Quantcast
Channel: Natural Law – Tipsy Teetotaler ن
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 77

Friday, 12/20/13

0
0
    1. Piling onto pariahs
    2. Eternal Punishment, Temporal Sin
    3. A mercifully short Phil Robertson comment
    4. 3 Rhetorical Questions

1

For much of this new century, Christianity seemed to be in close to terminal crisis. Among the fastest-growing groups in society were the nones – those indifferent to religion entirely. Especially among the young, Christians became increasingly identified with harsh judgments, acrid fundamentalism, the smug bromides of the Prosperity Gospel or, more trivially, neurotic cultural obsessions like the alleged “war on Christmas.” Evangelical leaders often came and went in scandal, or intolerance or both. Obsessed with issues of sexual morality, mainstream evangelicalism and the Catholic hierarchy in America entered into an alliance with one major political party, the GOP, further weakening Christianity’s role in transcending politics, let alone partisanship. Christian leaders seemed too often intent on denial of what intelligent people of good will saw simply as reality – of evolution, of science, of human diversity, of the actual lives of modern Christians themselves. Christian defensiveness was everywhere, as atheism grew in numbers and confidence and zeal.

(Andrew Sullivan, Untier of Knots) I don’t doubt that most of this is reality, and that all of it is accurate perception.

But I’d qualify that endorsement with one specific cavil: the Church’s perceived “obsession” over sexual morality was and is a justifiable response to a very prominent and shameless error of the age. When someone like Andrew Sullivan complains that the Church has been “obsessed with issues of sexual morality,” I can’t help but think he’s complaining that the Church has “stopped preachin’ and gone to meddlin’.” The faithful Church cannot limit itself to speaking up on popular ”unpopular causes,” or to piling onto pariahs.

The salient question to my mind is whether there’s a better approach to coaxing people back onto the right path, especially when popular perception (i.e., the perception of those who’ve fallen for a sexual revolutionist lie and don’t want to face it) has become that the current approach is obsessive and tiresome. I’m not sure I’ve found that better approach. Rhetorical questions, maybe?

Andrew Sullivan may think, judging from his title and his introduction, that Pope Francis has the better approach, but since I do not subscribe (not faulting him for charging, but I have a hard time with the thought of paying $1.99 to buy 200 more blog entries per month to sort through), I can’t go past the introduction to see if he’s onto something.

2

Slacktivist regularly checks what he posted 1, 2, 3 etc. years previously and excerpts what he thinks still, or again, is timely. December 19, 2012 brought among other things, this:

God’s idea of justice surely transcends our own. And just as surely it cannot violate our own.

I agree with the first sentence. I think I disagree with the second sentence, but I revisited the entire 12/19/12 blog and found a good example where, at a minimum, we might want to consider whether a particular very “popular” doctrine (in terms of people who profess it, however nominally) should be re-examined in light of our sense of justice:

Also here on Patheos, Scot McKnight continues his discussion of Edward Fudge’s Hell: A Final Word:

Some contend that endless punishment for temporal sin is “intuitively and irreconcilably inconsistent with fundamental justice and morality.”

The quote there is from Fudge, but I’m among the some who contend this as well.

What McKnight wants to contend with in his discussion is the response to that objection, particularly the response that tends to come from Reformed theologians:

Some contend right back that such a theological claim for that reason is arrogance , unsubmissive to God’s Word and rooting theology in our own moral perceptions. OK, I get that … but …

… anyone who claims humans don’t know justice and injustice, at some intuitive level, are standing on morally dangerous turf.

McKnight shares Fudge’s three-point response to this idea that God’s justice might be so utterly different from “our own moral perceptions.” Head over there to read that. But here’s the end of McKnight’s post, in which he poses two questions that hint at his own conclusions:

Can we comprehend justice well enough to know when something is just or unjust? Is the accusation, rooted in our intuitive senses of justice, that eternal punishment does not square with temporal sin a good argument?

The answer to both questions is “Yes.”

 (Bold added)

Whether or not the sentence I’m inclined to disagree with is universally true, I agree with the Slacktivist that this is “a good argument.” It may not be conclusive, as a good syllogism is conclusive once one has vetted the major and minor premises, but it should be a wake-up call.

In saying that, I’m not questioning Orthodoxy or orthodoxy. I’m acknowledging serious doubts about a doctrine that may be no legitimate part of the faith, but may be merely sectarian. I know just a few things:

  • “Endless punishment for temporal sin” is not the characteristic modern North American Orthodox way of thinking of salvation’s ultimate opposite. (“Damnation” sort of assumes an answer to what salvation’s opposite is. “Reprobation” likewise.)
  • That modern North American Orthodox ways of thinking may or may not square with historic Orthodoxy. (We’re in flux with baggage-laden converts like yours truly. Some of the “baggage” may be overwrought reactions against what we formerly professed.)
  • My salvation doesn’t depend on how well I can articulate a soteriology (or or on my knowing whether the gist of “hell” is soteriology or eschatology).

3

Reality TV got a little too real for A&E when Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson actually stayed in character and gave his actual opinion about a subject where giving your actual opinion out loud is no longer allowed if your actual opinion is less than fully affirming. (Did I dance around that one well enough?)

Rod Dreher collects comments by gay Christians (Brandon Ambrosino, Andrew Sullivan and Ron Belgau) who think A&E overreacted.

It appears to me that other than those against-the-tide opinions, the pros and cons of Phil Robertson and A&E have been more than adquately pawed over Thursday. Accordingly, I have excised a couple of paragraphs that really would add nothing to your understanding of the kerfuffle.

4

I have three (rhetorical) questions for readers in the wake of the Utah polygamy decision:

  1. Does the decision seem correct to you?
  2. If so, were you among those who opined that there was no such legal nexus between same-sex marriage and polygamy that polygamy would be coming?
  3. If so, are you ready to admit that you were lying or don’t know what you’re talking about?

* * * * *

I have today made a long overdue, if less than comprehensive, update of my sidebar.

* * * * *

“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)

Some succinct standing advice on recurring themes.



Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 77

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images