Dec 14
To Stephen M. Klugewicz and his article about the nobility of conservative thinkers and how they sometimes fight for lost causes but often pessimistic because of the world around them. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
According to the above article, conservative thinkers do not believe in utopias and theybelieve that the pursuit of them is dangerous. And yet, they seem to believe that they have a monopoly on what is true, good, and virtuous, which is a shared trait with those who attempt to build utopias.
According to the above article, conservative thinkers have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--a phraseology borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr. when he was talking about the West.
According to the above article, the conservative thinker thinks the same of himself in comparison with nonconservatives as the Pharisee thought of himself compared with the publican (see Luke 18:9-14).
Yes, conservatism has ideas to contribute to the well-being of mankind. But so do liberalism and leftist ideologies. We should note that none of those ideologies, along with any other ideologies not mentioned, are omniscient. And because of that, we all need to listen to those who hold to ideas and beliefs other than our own.
Finally, we should note that the person, conservative or nonconservative, who believes his own press is a sibling to the person who would act as his own lawyer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 15
To R. Scott Clark and Steve Dowling for Clark's quoting from Dowling's article that dissents from a PCA denominational hearing that decided to support the ordination of a Christian who is same sex attracted but does not act on that attraction and believes that he will always have that attraction. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Steve Dowling's article can be found at:
Why do my fellow religiously conservative Christians often resort to using pedophilia in comparisons with homosexuality? Why? Can't they see the differences between the two attractions or are they unintentionally using hyperbole to demean homosexuality?
We should note something from the NT, it is grossly significant sins that makes one's Christian faith questionable. Not all of those grossly significant sins include actions, but many do. We should note something else about homosexuality in the NT, though it is a grossly significant sin, there are sins, even sexual sins, that are worse. For example, a man having sexual relations with his father's wife, see I Cor 5, is a sin not even tolerated by pagans--which is unbelievers, not the motorcycle gang, Meanwhile, an honest reading of Romans 1:18ff tells us that, though against nature, homosexuality among unbelievers should not surprise us.
So what about those who are SSA compared with those who struggle with lusting after people of the opposite sex? What do we, people who are attracted to the opposite sex, really know about being SSA that we can render a fair judgment on those who are SSA? And are we going to be consistent with how we judge and respond to those who share our own sexual sins? If a Christian no longer acts on SSA, then doesn't their life demonstrate and aren't they acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? If a Christian is no longer looking at porn, does their life not demonstrate and are they not acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? Even when a Christian acknowledges that a desire they have is sinful, that Christian can very well be demonstrating and acknowledging an ongoing sanctification.
Fear in Dowling's dissenting article I sense. And as we all know from intergalactic history, fear is the the path to the dark side. Fear is the path to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Ok, maybe not the path, but it is a path all too often taken. I sense fear because Dowling's dissent is authoritarian in nature and authoritarianism is a fear driven response. It is the kind of fear that makes one reluctant to make distinctions, such as what we see in those with phobias. Here we should note that authoritarianism often employs black-white thinking and such thinking is strongly incapable of making distinctions. And from what I have read and understand about the situation, that seems to be the case here.
I have no problem with saying that a Christian who is applying/nominated for a church office who is also SSA needs closer scrutiny. They also may need more church resources in maintaining their resistance to their attraction. But having met Christians who are SSA and who are not acting on that attraction, we are making a horrible mistake when we automatically disqualify them from holding church offices because of the struggles they have. But worse than that, we are becoming more vulnerable to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying when we adamantly oppose their being accepted and recognized as church officers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 16
To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult Church School lessons on the passing of Christendom. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.
Perhaps a reason that we are confused about the end of Christendom is because of how we see our history. On the one hand, Godfrey says that there are exceptions to his generalities. On the other hand, Americans did not have to address anyone by calling them 'Lord.'
So I guess that how slaves had to address their masters is simply an exception to one of his generalities and thus what life was like for slaves was seen merely as an exception and thus was not covered by Godfrey's depiction of life in America. The same could be said for some free Blacks, Native Americans, and women. Not that any had to call anyone 'Lord,' but the independence and freedom Godfrey described in America back in its past was not often experienced by those group of people. Thus Godfrey is presenting a white male, Christian centric view of American history. And he is doing that because his description of life in America back then as monolithic.
However, I could agree with Godfrey's assessment that Americans don't appreciate history like they should. And it isn't just the kids who don't fully appreciate American history. After all, just look at how many adults condemn in total the 1619 Project and CRT and work to prohibit them from being taught in our schools today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 17
To R. Scott Clark and his article against using a 17th century doxology in singing praise to God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Having taught I believe that the mere repetition of text does not always show that one has learned its meaning. It's not until people put that text in their own words that the extent that real learning has taken place. So why not sing both from the Psalms, or the other Scriptures, and the 17th century Doxology as well as hymns written by Christians? Why employ an exclusive-or logic here?
I find the exclusive singing of Psalms to be motivated out of fear rather than faith. The exclusive singing of the Psalms or any parts of the Scriptures acts as a fence that guards us from singing wrong words and concepts. But it also acts as camouflage that can hide our hymns and songs show an adequate understanding of the Scriptures. Besides, unless we sing in the original languages of the Scriptures, we are going to sing wrong words anyway. Yes it limits it, but it is still the case.
Exclusive singing of the Psalms or the Scriptures is an attempt to avoid making mistakes some of which could lead slippery slopes. But it is also an attempt at perfectionism. And, as mentioned before, it can easily hide our misunderstanding of the text. I find it ironic that some people who liken wokeness to seeking justification by works can be so strict and legalistic about not using musical instruments or hymns in worship.
No comments:
Post a Comment