Jeff S.:
Exactly. Which is why R. J. Rushdoony called Calvin’s view of the law “heretical nonsense” and said that his reforms in Geneva didn’t go far enough. And then there are those pesky Lutherans, darn them.
@ JustSomeGuy:
Thank you for this. I wish they’d just come out and say it already. They don’t object to the government running your life – they just want to be the ones calling the shots. This is why the rhetoric usually boils down to “if we just get the right people in charge“…
@ Josh:
It is pretty funny that a member of TGC would insist that Christians should have a gag reflex toward a sex act that Mark Driscoll explicitly recommended in Real Marriage. Mixed messages?
Calvinistas are generally not conservative. Big difference between conservatism and Religious Right or Calvinism. Calvinista leaders tend to be very liberal and want dominionism. Conservatism celebrates free will and free markets, not “Christian socialism” or progressivism. I remember very popular Calvinist leaders telling their church that they should not get involved with politics, but of course except to vote for THEIR issues and the leaders themselves get involved. The Religious Right is a front group that causes panic and misleads also.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff S, follow the voting breakdowns in the South compared to say 10-30 years ago. It is not a cut and dried as you think. With the 3 way race, Evangelicals are what saved Clinton, twice. I live in the South and know a TON of Evangelicals who vote Democrat. Many are SBC if you can believe it.
We tend to want to follow what popular culture says in the media. The actual stats tell us something very different. Many Evangelicals both Democrat AND Republican stayed home because Romney was a Mormon! Some were black! And some of those who were black were pastors, too!
There are many myths out there and one is that the religious right is alive and well. There have always been “issue” voters. There are democrats who won’t vote for a pro abortion candidate. There are republicans who are pro choice.
singleman wrote:
Oh they are not, you are right. And it is a big problem for the leaders. That is why I was not impressed with Zack’s article either. There is no bogeyman even though some evangelical leaders would love the power that comes from a culture war. In fact, Zack needs to be concerned about the political ambitions of the Ana Baptist movement. They are becoming just as bad on the other end of the spectrum with their brand of culture war.
Josh wrote:
Most do. I am not sure why it is considered mean to say that it is not healthy. We would say it is not healthy for a woman.
I don’t think we “gag”. I think we “love”
numo wrote:
A very good friend of mine worked as a trauma surgeon in a hospital emergency room. That is where I get most of my information on the dangers. Especially after a rave or some other major event in that population. That does not apply to every single person who is gay/monogamous. I would hope you would understand that. But there are health issues and if we love people who want them to understand it.
Hester wrote:
I totally agree with this! Some are waking up to not wanting a nanny state. But they are having to give up some of their pet issues in order to fight that.
Hester wrote:
Women are less valued?
Anon 1 wrote:
It’s funny you should say that. Most Christians I know (mind you, I’m in a very conservative church in a fairly conservative area) are against any sort of 5ex education for straight people – never mind gay people (because gay people don’t really exist; they’re just people who reject God and play around with the same 5ex out of rebellion).
Hester wrote:
Wow! Mixed messages indeed! Or maybe Markie Mark is just way off base, and they know this, but no one’s willing to say anything (because they want him to endorse their next book?).
Josh wrote:
Well I am a Christian and I am not so sure I want just anybody educating my children about sex. I want to do it or at least vet those who claim that authority to do so. Does that make me some sort of ingrate or something?
@ Trust4himonly-Faith:
Welcome to TWW>Trust4himonly-Faith wrote:
Great comment!
Anon 1 wrote:
And some were black female pastors!
@ Jeff S: Yet Calvin himself liked making rules for society. He even regulated how many courses one could have at a dinner (6-I think). Many Christian leaders presume to *know* how we should vote.
Rave culture: *lots* of people who go to raves use drugs (many kinds) and alcohol while there.
I’m willing to bet that one can also find the same kinds of things happening with straight users of meth. (Very much so, in fact.)
A rave is VERY different from the setting in which many people engage in risky behaviors. (At home, with appropriate precautions and other things, or else not, but still…)
I’m also willing to be that the majority of sexual assaults (of all kinds) happen to women, are perpetrated by men – and that the numbers go WAY up when people are drunk or else when guys are using “date rape” drugs on women.
Gay people are generally painted as altogether licentious and “weird” (in general) by a h*ll of a lot of people who have not taken the time to actually educate themselves, let alone get to know gay people.
Also… in a lot of other cultures, *nal sex is a very real thing, like it or not. (I happen to NOT like the whole idea, but one thing that was commonly touched on in screenings during the early days of the AIDS epidemic was whether people had visited certain areas of the globe… keeping in mind that in many of the places in question, this practice was partly – though by no means entirely – about birth control. Old habits die hard, in this case – unfortunately – though there’s much more education and condoms are far more available in most of these places than was the case back in the 1980s.)
Meant to say “people who are gay.”
As for the incidence of *nal sex, it’s something that many gay men do not engage in, either actively or passively.
@ dee:
I’m no Calvin apologist.
I’m just pointing out that this Constructionist garbage is not consistent with historic Reformed theology, whatever they claim.
Hester wrote:
yep… 😉
@ Anon 1:
I trust you are not implying that Reconstructionism/Dominionism/Christian Nationalism are not real or are not a problem? Or is the bogeyman you’re referring to the “religious right” itself?
For the record, everyone I’ve ever met who moved down south had an experience like Jeff’s – you were persona non grata among evangelicals if you were not Republican. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if many southern Democrats died hard.
@ Jeff S.:
If you really want to have some nightmares, there’s also a Pentecostal version of the “Christian takeover” idea called the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Totally different premises, same endpoint. Involves exorcizing “national demons” from countries, etc. Rick Perry and Sarah Palin have their fingers pretty deep in that theological pie.
Hester wrote:
Religious Right. Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed movement.
Perhaps the ones that moved here should try living here for a long time? Southern Evangelical Democrats die hard. And many are still closet racists.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, I don’t get that at all. How do you explain Calvin’s Geneva?
numo wrote:
I defer to your superior knowledge.
Anon 1 wrote:
As near as I can tell, Calvin didn’t try to enforce OT law in Geneva.
Hester wrote:
Thanks for defining NAR. I must have missed the definition earlier. Now that I know about its existence, I’m going to have a whole new realm of stuff to have nightmares about. Reconstructionism alone was bad enough!
Ok, I just returned from Wikipedia. Let’s just say that the idea of a president getting “extra-biblical revelation” about how to run the country from God (or the voices in his or her head, who knows?) has me even more scared. Wow! :-\
@ Anon 1:
Thanks for the clarification.
@ Josh:
Go to Talk2Action, they have more info than you’ll ever want on the NAR.
Hester wrote:
“…this time we will finally achieve True Communism!”
Daisy wrote:
Nice trick when you’ve got a bum prostate on top of four hours of sleep a night due to job stress. And your entire experience with the opposite 5ex has been a string of rejections.
It takes a LOT of work to get as fixated on 5ex as Mark Driscoll.
@ Anon 1: not “superior,” just different.
people from a lot of other parts of the world do not talk about some common sexual practices in Western countries, but that doesn’t mean they don’t go on. (And among straight people at that.) In some places, it’s expected of women.
Again, NOT something I think is good or right, but it’s a reality and healthcare professionals who work with at-risk populations have to deal with it.
oops – “when they are in Western countries.” (Immigrants.)
My dad, who was captain of various merchant ships, was put through an incredibly exhaustive screening (including batteries of questions) when his company 1st added AIDS screening to their standard health care exams and testing. The reason: sailors come from all over the world, and travel to all parts of the world. My dad’s company (and others) was trying to stop the spread of the disease, not just protect the health of their employees.
Trigger alert:
The following comment is directly quoting from Thabiti Anyabwile's post The Importance of Your Gag Factor on The Gospel Coalition website. The words are Anyabwile's, not Eagle's. That post has caused an uproar throughout the blogosphere. In it, Anyabwile explicitly discusses gay sex. I have decided to let the comment stand because of the public nature of the discussion. But, warning: do not read it or the post unless you are ready for graphic. -End editor's note:
Time to jump in the conversation…let me tweak a few words from "The Importance of Your Gag Factor" Now if Mark Driscoll had said this….
THEN many Neo-Cals would buy books, attend conferences, and practice in their bedroom. Oh wait…we had that it was called "The Real Marriage Tour" 😛 Why is it assumed that only gays are doing sexually perverse stuff? So Heterosexuals don't practice perverse stuff? You mean Heterosexuals haven't experimented with anal sex, oral sex, sex toys, etc… This crowd is really out of touch with reality. Back to lurking….
No surprise here at all
Grudem’s “Politics: according to the bible” (more accurately titled “conservative proof texts spotted by Grudem”) is one-sided right-wing fluff from start to finish – and he’s been closely connected with the Christian Institute in the UK – the one (very unsuccessful) attempt to create a religious right in that country.
To be fair Keller – in both Generous Justice and Counterfeit Gods – is on a different tip altogether.
Trust4himonly-Faith wrote:
Very liberal and wanting dominionism – surely the two are entirely antithetical?
Josh wrote:
And there seems to be a growing trend of churches to never register with the government in the first place, so it really doesn’t apply to them. They say what they believe.
Hester wrote:
I feel bad for Mrs. Driscoll that her husband would announce to the world what specific act he thinks would be good for her. I’m assuming that since she’s a submissive wife (his being qualified as an elder would require it, no?)…
Well, nevermind. 🙁 Really, nevermind.
I’m rusty on any reading on the free church movement but Steve Scott’s raised a point that may be topic for conversation down the line, churches not declaring or filing for tax exempt status to begin with because they believe that merely in doing that they are kow-towing to a worldly government.
Richard, liberalism and dominionist thought aren’t necessarily antithetical in American history. Manifest Destiny and all that. As someone descended from American Indians I’m not saying the fusion of liberalism of the 18th century variety with dominionist ideas fueled by post-millennialism is a good thing. Far from it. Just pointing out that a fusion of Western liberalism (in the older sense) with dominionist ideals can be seen in what could be called the old Religious Left. The Religious Right’s problems could be uncharitably described as refusing to learn how the methods that failed in the hands of the old Religious Left in the Social Gospel are bound to fail when wielded by the Religious right, too.
In a post-millennial set-up the post-millennialism could drive the imperial impulse whether a Christian was considered liberal or conservative. Not buying post-millennialism or millenarianism in general (Jeffrey Burton Russell has a fun little book explaining how the Catholic Church began repudiating millenialist schematics pre and post for centuries before Protestantism as we know it existed) I would say that Rome probably had the right idea shooting down both premillennial and postmillennial eschatological thought as apt to lead to schisms and odd cults.
Steve Scott wrote:
I have no problem with this at all. If a church wants to talk politics and feels it is worth it not to be tax exempt, this is a move of integrity, IMO. Now if I don’t agree with their politics (which I’d guess is likely) I’m not going to stick around, but I can respect the move.
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
RC Sproul has publicly lamented for years that the government can restrict what he preaches through tax exempt status. In many cases he has almost implied that he is dissapointed with himself for allowing them to do so. In fact, I remember one sermon where he spoke very highly of a church that came out and openly endorse Kerry for president- he said they were putting their view of what was right above a tax exemption status. Of course, then he spent the rest of the sermon saying Christians should not in good conscience support any party that allows for abortion, so his admiration was for their integrity, not necessarily their position.
I’ve always thought that his church always has the option to get rid of their tax exempt status if he feels like he is unnecessarily fettered.
Jeff S wrote:
He did not have to. He wrote them (and in detail!) and the Consistory enforced them through both civil/church magistrates. Do you know what the punishment was for falling asleep during one of his sermons? :o)
Richard wrote:
It depends on how you define it. What group wants to nationalize health care so that government controls your options and care? That is a form of dominionism. And that is one example.
Jeff S wrote:
They would lose tax free housing allowance which for some mega church pastors is huge part of their income and important to small church pastors, too. Pastors would then be required to pay into Social Security which they don’t have to now. Can you imagine the different taxes that mega churches would be subject to if they did not have the appropriate designation?
The only way I see this happening is if Congress changes the law. It has been batted around some. And I have been curious as more scandals break if it might not go that way.
The SBC Plodder has written about this
http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2011/07/our-tax-break-housing-allowance.html
But if you ever wonder why some church plants have a lot of “ordained staff pastors” perhaps the housing allowance tax break will give us a clue. :o)
numo wrote:
I still think it is perfectly ok to say it is not healthy no matter who or why. Female circumcision is a common practice in some parts of the world, too.
Further information on the comment by Eagle for interested readers.
Thabiti Anyabwile has done a followup post on the uproar of the previously mentioned post. On Homosexuality and the Conscience: responding to Criticism
“3. It is a Christian duty, especially as pastors, preachers, evangelists and counselors, to awaken the conscience so that both the ugliness of sin and the beauty of redemption in Christ may be seen and hopefully responded to in repentance and faith. No man with a dead conscience can live to God. If we want to see our family, friends, neighbors and coworkers saved in Christ, our ministry to them must necessarily include comments on sin that awaken their particular need and conscience.”
They are the most confusing people on the planet. I thought only God could do this for those who are they consider the walking dead and totally unable to respond unless God forces it. Now he is saying pastors, etc, can do this
Anon 1 wrote:
Isn’t the conclusion obvious?
Calvinista Pastors, Elders, etc (NOT the unwashed Laity in the pews) are God.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anything similar to falling asleep during one of Fidel Castro’s six-hour “Socialism or Death” speeches? Or one of Caesar Nero’s four-hour lyre performances?
numo wrote:
And are known to hit the “knock shops” when in port.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Which means that one HIV+ person can spread the disease to several continents/regions of the world.
Scary and sobering.
@ numo: Err, meant to say that one HIV+ person can potentially infect one or more people on several continents (etc.).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It was documented that the one poor guy who called him a hypocrite had his tongue branded! Someone informed on him. Nice place to live? If I remember correctly, the punishment for falling asleep in one of his sermons was bread and water for a week.
Pingback: The Gag Reflex | Leadingchurch.com
Anon 1 wrote:
Well, I must have a dead conscience because I suffer gag reflexes every time one of these people decides to inform me of “the truth of God(tm)”
The issue is not whether the church pays taxes, but on whether donations to the church qualify for deduction as a charitable contribution, thus saving the donors tax money. Any church that wants to speak about politics from the pulpit and advocate for partisan politics can do so. They merely need to tell their donors that the donors can not take a deduction on their taxes for donations to the church. Total freedom of speech. Of course, some of us think they should pay for police and fire protection, municipal services, etc., but that is a different issue than the restriction on political speech by a charitable organization.
The Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) is not a nationalization of health care. That would be a single (govt) payer system. It is a regulation of the health care industry, including insurance companies, toward controlling costs and insuring more of the population, especially the poor, than have been covered before. It maintains the private insurance industry, private hospitals, doctors as small businesses, etc. A nationalized health care system would have all hospitals, doctors and other health professionals on the govt payroll.
@ Arce: Much-appreciated clarification!
@ Anon 1:
It’s a different devil, even though it is bad.
Unless I’m just totally misreading, the Reconstructionists what to move us back to the OT civil law as the civil law four our land. This idea completely at odds with the historical Reformed view of the law.
Again, I have no interest in defending Calvin’s behavior.
Arce wrote:
The way it is configured is to lead to single payer eventually. There is no other way. It sounds good but the devil is in the details of the 17,000 page law that is added to all the time. A very good friend of mine read the 500 page summary who is in health care administration.
If it is a good thing then why are congressmen and federal officials exempt?
Jeff S wrote:
What you are describing is Geneva and the Puritans when they came here.
UPS is dropping the spouses of it’s employees due to Obamacare coming into effect soon. They save 60 million right off the bat. There are so many restrictions on employers it is cheaper to pay the fine.
Bored, I decided to read the first Thabiti Anyabwile posts. His argument is riddled with so many holes and biases, it might as well be swiss cheese. A few key points:
Yes folks. Only conservative republicans, those bastions of integrity and correct morality, can be trusted with fair and objective research. If he was a godless commie liberal obviously his reputation would be immediately suspect, because we all know how stupid they are.
(Note to any conservative republican reading this, I am not demeaning conservative republicans, merely pointing out the heavy, dripping bias falling from this paragraph)
In the bold, that sounds like the most objective and unbiased of the sciences. Note the difference in phrasing between that passage and the previous one about the impartial social scientists.
They “presented themselves as impartial” (In other words, BUT ARE THEY REALLY?!? DUN DUN DUUUUN) vs “The French Canadian who focuses on the importance of the traditional conjugal union” (The importance of it is unqualified and taken for granted as obvious fact)
This part, right here, is the most important crux of this article and indeed this entire issue. Basically, an intelligent, rational level-headed person in the group made his case and everyone (Including our valiant defender of righteousness) not only was rendered speechless, but actually AGREED with him, and could not counter.
From this point forward, the rest of Anyabwile’s article is him bemoaning the fact that he(and apparently lots of others in the room who were on the same side) was completely and embarrassingly defeated in this debate, while still insisting he has the superior argument. He acknowledges that there is no hope for an intelligent victory by him, so it’s time to get down to smash-and-grab tactics. This is where it all goes downhill.
That didn’t take long. Once rational debate is out of the way, he pulls the classic “redfine terms” goalpost mover. It goes without saying that his definition of love here opens a can of worms he’s obviously not considering.
As to the bolded statement: [citation needed]
As far as I am aware no such clear evidence exists, nor is it clear if it will ever exist.
In a huge desperation move, he decides to go deeeeeeeeeep into crazypants town territory. This is where he goes off about homosexual sex in VERY explicit terms in an effort to purposefully disgust any readers. I wasn’t disgusted at the descriptions, but I was disgusted that he stooped to this level.
@ Anon 1:
If so, then they were acting against their own teaching. I quoted the WCF above which states that the civil parts of the law don’t apply and the ceremonial parts are abrogated.
Sorry about the last part, forgot a closing tag. “In his conclusion” is where I started typing and ended his quote.
The second article I also read, but it is a fail whale of no importance. He just basically contradicts himself several times and makes more grandiose statements from his supposed authority of matters.
@ Eagle:
Good to hear from you Eagle. Hope you are well.
@ JustSomeGuy:
Justsomeguy, Both the religious left and religious right in this country want to micromanage us with their pet issues because they are the ones who know better for us. We are too stupid or greedy and cannot be trusted. So we have to be legislated to death even though those who make the laws are exempt from the same ones.
As to the French guy. Something to keep in mind. In Canada they have hate speech laws so folks are reluctant to give their views on homosexuality in a public venue unless they are politically correct. I know of one ministry who lost their tax exempt status because they had a ministry to the cults of JW and Mormon. In Canada you cannot say they are cults.
Americans might be boorish and crass but I will take free speech any day of the week. Even free speech for jerks.
Anon 1 wrote:
And the other group (financial oligarchs) wants to define your options and care in terms of your ability to pay exorbitant premiums. Is this another form of dominionism? Nahhh Muff you deluded old socialist, it’s just the free market in action, and also what made America great.
@ JustSomeGuy: It sounds (from Thabiti’s description) that the “gay journalist” was Andrew Sullivan, who is both very conservative and very much in favor of marriage equality aka gay marriage.
Yeah, he beat them at their own game!
@ Muff Potter: Indeed!
Watching (in D.C.) as health care became “privatized” was agonizing. So many places that provided reasonably decent care for the poor went belly-up and were absorbed by greedy corporations that made sure that the population those places had served would be completely unable to afford their services. (In the 80s.)
fwiw, I had no health insurance for quite a few years, so you can imagine what my medical bills looked like…
JustSomeGuy wrote:
What scares me is that about 20 years ago, I might have thought that.
@ dee: A *lot* of use either “might” have thought that way or outrightly *did* think that way.
Join the club, ma’am!
Anon 1 wrote:
That doesn’t sound like dominionism though – just active government (and something every other part of the world considers, in one form or another, part of a civilized society). Dominionism is usually defined by Rushdoony’s position which was, as far as I can work out, seizing and using state power to oppress anyone who wasn’t in line with his interpretation of scripture.
Anon 1 wrote:
I’m with you on this one. In the day that government tries to muzzle preachers (or anybody else for that matter) as to what they may say or not say from their pulpits and consciences, I too will man the barricades. In other words, over my dead body.
Sorry Richard. I think it is “dominating” to tell me I have to participate in something I do not think the government is qualified or mandated to do. And in the name of doing the right thing. And those who don’t cooperate will be “oppressed” by the IRS since they are in this, too.
It is just that the left wing does not like it when they sound like the right wing in micromanaging and mandating for people! :o)
Muff, If you think it is going to be cheaper in the long run and cover more people then you are a dreamer. At some point, we have to admit we are broke and government cannot do everything.
@ Muff Potter:
The issue is that they accept donations that are deductible on the donors’ tax returns. They need to give up that status, telling the donors that the donations to the church are not deductible on federal income tax and estate tax, OR eschew partisan political action in the pulpit and as a church — members are not so regulated, just the entity and its resources. It is a simple trade-off in the law. Personally, I think church groups that want to be politically active should give up non-profit status all together and pay real estate and sales/use taxes as a matter of conscience.
@ Anon 1:
Notice to all: please do not comment on healthcare unless you know what you are talking about. There are six distinct “single-payer” systems in use throughout major economies in the world; hence the silliness of talking about “socialized medicine” as if it were a single entity. Japan, Germany, Canada, Great Britain – all have radically different single-payer systems. Furthermore, prior to PPACA, the American system was about 60% government run (hint: Medicare), and yet the private insurance which was available to some missed almost every metric for what constitutes a “free-market”. For example, the laws of one price, many payers, and free information were all nonexistent. In fact, several aspects of PPACA were designed to re-introduce free market principles into the very complex world of US healthcare. FWIW, I have an MBA in health-sector management.
Anon 1 wrote:
I agree. But I will still call them jerks for what they say, if it’s merited.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Amen!
Bridging the topics of free speech and issues pertaining to people who are LGBT, I can say that in some instances, the “persecution” or “militant h_________ agenda” that some conservative Christians complain about has much more to do with the pushback they receive when they use their free speech to spread harmful lies about said individuals than about offensive attacks by LGBT groups. Maybe they’ll realize some day that free speech doesn’t grant you freedom from the consequences of hurtful things that you’ve said. I’m not holding my breath.
What I don’t really understand about these people is that they are extremely motivated by hate.
They hate women, gays, people who don’t agree with them, scientists and science, other ethnicities, the list goes on endlessly. They love it when some natural(or unnatural) disaster occurs and gleefully pronounce it as judgment from God who hates us for our sins. Through that and other theologies they even attempt to turn God into the ultimate hater of humanity and everything.
Most of the terms the bible use to describe God are overflowing in mercy compassion etc, slow to anger. Jesus acted the same as this (him being God and all…). Basically God is almost portrayed as the ultimate chill laid back kind of person.
Christians are told we will be known by our love not our hate. Yet because of these theologies we are most definitely known for what we and God hate, which is apparently EVERYTHING. And we have been known by this for quite a while.
I don’t know why these people are so obsessed with hatred and being haters, but it seems like a horrible way to live to be mad at the world and hate everything. I live around people who believe this with all their heart, and they are negative critical human beings, whose greatest joy and life would be to witness God pull a sodom and gomorrah on the entire world.
It’s just sad. I shake my head whenever they go on a hater rampage, and say nothing, because I know if I say anything to check their hatred, they will just spit it back in my face with a shot of “THAT’S YOUR CONSCIENCE MAKING YOU FEEL CONVICTED”.
@ Josh: Amen, Josh. [:not holding breath:]
@ Arce:
Some context is in order here. What I had in mind are various ‘hate speech’ laws which in some countries are construed to include preachers teaching the Bible as they see fit with regard to homosexuality. Personally, I don’t give a damn what a person’s sexual orientation is, but at the same time, I want the free speech rights of those who see it differently protected.
My father flew a B-17 in the air war over Germany in 1944. He and his comrades in arms paid for those rights in blood. Political activism from religious organizations with tax-exempt status is another issue altogether.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Dr. Fundy — So what’s your take on the new system? The company I work for is thinking that our employees with dependents will pay much less by dropping off our health plan. In fast food restaurants, I hear stories that employees will simply pay the penalty rather than buying the insurance.
A tweet from Fake Mark Driscoll to put a smile on your face at the end the day:
https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll/status/371635038880026624
@ Janey:
Its important to note in these discussions that the most conservative models we have place the cost of healthcare under the old system as reaching 100% of GDP before 2030. As a matter of fact, the bulk of PPACA came from the Chicago School of economics, a very conservative group. The only thing missing is a single-payer system which would eliminate the massive funneling of around $2T (yes, T) USD on insurance company profits. So, it was clear to all parties that something had to be done, hence the support from members of both parties. That being said, I think the law was poorly executed, and there will be some significant unforeseen negative consequences. The cost of healthcare will still go up, but at a slower rate than it would have. A better approach would have been an outcomes approach. This is being implemented through outcomes-based medicare reimbursement, but the overall gist of the law is cost-containment, which is probably not the most efficient model.
@ JustSomeGuy:
Here’s what confused me about Anyabwile. Obviously he was trying to gross out his readers with the explicit sex descriptions (kinda the whole point). But the fact that he needed to load down the description with so much explicitness suggests to me that it was more about the acts themselves than the gender of the people involved. But if that’s true then he’s gone and proven too much, because straight couples can and do engage in most of the acts he described. Does he object to those same acts when straight people do them? Is he even aware that straight people do those things? He should be since, as I mentioned previously, Mark Driscoll has explicitly recommended two of them (and praised one from the pulpit).
In other words, does he object to gay marriage because of gender alone, or because of the “natural use” argument? Because if he’s going to go with “natural use,” he has to condemn everything except “vanilla” straight sex (which I’m sure was not his point and not what he wanted to do). This is a huge consistency point but most opponents of gay marriage seem completely unaware of it nonetheless.
(Note: I do agree with other commenters that lots of the things Anyabwile described are unpleasant and unhealthy, I’m only trying to push his argument to its logical conclusion.)
Addendum @ JSG:
And actually now that I think about it, pushing the “natural use” argument even further just might land you on the Bayly brothers’ planet of no birth control, too…since birth control enables you to prevent certain things from fulfilling their “natural use.” I bet Anyabwile wasn’t thinking about that either.
@ Hester:
It was a horrible point to make. Reading what he wrote about straight sex would make me as uncomfortable. Worse, he’s just playing into the hands of those he opposes. He’s saying “oppose this because it grosses you out”. That’s precisely the argument same sex marriage supporters are going to use: “you oppose it because it grosses you out, which is not an appropriate legal reason to be against something”.
It doesn’t gross out those who do it. What the religious right has to do to win this battle is prove that it is better for society if those who do not care about the Bible (or do not believe the Buble prohibits monogamous homosexual relationships) and find pleasure in these acts should be barred from expressing themselves however they want, including marriage. The tactic of “ewww, it’s gross” is the argument 5th grader, and just about as convincing.
@ Jeff S: a 4th grade understanding and description of of heterosexual intercourse can sound pretty darned squicky, too.
I give Thabiti Anyabwile credit for expressing regret in using the term “gag reflex.” He did nothing to help his argument by saying that and took attention away from the good points that he made. And yes, I believe he made some good points even as he should have been more careful with his choice of words in more instances than one.
At the same time, I find the name-calling I’ve seen from some of Anyabwile’s critics repugnant. For example, Rachel Held Evans accusing Anyabwile of “homophobia” is, in my view, no better than Anyabwile’s use of the term “gag reflex.”
Neither side has distinguished itself in this particular debate.
@ singleman: You don’t think that his comments come across as homophobic?
Like it or not, I think RHE called it right.
@ singleman: try this: http://alise-write.com/your-gagging-isnt-loving/
An Attorney wrote:
Ah, yes, the Golden Calf of tax deduction for church donations.
“…the donors can not take a deduction on their taxes for donations to the church.”
Or through the church, either. Or especially.
@ JustSomeGuy:
regarding the yuck factor Thabiti Anyabwile ascribes to all his explicit descriptions of *selected* sexual activities:
…as if an equally explicit description of heterosexual activities, which includes his own, and detailed descriptions of the participating organs’ daily/monthly elimination function & varied state of being along with sexual function would be any less yuck to Thabiti.
how ridiculous to pull the yuck-factor card so selectively.
good grief
Anon 1 wrote:
Issue of terms here. However sincerely held your view, that you consider something to be “dominating” does not, i fear, make it “dominionism”. “Dominionism” is a specific theocratic variation of very authoritarian conservatism. And was very effectively debunked as the worst of all forms of government over 60 years ago by CS Lewis
singleman wrote:
Just because the term is used too much and too broadly, does not mean that it can’t be applied correctly. As numo pointed out, I also think RHE used it in an appropriate way. Had Thabiti made an argument purely from scripture, perhaps with a bit of pastoral sensitivity thrown in for good measure, I would be shocked if RHE still called him homophobic.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
I am not so sure about this for all of them. I am trying to work through my feelings on this matter. I believe that they believe they are doing the right thing. Their thoughts are usually based on doctrine as they see it.
But, they are not people who have a high emotional quotient. Therefore, they say things that they perceive to be correct, little understanding the uproar that occurs when the say it. They are unable to fully apprehend the consequences of what they say.
Later this week, I plan to write a post about NeoCalvinism for non Calvinists. This has been motivated by two posts on Julie Anne Smith’s site Spiritual Sounding Board. I will explain my thoughts (and I am not a Calvinist) on the subject in depth at that time.
For now, let’s take a John Piper tweet in which, right after the big hurricane in which he quoted from Job 1:9 that there came a great wind and your children are dead.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/05/21/john-pipers-tweet-during-devastating-twister-aftermath/
Piper removed the tweet after the uproar. He seemed genuinely perplexed at the negative response, saying that such a quote gives, not get this, HIM, comfort. John Piper appears to have a low emotional quotient and does not see outside of how things make him feel. Therefore, he thought he was comforting but, instead, caused pain. I personally think his family should not let him near a Twitter account.
We must go beyond our doctrine and try to ascertain how we communicate with a broken world. It should not be predicated on what makes us feel good or what makes sense to us. We must bring the faith to a broken world and learn to communicate effectively. Anyabwile’s post was a fail. I knew it when I read it before the uproar.
Anon 1 wrote:
Most pastors DO pay Social Security–you have to apply to decline it, and most denominations discourage their pastors from doing so. This was one of the subjects brought up while I was still at divinity school, and I know very few of my classmates have stopped paying.
Okay, back into lurk! 🙂
The religious right hasn’t died out in North Carolina. They have seized power. It’s surprising to anyone who reads the Bible that they are so anti-Christ in action, but they are totes religious in speech and advertising.
They have pretty much outlawed abortion, advocated for child abuse in the form of denying health care to minors without a written affidavit from their (likely abusive) parents, made silencers legal (assassination as a family value?), and are using every administrative manipulation possible to deny the right to vote to anyone they think might vote against them. The fact that this means oppressing the elderly and the sick, along with younger voters and minority voters, is no problem. Their lust for power exceeds any other desire they have.
Yet all of these Republicans use religious right code words in their campaign literature: family values, taking back America, pro-life, personal responsibility. The last one is really ironic, since they want to make all women’s healthcare decisions for them, and control whose vote counts, thereby ensuring that citizens have no way exercising their personal responsibility as engaged citizens in a democracy.
What they really mean by pro-life is anti-abortion, extending even to denying poor women any health care, including access to cancer screening and birth control if that means they can prevent women from making choices they don’t approve of when applying “personal responsibility” to their sex lives. What they really mean by “personal responsibility” is let the hungry starve and the sick die, if they can’t afford food or health care. That is their own “personal responsibility”, not the concern of an empowered citizenry working together via civil government.
Government is to be for the rich, white, Christian man and no other. The religious right dead? Not in my state. They are in POWER, and intend to destroy all competition.
By any means necessary, apparently up to and including legal silencers.
dee wrote:
Exactly right.
@ numo:
@ Josh:
I dislike the use of the term “homophobia.” Its use serves no purpose other than to intimidate those with dissenting viewpoints into silence.
Do I consider Thabiti Anyabwile’s original post hateful? No, not even close. Do I agree with everything he said? Again. no. Do I believe he could have used much different tactics to get his point across? Definitely yes.
I suppose I could say more, but I’ve already had to step away several times from composing this comment and I’ve got other things to do before I leave for work.
@ singleman: If you re-read Rachel’s post, you can see how/why she is applying that term.
It is because Thabiti dehumanizes *people* and reduces them to sexual acts, which he then describes in order to elicit peoples’ “gag reflex.”
That’s more than a chap shot; it’s bigoted and cruel. Not that many years ago, people were writing/talking about mixed-race couple and sex and going for that same reaction of disgust. And they meant it every bit as much as he did. (Ironic.)
Besides, a graphic description of *heterosexual* sexual activities can be pretty d*mned icky-sounding, when you get right down to it. (Not to mention the fact that many straight people also engage in the sexual activities that Thabiti mentioned… they are by no means exclusively “gay,” whatever that means.)
err, “cheap” shot, not “chap.”
numo wrote:
Some of them are Real Manly-Man Professional Christians, like the one whose face is on every Telescreen of every Mars Hill Franchise Campus.
numo wrote:
My writing partner once told me of an astronaut psychological test of the 1960s. The test consisted of 100 fill-in-the-blank lines of “I am ___________” and the test-takers had to complete as many of the statements as possible without repetition. Obviously, the test measured the subject’s self-image and sense and definition of himself. The average subject could complete about 30 before pooping out.
My informant related an anecdote about when this test was given “to homosexuals”. According to the anecdote, they lasted about 15-20 and every one of their answers referenced their sexual orientation. (I do not know if that would hold if tested today, given the changes in society since the First 1960s.)
The anecdote sounded more like these guys had no sense of self or definition of self other than their sexual orientation/sexual behavior. They had reduced themselves to only their sexual acts. This is not necessarily a “gay thing”; Christianese Purity Culture types also reduce themselves (especially females) to only their sexual acts, except instead of “YEAH YEAH YEAH!” it’s “THOU SHALT NOT!” Like Gluttony of Delicacy vs Gluttony of Amount, they reduce themselves to only the sexual acts they do NOT do, as opposed to the sexual acts they do.
Oh, and the most terrifying of the answers to that Astronaut Psych Test? The ones who could fill in only ONE line of the hundred.
singleman wrote:
That’s called “Playing the Homophobia Card” (similar to “playing the race card”) and I’ve had it used on me. Usually it’s a sign of a real Jerk who happens to be gay. (At least the guy who used it on me was a real Jerk. Very in-your-face about his sexual orientation, like some sort of Gay Supremacist.)
Technically, “homophobia” means “fear of homosexuals”. “HOMOPATHY” would be more like “hatred of homosexuals”; there was a guy I knew from Tucson (known for outrageous one-liners) who said once “I’m not a homophobe, I’m a homeopath.” (But then, this guy was known for outrageous one-liners and comeback lines.)
dee wrote:
Have you ever heard of the “Krail”? They’re an alien race in a space-opera trilogy (whose titles I can’t remember) by “Simon Lang” (pen name of Darlene Hartman). This trilogy is “Catholic SF” and started out as Star Trek fanfic, and is best described as “Star Trek with Tridentine Latin Mass”. I am not making that up.
Well, back to the Krail. The Krail were the main villains of the trilogy — completely ruthless, completely amoral, completely pragmatic — and completely dispassionate. Zero emotional quotient. Totally incapable of understanding emotional quotient. Justifying every evil they did as Rational and Reasonable. Conquest? Consolidating resources under more Rational and Reasonable organization. Genocide? Merely adjusting population to resources. Slavery? Merely an efficient use of labor resources. Torture? Merely negative reinforcement to modify behavior. All dispassionate, all Scientific, all Rational, all Reasonable. Mathematical justification, Rational arguments, appeals to Reason. And they made the Klingons at their worst look like good guys.
And you find Krail IRL.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I think that a lot of people see the ability to deny their emotions as a mark of faith. I know I did for years. In fact, I would have told you that until I ever made a decision from faith that was completely against my emotions, I would have never actually had my faith tested. Because if all we do in faith is what we naturally feel is right, what good is faith?
I have a different perspective now, that faith is what MOLDS my emotions, but if you read enough evangelicals it’s not an uncommon theme. If someone feels wrong, the first thing to distrust is the person doing the feeling, not the thing that feels wrong.
Certainly our feelings can mislead us, but our first reaction to any feeling should be to cautiously trust that it is there for a reason and then give it attention. I fear that some people are so “spiritual” that they’ve learned to deny their feelings as matter of course.
@ Jeff S:
What is even more worrisome is that I think some have trained their feelings so well that what is evil feels good and what is good feels evil. And then they accuse the world of doing exactly that.
Jeff S wrote:
Yep. I agree on both counts.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: It’s not always done in this way, which I think you know.
At any rate, I do believe that RHE’s use of the term is very much warranted. She explains her reasons for using it in the post, and believe me, she is not throwing it around in the way you suggest.
Jeff S wrote:
Isn’t there a passage in the Bible (one of the OT Prophets, I think):
“Woe unto you who call Evil Good and Good Evil!”
Jeff S wrote:
Didn’t Albert Speer write in his memoirs (Inside the Third Reich)about “arranging his mind” to see nothing wrong with the Nazi regime he worked for and rose to Reichsminister in?
Jeff S wrote:
JMJ/Christian Monist has written in his blog about this attitude. Including assigning projects/offices within a church deliberately to those with no interest or aptitude for the position/project “so that they do it by Faith instead of Flesh.” And around 100 years ago (according to an old memoir I read long ago), some extreme monasteries and convents did the same as “mortification of the flesh”.
“Divine wisdom may not completely agree with human wisdom, but should NOT flatly contradict it.”
— attr to C.S.Lewis in some Socratic Dialog (whose name and author I can’t remember; something about JFK, Lewis, and Aldous Huxley meeting in Purgatory after their near-simultaneous deaths)
numo wrote:
But all you need is one *******(ed) using it against you to color your subsequent view of the term.
@ Jeff S: I went through this, big-time, and it took a *lot* to be able to start letting it go.
one very bad thing about this approach is that it denies the gut instinct that something/someone is just off or wrong. I was blindsided – severely so – more than once, due to this.
Thank God the bad times are behind me now!
Jeff S wrote:
I’ve had my initial gut reactions be right and the rational analyses (used to discount them as just emotional reaction) be wrong WAY too often to discount them. Especially when spotting psychopaths/sociopaths behind their Angel of Light masks. (I’m wrong just often enough that I can’t go automatically with my emotional reaction.)
@ shadowspring:
Republicans are not as you portray them in your post. I am one. That’s all I will say on that, since my basis for participating here is not to get into prolonged arguments, certainly not over politics.
Babies in the womb are not given a choice in “pro-choice” rhetoric.
And yes, there is personal responsibility in involved. One reason of a million I am still a virgin into my 40s is that I did not wish to get pregnant outside of marriage (and I’ve not married yet).
numo wrote:
That was actually an idea of homos3xual militants in trying to normalize homos3xuality in the public mind – two homos3xual authors wrote a book advising homos3xuals to use the term “gay” rather than “homos3xual” so that straights would not think of the s3xual acts homos3xuals engage in, since they realized a lot of straights are put off by that.
It may have been mentioned in the book “After The Ball.” I read excerpts from that book somewhere online a few years ago, and it contained that information, or I’m mixing up sources, but I read it somewhere.
How ‘Gay Rights’ is Being Sold to America
@ Josh:
I have to part company with you here.
I don’t really care about homos3xuality in and of itself, as it’s not a topic I get too worked up about. I think my fellow Republicans harp on the subject too much, and I think conservative Christians devote too much time to the issue too. However, homos3xual militants can be pretty darn bad at times.
Like I said on Rachel Held Evans’ blog in a post under this topic the other day, neither side holds the moral high ground, but those who say they’re offended by some Christian or Republican rhetoric regarding homos3xuality often turn a blind eye to the rudeness or hatred practiced by their own group.
Homos-xual activist Dan Savage, for example, is every bit as hateful and rude (to his ideological opponents, such as Christians and Republicans) as anti-homos3xual activist Fred Phelps (of Westboro Baptist Church, who is, or was at one time, a registered Democrat) is towards homos-xuals.
Anti-bullying hero (homosexual activist Dan Savage) bullies conference of school children (and makes anti Christian comments in the process)
Floyd Lee Corkins, who support homos3xuality / homos3xual causes, shot at people at the Family Research Council in 2012 because a left wing group, Southern Poverty Law Center, I believe it was, declared FRC to be a hat3-mongering, homos3xual-hating type group, because FRC does not support legalized homos3xual marriage.
Some homos3xual militants are so warped in their hatred of all conservatives/ Christians that they react in anger even at the most tepid of views, such as Christians who believe in the philosophy of “hate the sin but love the sinner,” because they can’t -(and I find this ironic)- just accept a “live and let live” view, but they really want Christians to embrace and celebrate homos3xuality, not merely tolerate it.
Some of the militants have verbally and/or physically harassed Christians who are sitting in church services minding their own business, and some have done things such as knocked Bibles and crosses out of hands of elderly Christian people peacefully protesting on sidewalks, etc.
@ Jeff S:
Oh I was annoyed after reading that book! He uses Bible verses to support (mostly) Christians starting organizations effectively, not reworking their personal lives. My view is, and always will be, unless you open the doors of your own home, or willing to put aside you’re time/ambitions/goals you are not living the way it is preached in the Bible, both old and new. Organizations are arm’s length generosity, the type the world is willing to give. Opening your own home/stopping your own pursuits to move over for the needy/strangers/enemies is Christ’s way to live. If I wanted info on how to have better goals for christian agencies, I would look at organizations that are really good at that already, not Tim Keller’s book. World Vision does a tremendous job, Samaritan’s purse (from what I know in Africa does too). Tim Keller, nah, I don’t see any results coming out of NY lately.
Hester wrote:
Conservative Democrats are called “Blue Dogs.” Some of them have left the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party has swung very left the past few decades, to the point the Blue Dogs (who are not as liberal on all issues) feel left out and unwanted. So some of them have become Republicans.
@ Daisy: I would rather not engage in this discussion any further.
@ Eagle:
I wonder if the reason for some Christians being anti-s3x of any kind other than the ‘standard’ type is because some of them have (what is IMO) a weird hang-up with viewing s3x as being only about pro-creation.
I’m not quite sure if I’m a Christian anymore or agnostic, but if I assume there is a God, based on what I read in the Bible, I agree procreation was one of God’s purposes for creating s3x, but not the only reason.
From what I have read in articles (I will try to keep this clean), some women cannot be s3xually satisfied with the “standard” version of s-x and need other forms of, shall we say, activity (some of the stuff on the Anyabwile’s list, as a matter of fact)?
So, I suppose he would advise wives who are not getting theirs the “old fashioned” way, “Oh well, tough lemons for you, hon!”
There are married couples who cannot conceive because of medical problems.
Are they supposed to stop having s-x because their s-xual activity cannot make a baby?
I do believe that the Bible teaches s-x is for marriage only, and that between 1 man, 1 woman. However, I have trouble buying all Christian arguments for this, including the one about “s-x is for making babies,” but it’s an argument I see brought up all the time.
In a few years, I will get to the age where I will be physically unable to have a baby. My chances are probably slim right now, not unless I had billions of dollars of IVF treatment.
Let’s suppose I don’t get married for the first time ’til age 50, and by then, I won’t be about to have a kid at all.
Does that mean when I get married, I should turn to Mr. Daisy after years of me being celibate and say, “sorry, but according to all these other Christians we can’t have s-x since it won’t result in a baby.”
@ numo:
That’s fine.
My point was that there are hateful, rude among homo-s3xuality supporters or homos3xual militants themselves.
It bothers me when homos3xuality supporters depict their side as always completely angelic and innocent, and the other side as not being so, when that is just not true.
@ numo:
My last post is in moderation for some reason.
All I said is both sides in that debate are bad at times. Neither side is all sweetness and light all the time.
-Logic, total depravity and the gag reflex-
1. Humanity is totally depraved.
2. Being totally depraved, they despise everything righteous and cannot know what is right.
3. Someone tells us we have a natural gag reflex against certain acts that tells us they are immoral.
4. Therefore, it must not be immoral since we are totally depraved and if it were immoral we would not have a gag reflex against it.
(/humor)
Daisy wrote:
I call these guys “Homos3xual Supremacists” — just like Skinheads or Ku Kluxers, but with a different group (their own) to ride booted and spurred over all the others. Just as I call comp/patrios “Male Supremacists”, and for the same reason.
I first came across them in early-period Furry Fandom, when most of the dominant personalities in the fandom were Gay(TM). And found (being a Straight) that Gay or Straight, when you’re the ones on top calling the shots, you can’t resist the urge to throw your weight around. HARD.
Daisy wrote:
Just like “The Principles of Newspeak”, by G.Orwell.
@ Daisy:
What a couple of people do is not indicative of anything about the wider group, but simply those individuals.
If you think it is, then I have several periods of Christianity to tell you about that are far worse than a couple of insane loners shooting guns.
@ Daisy: An aside on Dan Savage: he gets to me at times (he can be very abrasive), and yet… he is one of SO many LGBT folks who have been battered by the church. Some, like journalist Andrew Sullivan (who is, like Savage, Catholic) are in a place where they’re able to forgive and let go of the hurts (even though assaults and cruel words continue). Dan Savage isn’t there yet, and I think it’s good to try and keep his background and personal story in mind.
fwiw, he’s an extremely interesting and engaging person when discussing other topics. A couple of weeks ago, he was interviewed by the NY Times Book Review about his current favorite books… all (iirc) history and biographies. (Mostly European history.) he’s a historian by training, which I hadn’t known, and boy, did he make a wonderful case for the books he likes! I need to go back to that article and make a note of some of them – there are titles that I’d like to have in my “to-read” pile.
@ numo: I double-checked – lots of fiction in his lists as well, but still, history is predominant.
@ Val:
I guess we got a very different message out of his book, because I saw him calling people to get involved very personally with the oppressed. Such as when he points out that the only real way to help impoverished communities is to move there and be a part of the community.
I REALLY liked the book a lot.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, that’s from a book by Peter Kreeft that is still on my shelves. It is called Between Heaven and Hell and is indeed based on the fact that all three men died on the same date. JFK was assassinated, of course. Lewis died of natural causes and Huxley committed suicide. Lots of fun.
@ Val:
And as I understand it, RPC has had a tremendous impact on impoverished communities.
I mean the book is lots of fun, of course:)
@ Jeff S:
” I fear that some people are so “spiritual” that they’ve learned to deny their feelings as matter of course.”
++++++++
like mistaking survival instinct and self-preservation for the spirit of fear and demonic temptation to not persevere, and getting stuck in all manner of dysfunctional relationship misery, bad employment, circumstances putting oneself and loved ones in financial jeopardy or physical danger, etc.
(getting drunk on the handful of selected verses on “fear” & “perseverance” from a pocket promise book)
@ Jeff S:
“What is even more worrisome is that I think some have trained their feelings so well that what is evil feels good and what is good feels evil.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
like self-flagellation as a means of sanctification (these days, in a figurative sense)
(at least I would hope in a figurative sense.)
as in allowing oneself to be in unhealthy, abusive circumstances to keep oneself humble, to keep oneself spiritually focused, to aspire to some high spiritual ideal, to score an A+ on the faith test.
if nothing else, it feeds & enables the source of the unhealth or abuse to continue their bad behavior — which is bad for them, & not in their best interest. It’s aspiring to one’s own spiritual ideal for oneself at the expense of that other person.
@ elastigirl:
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Col 1 20-23
Firstly, I’d like to apologize to our gracious hosts for staying about as on-topic as the average fundamentalist Baptist preacher.
My last contribution (ok, I’ll try to resist, I promise) will be this: while being attracted to individuals of one’s own gender is not common, it lies within the spectrum of what is usual and not disordered – in the psychological sense – for humankind. I know what can happen when someone internalizes the notion, contrary to scientific fact and the silence of God’s word on the topic of orientation*, that they’re “broken” (or at least more broken than the rest). Thus, while I hold to traditional Christian 5exual ethics, I will strongly push back against such extra-biblical interpolations that are not only wrong, but also linked with depression and suicide in LGBT teens across the nation.
I offer that background to explain why I sometimes end up siding with the “normalizing” activists, even though I disagree with them as much as I disagree with the conservative Christians who are most vocal on this topic. I don’t expect every straight person to get it, but I would appreciate the small dignity of not being called a heretic and burned at the stake, if you don’t mind. 😉
* orientation, specifically, as opposed to behavior
@ Jeff S:
We were in a small group (organized by former slowly turning neo-cal church) and that was the book we chose to discuss Justice. From the discussions (I did skip one chapter, one week I was away) it seemed endless tripe about how to “do it right”, I think I remember the move to the area chapter – that is standard for having an effect, being a part of that community – for any organization (hiring considerations should include this), nothing new or ground-breaking there. But, even if one moves to the community, makes connections and so on, but doesn’t look different then the surrounding social-justice groups, how is that close to what the Bible preaches.
My readings on justice in the OT and NT show people were to drop their agendas to a) give to the poor b) help a (disliked) Roman soldier – more then required c) host strangers *in their own homes*. The most impressive justice I have seen lived out are from those whose lives are flexible enough to drop their agendas for that day, week, month or year and live their lives in a way that the world simply cannot understand. So, for example, one family I knew took in people who had nowhere to go – a homeless man, a drug addict, a youth group attender from a rough family, with a trust that this was God’s desire. Another incredible woman I know married very, very young, but immediately began the process of adoption (her desire was to adopt kids who didn’t have a home rather than trying to have kids herself). The Social Services ppl said she was too young, as did everyone, but, since they were desperate and the only thing really preventing it was the couple’s age, they relented and gave them their first child at 19 – when they went to live with the foster family to begin the transition to adoption, the foster family were Christians and they fell in love with what they were doing. They signed up for fostering and now have about 6 kids in their home. They are starting an adoption agency for special needs kids and are great believers in the Focus on the Family Campaign to have every state/provincial foster kid placed in a Christian home. I was anticipating more of a call of that magnitude from the book (it was very hyped by our leaders) yet felt it was no different in technique from any old social justice organization (secular included), but with reams more of “this is how you need to think before doing it/ set it up this way so there is a purpose). For me, the people who rock the boat and show the world how radical Christianity is, don’t sit around worrying if the purpose is perfect, they listen to God and move with him, not the endless criteria Keller insisted on. I am glad it worked for him, but does it look different from every other group that does this? So why was his book so hyped up? I would rather read Shane Clairbourne than Tim Keller – his life really is radical.
@ Val:
I don’t know anything about the book being hyped up (I’m usually unaware of most hype machines- the most I knew about the book going into it was that it offended a bunch of conservatives who thought Keller was preaching the much hated “Social Gospel”). It challenged my own perspective in a very good way and has had a very positive impact on how I think about the oppressed. I must admit hearing you describe it as “endless tripe” is disheartening; perhaps it is not a book you needed to read, but it was very good for me.
@ Jeff S:
That is funny! In your circles, it is too liberal and in my (old) circles it was loved because it is the “right” or “God’s” way of doing Social Justice. It wasn’t the Social Justice aspect, it was him comparing how “we” did it right and others do it “wrong” and the amount of time focused on the purpose he felt was “right”. I am much more of a “listen to God” and then go with where you’re heart leads, then a formula person. I don’t need numerous verses of Old Testament quoted to me to go, just the thought of Jesus being the poor/disadvantaged person is enough for me. I thought, I would likely be less inclined to go change my lifestyle if it was just an (almost) legal argument, for me, it is a heart issue. I was taught about social justice ministry by Jackie Pullinger, and others who had dumped their comfortable western lifestyles to go live with the disadvantaged in other places. There, they had learned about and seen Jesus in ways no western ministry had. It is that longing to be where Jesus is, doing what Jesus is doing, that has been my motivation, and Keller’s book was more like an argument for it. I like to “see” (hear and read) about the stories of people who have gone. How did they encounter Jesus when they let go of their current lifestyle?
In the last church I was in, that radical life-change was more often about ministry, but, I have never seen a powerful ministry that wasn’t dedicated to the outcast of the world and my last church thought it was radical to serve well-to-do middle class suburbs (I call it fine, but not radical). So, that was my main discouragement with the book. I didn’t feel he felt a personal calling, rather just an obligation.