So I’m convinced that the reason that there is media bias against Israel and in favour of Palestinians is because it’s easier to eschew rockets “killing innocent people” as opposed to actually attempting to understand “just war theory” and the argument of proportionality in war–that under some circumstances there is nothing morally unjustifiable about killing innocent people. You can read my facebook friend Keith Pavelischek’s article on the topic here.
Part of a conversation I’m having with a friend on Facebook. This is my response to my friend based on this article
“There are evangelical groups like Gary DeMars’ American Vision and Pat Robertson’s CBN University or 700 Club which are more truly theocratic in the sense that they seek to impose certain OT laws onto modern day 21st century. Greg Bahnsen was into this type of theocracy. But there is a huge difference between that sort of “fundamentalism” and a kind that seeks to influence politics via persuasion and a working out of the Christian ethics and convictions. You would be sorely wrong to conflate the two. The Christian Left does this though. Think about it. There are all kinds of churches that don’t believe that, say, a “woman’s place is in the kitchen.” I don’t even think the Catholic Church would say this (though she may say, that woman can’t do it all (working toward career goals and taking care of the family. Are they really that far off base from reality?). That is based on an outworking of their Christian convictions. And I find that most left leaning folk want to say that you can’t “impose your religious convictions” but they attempt to do it all the time.
Here’s the thing. In this article, Obama believes in “freedom to worship” not in “freedom of religion.” That’s the part I most agree with. “Freedom of religion” is the belief that religion is not confined to within the walls of a church. On that basis, it has a particular (albeit religious) understanding of humans beings. We are all very religious at our core. Religious such that extends far beyond themselves. Outward, NOT simply internal. Christian ethics realizes this, say, when you look at the “fruit of the Spirit.” The “fruit of the Spirit” is not entirely directed inward but necessarily directed towards others.
It seems to me that you would not disagree with this if the hot button issue was something that you agreed with. If I based my anti-slavery position on the Bible? No problem. Anti-child sex trafficking? No problem. Base it on the Bible. Lines painted in the middle of the road? Cool! Base it on your religious convictions. Same sex marriage? Hey wait! You can’t base it on the Bible! Abortion? No way! Our culture is such that basically, everything is OK to have a religious conviction over (because it concerns not “harming” others) but when it comes to areas of sexuality, well, no, you can’t show your religious convictions outside of your church, that is consent. It’s pathetic if you ask me.”
I want to look at Eric Reitan’s post on this issue located here. What I want to do is break it up in sections and hopefully respond to all points. Here’s the first part.
There is much about the recent Hobby Lobby ruling that I’m not qualified to comment on, but I have some concerns about a key claim in this case–namely, that the business owners’ freedom of religious conscience offers grounds for justifying the Supreme Court’s decision. There are two problems, in my view–although my thinking on both is still evolving. The first strikes me as less serious than the second.
1. Religious conscience needs to be responsive to matters of fact.
Suppose Pastor Bob refuses to officiate at the wedding of Pat and Alex on the grounds that he is religiously opposed to same sex marriage. If, as a matter of fact, Pat and Alex are a heterosexual couple, then no court of law would treat his religious opposition to same-sex marriage as a legitimate basis for refusing to marry them. And if Bob sputters that it is a matter of religious conviction that this man and woman are in fact both men–well, I doubt that will fly if the facts don’t line up with the conviction.
In other words, there is the moral premise of Bob’s argument–which is derived from his religious convictions. And then there is the factual one–which isn’t a matter of religious belief and shouldn’t be.
I find this to be confusing to say the least. Pat and Alex are either both males or females. What Reitan wants to do is separate the fact of reality, their maleness (together) and femaleness (together) from the religious belief that maleness (together) and femaleness (together) is immorally wrong for he says that IF THEY WERE HETEROSEXUAL (male and femaleness together) another fact of reality and wanted to get married, then no court would treat his (Pastor Bob’s) opposition to such marriage on the basis of his religious views as legitmate. Question: Why would Pastor Bob object to heterosexual marriage on the basis of his religion? If Pastor Bob believed in ONLY “marrying” homosexuals and a heterosexual couple came to him to get married and he refused on the basis that he didn’t believe in marrying heterosexuals on the basis of his religion (which would be odd indeed) well, he would certainly have the right to refuse to marry people on the basis of his religious conviction but: A. Show me a religion that teaches that. B. It is extremely odd for a side that is “equality” of marriage MEANING all people have a right to marry to be against heterosexual marriage. But let’s say for the sake of argument that Pastor Bob refused to marry a couple on the basis of their religious conviction that marrying heterosexuals is immoral. Should Pastor Bob be forced to marry such a couple? Have the couple been discriminated against illegally? Is it not within the Pastor Bob’s right to choose whom he will marry and whom he will not? Is not the “legality question” being stretched too far in such a case? For example, if the Roman Catholic Church believes that women are not allowed to be priests (also on the basis that they are female and for religious reasons) do “civil rights” extend in such a way as to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not get to discriminate in this way? If say, I believe that women SHOULD be ordained in the Church, the legal category, (to say they have a civil right) does not extend in such a way as A. Ordination is calling that is extended by a particular community in which they are bound by their own standards. B. No one has a right to a particular office. For the State to mandate that particular churches do particular things on the grounds of a certain conception of human rights, in my estimation that would be an overstepping of the State’s boundaries. Hopefully, you can see at this point the similarities. The State doesn’t have the right to make theological pronouncements for churches.
Ultimately, Reitan doesn’t attach any religious belief to the factual reality. I find that problematic from a Christian perspective in which the Church has always attached a religious and thus moral significance to the differentiation of sexes.
I’ve told people about this before and I make no bones about it but on and off, throughout my life, I have struggled with depression and anxiety. At first, I didn’t even know what it was but only when I was put on Prozac by the school physician that I attended at that time did I realized that this was indeed what I suffered from. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a pretty outgoing guy who loves to laugh (in part because it is like a temporary cure to alleviate the pain I feel). People find me rather personable, especially once they get to know me (at first, at times, I seem stand-offish). However, it seems like I’m constantly trying to stay above the surface–as if I could crack at any minute. And what do I mean by that? Well, I’m not talking about harming others. I’m simply talking about having a nervous breakdown. Where I just can’t cope with the daily routines of life. You know, the struggle of getting out of bed, doing the things I love to do, (one of the reasons I don’t blog regularly is because I feel as if i don’t have the energy for it), etc. If I were to judge myself on a scale of 1-10 with 5 being the “surface,” I would probably fall somewhere between 4.5-6-8. Part of my problem is that I spend inordinate amounts of time by myself (and I’m definitely NOT an introvert). And it really isn’t so much that I feel I could “snap” all the time (that comes with particular stressors in my life). It’s that I feel that I’m grumpier and more moody than I was before I ever knew I had a case of clinical depression. Archibald Hart, a leading Christian doctor and researcher in this area of psychological health has a book out called, “Unmasking Male Depression.” He speaks about it’s differences from female depression and I would say some of the symptoms describe me to a tee.
Well, I wrote all of this so far to say that the other day, (Sunday), I wrote on my facebook page, “Some days you feel so lost.” Well, Sunday, I felt that way. I knew what it was related to and I put those feelings in the category with my depression and the pain and hurt I’ve felt from people whom hurt me. “This pain is a knife a fire” and why do the “innocent pay” are references to a song by former Christian rock group, “White Heart” from their song, “Seventy times Seven” which have described my experience with some relationships. Interestingly, I’ve had some responses to my facebook posting and one in particular, by Jon Trott, whom some of you may remember was one half of the party that exposed Mike Warnke. Jon’s words penetrated and were deeply meaningful in the light of the advent of Christ’s coming to this painful world (this is not to put down a notch or two the other encouraging words. I really appreciated how all of them combined together essentially said, “You are not alone. God is with you)”. So, I want to post a link to Jon’s blog that he posted on my page. I hope you find hope in his words.
This is a musing I put up on an Open Theism page that I’m a part of. When I refer to “Greg” I’m speaking of Greg Boyd who is quite influential in open theistic circles.
I want to ask a question but it will be put more in the form of a statement. This is also actually related to other issues as well, for example the “Health and Wealth Gospel” and is something I’ve had rolling around in my head for some time now. But I guess I’m wondering what the “goal” of open theistic theology is. Think of it like this. Say, back in the 1950’s, the “Health and Wealth Gospel” was virtually unheard of. America did start to see the major celebrity preachers come into the spot light at this time, but it wasn’t until the 1970’s that we begin to see the “Health and Wealth Gospel” come to full fruition. Since that time, there have been numerous articles and books (not to mention negative press from the secular media) talking about scams and the dangers of the “Health and Wealth Gospel” and yet here we are in 2014, and has the Health and Wealth Gospel gone the way of the do-do bird? Nope. Still here. Fundamentalism. Has DEEP roots in America. LOT’S of criticism of that. Still here. Let’s forward to Open theism. Institutions like the Catholic Church (or at least some leaders) consider it to be a heresay. So my question is, what is the goal of adherents of different religious movements and in this case, open theism? See, I’ve heard people complain when they were a prof at a Christian institution that there was a lack of openness to differing points of view ie., some won’t consider evolution and will even fire someone for teaching such “heretical views.” So what is the solution to all of this? What do open theistic proponents hope to achieve? Will they be not be satisfied until he whole world converts? Or at least the evangelical world? Well, I have news for you. Not gonna happen. Greg said years ago that he wasn’t concerned about the results but rather about being faithful. OK. I get that. But does that not mean NOT TRYING TO CONVERT people to your point of view? I mean, there has to be more to all the energy expended than simply being faithful. There has to be the hope of converts. To see, if not great swaths of folk “jumping the broom” and coming over to your side of seeing things then at least SOME. Is there not also the goal of correction? But is the traditional classical view of God like going to go the way of the do-do bird any time soon? Probably not. So would not a better solution be to accept things the way they are? Preach IN YOUR circles an open theistic view but leave everyone else be? In saying this, I’m not suggesting that one not have conversations with willing participants outside your circle, but should the goal be to convert say, Catholics whom predominantly believe in the classical view? Sometimes we see changes on political and theological issues. There is more acceptance of blacks and interracial marriage than years previous. More acceptance of same-sex marriage. More openness on certain Christian campuses to different points of views. But this isn’t across the board. Institutions will have their “defining lines.” Beliefs and policies that separate them markedly different from others. Call this a sectarianism. But it’s there. All around. For everyone. Is this such a bad thing? I just saw a t-shirt that said, “Be the change.” I’m sure it means personal change that will ultimately affect the world. But again, what is the goal? It’s so vague! Change to see what? Sometimes I think evangelicalism (and the church in general) is rife with an over-realized eschatology. “If I get enough folk to see it my way things will be better!” (as far as that goes).
When “The Passion of the Christ” film came out there was criticism over the brutal scenes in the movie (a staple of Mel Gibson’s?). Anyhoo, one of my theological brainiac friends Dwayne Polk said something along these lines at the time:
“Christians are more concerned more about the pain and suffering than their own sin that put him there.”
I agree with this assessment for the most part but my online friend Brandon Ambrosino’s blog has asked that we look at the brutality and ugliness of the cross talking about why it is important. You can read that here:
I was looking at this picture on the internet which shows these stick people trying to convince each other of the rightness or the wrongness of their position. My problem with the picture is that it doesn’t seem to accurately reflect the way that sociological movements work. For an example, if I were to draw a line in the sand and put 99 people on one side of the line and then put one person on the other side of the line, similar to the picture, you may be able to convince a few people to come over to your side and agree with your position and that may simply be on just one issue, but it’s hardly the case that you are going to get whole swaths of people coming over to your side to agree with your position as if it’s all going to be one-sided, again, as the picture shows. It doesn’t seem to work that way in real life. People usually don’t line up on one side of the fence or the other. What you have are a lot of people on both sides of the fence whom are a mixture of different positions on various issues. So, somebody might stand with you on one particular issue but they might feel the opposite of you on another issue and just because of that reason alone, you’re not going to have a consensus amongst people because you prioritize your issues, strong feelings get in the way, you have strong reasons for the other stances you take, etc. etc. etc. Basically, you’re going to have a whole mixture of individuals whom are going to be on both sides of the fence. We call that a spectrum. How this spectrum looks is another quite interesting question. Personally, I prefer to see an arch as oppose to a straight line that is more or less compartmentalized such that there are no clear dividing lines between say, “right,” “left” and “center.” The problem of this picture as I see it, is that it has a triumphalist tone to it. Essentially, “Come over to my side and everything will be alright in the world as long as we have everybody agreeing.” Well, yes this is true, I mean, if everybody agrees on something, agreement is always much better and much less tenuous then disagreement (socially speaking). But again, that’s problematic because it’s just not reality. That’s not the way the world really works. And if the world doesn’t work this way, people despair because, if, for an example, you have something like racism that not everyone can agree on, say, in terms of specific policies ie., affirmative action, or immigrant policies that one might think, are, at core, racist, then there is a lot of injustice going on (according to them). Now, there is a response to this and I’ll talk about that more in the next post, but for now, in closing, it is the expectation itself, that everybody is going to come over to your side and as a result everything is going to be okay, that is a part of the problem of why “nothing seems to get done.” We really have to be more realistic with our expectations.