March 15
To R. Scott Clark and W. Robert Godfrey for Godfrey's article including the portion quoted in Clark's blog post. This appeared on Heidelblog.
Godfrey's full article is linked to below:
https://outlook.reformedfellowship.net/sermons/disestablished/
Godfrey's article reminds me of two problems that I see within the conservative sector of any group. First, negative changes has them singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues. Second, they rely to much on the past to understand and respond to the future. That last tendency is especially true during trying times.
My experiences with Reformed conservatives and Lutheran conservatives is that their subscription to standards written in the past causes a tribalism that splits the Church at large and their own movements in particular. The splitting of the Church is seen in a kind of snobbery toward those who don't hold to their standards. Those who hold to different standards are seen by these conservatives as 2nd class Christians, if they are considered to be Christians at all, who belong to the body of Christ. They are seen as having nothing to listen to or read from while in great need of the superior spiritual guidance of these very conservatives. But more than that, that tribalism often produces a hostility by one Christian toward another because the other Christian disagrees with something said in the treasured past. That hostility causes one person for whom Christ died to aggressively attack another person for whom Christ died.
I asked a conservative Reformed theologian whether he thought that the OPC, the denomination I belong to, puts the Westminster Standards on too high a pedestal--putting standards on too high a pedestal is a major cause for theological tribalism. This person responded by saying that no matter where you go, you have a certain set of standards that are being subscribed to. So I asked if that person then thought whether tribalism was a fixed cost to holding a certain set of standards. That person declined to answer.
Yes, there are times for Reformed conservatives and Lutheran conservatives to teach their standards and continue to check them. But the majority of times we should be working with Christians who hold to different standards than our own or who are not even confessionalists to collaborate together to preach and teach the Gospel. That means that we have to check our standards based tribalism at the door and realize that we have as much to learn from others as they have to learn from us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 16
To Stephen Spinnenweber and his article, which is part 3 in what appears to be a series, that tries to show an outright rejection of Side B Christianity, which is Christians who struggle with being same sex attracted but remain celibate and its proclamation that sexual orientation is fixed, is real Biblical caring for such Christians. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The problem on the conservative side, represented by Spinnenweber, is that we really don't know all of the causes of same-sex attraction? Are there genetic predispositions involved? Are there physical environmental factors at play here? For example, if because of the fact that the current water filtration systems we have do not extract hormones used in medicines, is that affecting our sexual orientation and/or identity? What interpersonal factors that are the result of one's family environment which are affecting our orientation and/or identity? And how long in life are those factors contributing to who we are?
My observation is that traditionalists, regardless of the source of the tradition, and old people tend to rely too heavily on the past to interpret and respond to the present. So the Westminster Standards, though having something to say here, are by themselves inadequate to address this problem. In fact, reliance on them to help provide an answer here should very limited. After all, those standards were written in a different time and context and thus have their own chronological trappings. The same applies to applying eschatology, such as over or under realized eschatology, in terms of what we can expect in each case. The same applies to citing examples of Christians who have overcome same sex attraction. Not everyone who suffers from this is experiencing the same set of factors at the same degree.
If we all have besetting sins, which might be a wholly inadequate way to describe this problem, why are conservatives singling out same sex attraction as one that will be changed by saying God can do anything? After all, don't we say that God can do anything when praying for a person who is seriously ill but are not surprised when that person continues to be ill or succumbs to that illness? Yes, God can do anything? But some who struggle with same sex attraction might not ever rid themselves of that attraction just as each of us may never rid ourselves of our besetting sins.
Considering how we don't have a definitive answer for all of the causes of same sex attraction, especially since homosexuality is very prevalent in the animal kingdom, I don't see how the above approach can be one that either is caring or helps some with this attraction to change. In addition, what is taken for granted are the changes already made by many Christians with this attraction. Thus, we don't understand the degree of struggle that many Christians who are same sex attracted experience and accomplish just by remaining celibate.
So just perhaps it is time for both those who agree with Johnson and conservatives like Spinnenweber to go back to the drawing board regarding this issue.
-------------------------------------
March 20
To Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary and his article on Hungary's response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
There is some Trumpism in the above article: the scapegoating of the left (should note that Hungary's left is different from America's left), a nation first perspective, and block immigration mentality. I forgot one other Trumpism: national self-flattery, but that is a common trait of many nations.
The overall theme of the note seems to echo the words of an old Simon and Garfunkel song: 'I am a rock I am an island.' And of course, isolationism is the Word of any nation that focuses so much on itself.
But history teaches the world's nations to beware of imperialism, being a policeman, and isolationism. That makes the decision of what to do when there is a significant injustice, like an invasion, that is occurring elsewhere, especially in a neighboring country.
Certainly the European theater of WW II tells us what happens when one ignores a threat until that threat is knocking on one's own door. If we apply the Principle of Universality to Orbán's response to the invasion of the Ukraine, then Orbán should be fine with the world ignoring any coming Russian invasion of Hungary. Then again, maybe Orbán has faith that Putin wouldn't invade his nation. After all, they both belong to very conservative churches and so Putin wouldn't have to feel threatened by Hungary as he appears to feel threatened by the decadent West. Then again, turning a blind eye to Putin's faults is another Trumpism.
Though the decision for Hungary to get involved in Russia's war on the Ukraine is a complicated one, the basic tone of the above article is disturbing. For it says that one's only job is to become strong so others won't pick on one's nation while ignoring the injustices that surround them. Such an approach doesn't seem to reflect what the Scriptures say which should matter Orbán belongs to a religiously conservative Christian Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment