Feb 1
To R. Scott Clark and his article on the importance of studying Church History. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
There are several things to agree with here. First, the Christian Faith is a historical faith. Also, there are many lessons to learn from Church History. Third, it is important to learn from multiple cultures and Church History is influenced by multiple cultures as listed by Clark.
But what is overstated is the significance of the exposure to those multiple cultures listed above. The first problem is that is that the regions of the world from which much of Church History comes excludes most of the world. The second problem is that a major cultural influence during the times in which Church History is studied is religious rather than regional. Third, the different cultures which are studied in Church history have little to nothing in common with today's cultures of the same regions in the world. Finally, the Greco-Roman world had, because of their empires, a wide area of influence outside of their physical boundaries. This problem is similar to the 2nd problem previously mentioned.
What should be studied from Christian History are both the Church's accomplishments and its failures and sins. We should also note the different contexts that exist between today's world and the worlds of both the patristic and medieval periods.
The approach of studying both the accomplishments and failures seen in what the Church did should also be applied to what the Church has said. The failure to recognize the errors in even our favorite confessions and catechisms has the potential of making those confessions and catechisms a canon above the canon of the Scriptures. By that I mean that we eventually will be unable to see and accept in the Scriptures anything outside of what our favorite past and present confessions and catechisms have reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is an exception to the comments in this series. Whereas the comments listed in this series are blocked on conservative blogs, the comment below was not posted on a theological liberal blog.
Around Jan 28
To Jeff Hood and his article on Theosemantics. In that article, Hood argues against the idea that the words of men could adequately describe God because then God would be limited by those words. His article was posted on Jeff Hood's blog on Patheos.
There is a difference between limiting God by our words from limiting our understanding of God by our own minds. And there is a difference between people using words to describe who we think God is from God using words to reveal Himself to us. Those two differences go hand in hand.
The belief that God's Word is inerrant first belongs to the original autographs of the Scriptures. The concept is found in what Jesus said about every jot and title from the Old Testament to what Paul wrote that the Scriptures are God-breathed. The deemphasis on words, and especially the concepts the communicate, is found in the teaching that it is people who are the ultimate authors of the Scriptures thus making every religion derived from the Scriptures a missing link in the evolutionary process of discovering God.
When people are credited as being the ultimate authors of the Scriptures, the words there can only be seen as providing limits for who God is. When God is credited with being the ultimate author of the Scriptures, then the limits allow us a sufficient understanding of who God is while our inability to fully grasp who God is not a reflection on God, but on us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 3
To Heidelblog and Michael Kruger for the portion of Kruger's article that tries to discredit the accusation that today'today's religiously conservative American Christians are haters.
Michael Kruger's full article can be found at:
https://www.michaeljkruger.com/when-were-christians-first-regarded-as-intolerant-haters/
The one factor that the above citation from the article by Michael Kruger, as well as his full article, miss is current evidence. The above deductions from the Scriptures and the experiences of Christians in the Roman Empire which dismiss charges that today's Christians are haters. Kruger's article does not examine today's evidence. And that, in a nutshell, shows the problem that many religious conservative Christians have in relating to people in this "Post Christian" America and West.
Because we rely so heavily on using deduction and, in this case, the experiences of the earliest Christians, we refuse to read or listen to unbelievers as they attempt to tells us about their experiences and how we come across. And yet, we demand that they pay attention to what we say. Perhaps this kind of interaction we have with the world shows a deficit on our part. And my guess, based on how we expect unbelievers to respond to us, is that authoritarianism has corrupted how we interpret the Scriptures and how to interact with the world.
So we need to contemplate at least some of the evidence that supports charges that today's Christians are haters. For example, many of today's religiously conservative Christians, especially our leaders and influencers, want those in the LGBT community to be marginalized by today's society. Many of us strongly opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage lest both our "freedoms" were infringed on and that society would view sexual orientations like homosexuality and gender identities that differed from one's biological sex be viewed as normal. In fact, many of our religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers told us that God would judge us for accepting homosexuality and transgenderism. Such a message would setup those from the LGBT community to be scapegoats should any hardship that is interpreted as God's judgment inflict us. In fact, such a message was preached by the likes of Jerry Falwell and other after 9/11.
Or consider how many of usreligiously conservative American Christians deny the existence of current systemic racism in society because such an admission would require that we admit faults and look to change the old status quo.
Or consider how many religious conservative American Christians resisted the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and eagerly accused that movement as being communistic. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported Jim Crow and/or slavery because they believed in white supremacy. Or look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported, and some of them still do, 2nd class citizenship for women in society. Or what about those religiously conservative American Christians who joined less religiously conservative American Christians and unbelievers in supporting the ethnic cleansing of American Native Americans from the land.
Back to the present, look at how many religiously conservative American Christians are highly suspicious of Muslims including Muslim Americans. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians, who in the name of patriotism, supported horrific foreign policies and interventions that killed or displaced thousands, if not millions, of citizens in countries like Iraq and Vietnam. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported or turned a blind eye to American policies that replaced democratically elected leaders in other nations with brutal dictators in the name of anti-Communism. Or where is the love from religiously conservative American Christians for the Palestinians?
See, whether we religiously conservative American Christians are haters or not is first determined by evidence, not deductions made because of what the Scriptures say or what the first Christians experienced. So far, this comment just deals with today's American Christians. Just think of what could be said about European Christians of yesteryear who supported imperialism and colonialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Bradley Birzer and his article on slavery and the founding of the U.S. He focuses on the debate that occurred during the Constitutional Convention that preceded the writing of The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I am confused by the claim made by Birzer about the decline in slavery from the 1760s to the 1790s. I am confused because census data cited in a NCBI article showed just the opposite (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716878/ ). The slave population increased in each decade from the 1760s through the 1790s. If we follow slavery from the years 1808 to 1860, the number of slaves quadrupled (see https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery ). That figure is confirmed in the source previously cited.
But while conservatives like to focus attention on slavery, perhaps because it was hotly debated in the nation and was eliminated by the Civil War, a major driving factor in enabling and promoting the use of slaves is ignored. That is the belief in white supremacy, which survived the demise of slavery. We should note that Birzer does not mention white supremacy in his article. The belief in white supremacy enabled and promoted the Jim Crow era. And the belief in white supremacy enables and promotes the continued existence of systemic racism in our nation.
During the time leading up to the Civil War, even being an abolitionist did not preclude one from believing in white supremacy. Many black abolitionists in the North learned that from their personal experiences with white abolitionists (see https://academic.oup.com/nyu-press-scholarship-online/book/21785/chapter-abstract/181766563?redirectedFrom=fulltext ).
America's racial problems cannot be reduced the past existence of the institution of race-based slavery. Rather, what allowed and promoted slavery, the belief in white supremacy, deserves more attention than it will get if we simply focus on slavery. After all, the belief in white supremacy also enabled policies that caused the ethnic cleansing of Native Americas from the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment