True. This country has never lived up to its founding ideals. It’s not a Christian nation. I appreciated the fact that the TGC article quoted James Baldwin and Wendell Berry. As Baldwin said,
History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.
Interesting info to get about Kierkegaard, thsnks. @Kendel will be interested if not already familiar with the source. Would have been interesting to have you on board when we read Penner, something she organized and made very interesting.
Yep. Caught my eye, Mark. Thanks for point it out to me. I’ll be checking for citations in a minute.
K’s criticisms are painful to read, because they are true. He forces the serious reader to seriously reevaluate constantly. It’s the work of a lifetime.
Page 282 here:
@Jay313 keeps throwing out SK tidbits here and there. So far all worth keeping copies of. Jay, you would have been a valuable addition to the discussion, but we can’t do it all! You can see how some of us spent our summer vacation here:
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
35
Edwards was just trying to circle, envelope and square the ragged, razor edged polygon of accumulated biblicism and lacerating, toxic impact in the gut of society with love. Good luck with that.
The Great Awakening of the 18th century included Wesley, Whitfield, and Jonathon Edwards.
My question would be - Were they perfect people?
My answer would be - No, they were like you and me - not perfect.
Did God use them? - Yes
Does God use imperfect even evil people? - Yes.
God raises up ruthless Babylon (Habakkuk 1:5-11) to achieve his purpose. Does God use evil people to accomplish his purpose?
There is a distinction between God controlling evil and God creating evil. God is not the author of sin but can use sinful people to attain an objective. Romans 8:28 says, “For those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
“All things” includes both good and bad things. God can use struggles, heartbreaks and tragedies in ways to bring about His glory and our good.
Even though we don’t understand the reason for such events, they are part of His perfect, divine plan. If God could not control evil, He would not be God.
His sovereignty demands that He control everything, even “dreaded” nations such as Babylon.
Perfection isn’t the standard. Again, it’s a trivial observation to say that no one’s perfect. The question still remains: At what point does a Christian theologian/leader cross a line so egregious that we shouldn’t take them seriously anymore?
Certain historical figures should continue to be read with appropriate caution, but more modern theologians are one voice in a chorus. It’s not too hard to reject their theologizing as resting on a faulty foundation and find better.
So I don’t know who that guy is specifically but if the question is in general, can I separate someone’s academic or theological contributions from their lifestyle… I can. Same as I separate art from the artist. I think HP Lovecraft was a racist prick. He’s still my favorite author.
Or let’s say that there was an organization called ThanoParafrosyni and they focused on science and faith. It was founded by William Ruddick and this guy did a lot of amazing stuff, especially in presenting concepts about religion and science. Wrote some amazing books and so on. Then later on did something terrible, I could still appreciate the wisdom without respecting the person.
You have your answer, no here? “Cross the line so egregious.”
I wonder what would be the criteria to decide “Hey that is so egregious?”
John 7:24 requires that we judge justly…taking everything into account of course.
However, we are all gospel redeemable and there is a river of grace, and will stand before God the only true and just.
I have to side with you here against my friend Jay. Of course no one is perfect but they can have insights that are even in the midst of an immoral life (Edwards) or before falling apart and losing connection to the initial vision later (Heidegger). Insight is a gift whose necessary qualifications are not well known. I do think you can see things clearly and even in original ways at one time and then fall out of whatever grace you enjoyed during the original reception. I suspect that is something like what befell Heidegger but of course this is only speculation which my imagination finds plausible.
Like dealing with copyright issues, it’s hard to establish firm, clearly-defined “rules” for how to handle any author’s writing. However, I’m not inclined to invoke the need for forgiveness, either. Christians are called to be wise as serpents. Forgiveness and “not judging lest…” are too often invoked for license or ignorance.
We need to examine each text for what it is, what it demonstrates, and we need to evaluate accordingly. We cannot always know much about the author. And we can’t be so naive to think there was ever a “golden age” from which all writings are perfectly trusth-worthy. To complicate matters, morals change. Among slave-holders at his time Edwards was a moral and enlightened guy. It’s horrible to say. Today, it’s immoral to say. There simply is no such thing today as an enlightened, moral slave-holder. Another example, Luther’s anti-semitism is undeniable and inexcusable. We need to approach any author, really, with some suspicion, often a lot.
All that being said, my view is read everything you are inclined to read, but read critically. In the video I posted of the eugenics materials from work, I dig this kind of stuff out of our collection as evidence of evil dressed up in silks. If we remind ourselves of it, we are wiser readers, better able to identify “acceptable evils” that may be hidden in plain sight. The same goes for any kind of writing. We need people to read the heros’ work with the same critical eye, understanding the times then as well as now. It’s possible we find gold here and there. It’s also possible that the texts have outlived their usefulness.
“How, or in what direction did the person try to ‘move the needle’ of their time?” is another question that I think ought to be relevant in considering their corpus. Abraham Lincloln is an excellent example of this. He said some things in his earlier political / public career that were as despicably racist as could be expected out of the mouth of Hitler a couple generations later. And yet Lincoln changed his attitudes, even during his presidency and after observing the manner in which blacks served the union. And Lincoln, faulty as he was - and no doubt continued to be, managed to be a force toward the good. And so I think we (and history generally) is willing to extend him grace and credit him for that good without holding his faults against him. Regarding earlier slave holders, - slavery is now seen as unforgiveable, and rightly so. Did they dig in, double down, and defend the insitution of their time? Or did they, even while they held slaves themselves, ever express at least so much as a recognition of the blight that it was even then? Were their writings such as would provide good fuel and resource for the later abolitionists, or would it instead be fuel for the traitorous confederates? The answer to those questions would probably carry the day for me as to how much respect I’m willing to afford them despite their oh-so-visible, reproachful side.
And even among ones from whom I’m willing to withdraw my respect entirely, I would still take note of any insights of theirs I chance across, even if only to learn from it in a negative sense about what I should avoid, but also not to dismiss whatever things they chanced to get right, even in spite of their evil. Truth is truth, wherever it emerges. I will not knowingly let any evil personage of past or present chase me away from good and needed truth.
And then if we apply those standards to the Bible, what happens? Do we take out the Psalms David wrote, because, well, murder and adultery?
It seems we have to look for the good amidst the bad, even in creation that gives us roses with thorns.
5 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
45
When they spew toxic theology. No matter how wonderful a human being they otherwise are.
My understanding is that the 3/5ths argument is rather bogus. If in a slave state, 40% of the people were slaves, then to count them all as 1 person gave slave states greater representation in Congress. Each white vote in those states got the equivalent of 1.8 votes, and the slaves got none. So owning slaves was rewarded with greater political power. But in the non slave states, each vote was a ratio of 1:1. The slave states wanted representation based on the entire population, but the non-slave states didn’t want to give the slave states more power, so negotiated it down. This was not an argument about the value or humanity of the slave, but about how to limit the political power of slave owners.
So do you think it was better to give slave owners more representation because they had slaves, or better to limit their political power and representation. It was those who had no slaves that argued for the 3/5ths, and those with slaves that argued for 5/5ths. Who were the “good guys” in this discussion?
Egregious by what standard? The 2022 standard, or the standard of the day in which these people lived? For example, do you want to be judged by the 2022 standard, or by a future standard by which each of us may be judged. And the rate at which standards are changing, the December 2022 standard may be overturned by March 2023.
For example, Senator Josh Hawley remarked, “Young men, let me make a suggestion to you,” he said in a clip recently shared to his Twitter account. “Why don’t you turn off the computer and log off the porn and go ask a real woman on a date. How about that? It’s just a thought." And was lambasted for that comment being inappropriate. At least for many, he is guilty of not aligning with the values of today.
Help! I’m getting dogpiled! haha. No worries. I take it as a sign I just didn’t explain myself well enough the first time around. Otherwise, all would agree with me. Right?!
Again (and again and again), the question isn’t whether imperfect people can say things that are true. Everyone is imperfect. Can imperfect and even evil people say something true about God? Yes. That’s trivially true, but it misses the heart of the question.
Everyone seems focused on historical figures. I suppose that’s my fault for starting off with Heidegger and Edwards. I’m not saying past thinkers should be judged by 2022 standards. (What historians call “presentism.”) I’m also not saying philosophers, artists and novelists should be judged by the same standard as theologians. I hold the latter to a higher standard (James 3:1).
Regarding theologians as “men of their time,” we can judge them against their contemporaries. Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley were contemporaries. Unlike the other two, Wesley spoke out against slavery, pointing out that “no (economic) benefit is worth any injustice made to receive it.” That doesn’t mean Edwards or Whitefield should be “canceled” and not read. But to my mind, it means they should be read with a critical eye on spiritual, ethical and social matters, and Wesley should be studied more closely.
The question isn’t whether God’s grace can cover their sins or everyone else’s. I’m not talking about the salvation of the individual. If you want an example of egregious sin that doesn’t fit @Klax’s definition of “toxic theology,” let’s talk about John Howard Yoder.
In his final years, he was credibly accused of sexually abusing more than 50 women. Should I take his thoughts about non-violence seriously when he had no problem violating women? I don’t think so. There are other voices out there.