“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.
I forget where, but a few years ago, I saw an author citing Yoder, but behind each citation in the text he’d inserted the letters (RHGMF) for “Recognizing His Grave Moral Failure”. At the start of the article, that author explained his position–that his reference to the theoretical concepts of Yoder in no way implied his acceptance of the man’s behaviour and so he was going to flag the moral dilemma with those special letters. Not sure it’s everyone’s solution, but it was interesting to see how one person tried to navigate it.
No sin disqualifies God’s river of grace, even when you’re in prison paying for the crimes, and if not in prison you will face a higher Judge and if saved all works will be burnt.
