The Big Split Among Evangelicals Has Started
The most widely read evangelical magazine in the world, Christianity Today, recently endorsed the removal from office of President Trump. What this editorial position portends has been discussed in dozens or maybe hundreds of articles and blogs.
The link claims the CT article hints at deep chasm with both Protestant and Catholic branches. For much of the life of modern Christianity their has been little introspection. Advocates claimed they were following the Bible, coming up with different conclusions as to what was in there, but always being the soldier for Christ.
Comments here at this blog often bring up what they refer to as the "great philosophers." They are referring to the chain that included Thomas Aquinas, etc. Starting about in the 1970's and certainly in the 80's a new thread of philosophy became prominent in intellectual life. The writers included recently deceased Toni Morrison. She wrote about introspection and the role of self in selecting moral values. She saw so clearly how race and gender influenced what has come to be called "dominant paradigm." Aquinas and the thread of Christian thought he contributed to is the "dominant paradigm." It place males, especially white males, at the top of pecking order. One can still buy a bumper sticker from the 70's (I have one) which says, "Subvert the Dominant Paradigm."
The editorial in Christianity Today may represent an early step in subverting the dominant paradigm. It says nothing about male domination, white people, black people, abortion or LGBT but that is what it's about. It says the leader who represents the old paradigm of power needs to leave the stage. Replacements are on the way.
Another way of saying it is Christians need to become more self aware of where they came from and why they believe what they believe. Trump is a proxy the old white man's dominant paradigm.
That the time of change has arrived is difficult for many in the faith to swallow.
The ABSENCE of "why they believe and what they believe" is a relatively new development. Started around the 50's and grew. Thus, Trump is a proxy of that modern school of thought. While he may have "the white old man's dominant paradigm", it is because he thinks it is politically expedient, not religious. He will say anything to win votes and energize his base. His history reveals that.
ReplyDeleteas far as I can tell, most politicians will say anything to win votes and stir up their base.
DeleteThere is a disconnect here. I agree with; " Christians need to become more self aware of where they came from and why they believe what they believe". However that is the definition of Creedalism. (This we believe). This has been the standard expressed from the Apostles Creed, the Niecene creed and the Athenasian Creed, forward. In all three, there is not a hint of "Old white man's dominant paradigm.
DeleteSo Jon, to fulfill your: "Christians need to become more self aware of where they came from any why the believe what they believe"-- has been satisfied from the earliest definition/ confession of what Christianity is, what is believed, and why.
Since the event of non-creedalism, what you define as "Old white man's dominant paradigm, is just one of many results of non-creedalism. Started as far back as the 18th century with the term ; "Its deeds, not creeds", with Wesley (Methodism) forward in the many post-reformed movements, including the TV preachers.
Helper "...there is not a hint of 'Old White man's dominant paradigm. "
DeleteI could answer that. But, instead I'm going to use the answer you would give if challenged in that way. My answer is, read it again. It is there. When you have found it report back.
Jon; I provided the answer. You just didn't or refused see it. I repeat; the "self awareness of the "what, where, and why" you wish for. Contained in All three ecumenical creeds.
DeleteRead them again, not a hint of what you call "Old white mans dominant paradigm.
Report back completed, and repeated.
Just in case you are not aware of it, the Creeds WERE NOT the product of old white men.
Those involved were Greeks, Hebrews, Armenians, Romans, and Semites, turkey, Istanbul, and Alexandrian Egyptians. Hence the term; Ecumenical Creeds. One could say "Middle Eastern" as the source. Even before that, there was the Didache; The earliest statement of belief and training of Christianity, before the Creeds, and almost exclusively Hebrew.
"Old white men" just reveals an ignorance of history.
Jon; If you don't like Middle East, try Eastern Mediterranean.
Deletehelper-- It does matter who wrote the creeds now the creeds of old white men. It does not matter that thousands of women vow to follow the creeds of old white men. Fresh new commentary in philosophy is challenging the legitimacy of such beliefs. To understand why, just re read the creeds and find the material that justifies the power and supremacy of white men.
ReplyDeleteReport back when you find it.
"fresh new commentary in philosophy" maybe Jon would be so kind as to tell us a little more about the "fresh" new philosophy that he finds so enlightening. for my part, I find this crap about "old white men" to be beyond silly, something that in a sane society would be laughed out of the court of human thought. in other words I don't take it seriously, but I do find it annoying.
Deletemark Anthony "I find this crap to be beyond silly..."
ReplyDeleteOf course you do. You have not read it. There is an entire body of literature in these fields of gender, black, etc studies that examines the old white men thread of philosophy which you find so powerful and point out the aspects of it that promote the power and influence of old white men and debunks the influence and role of women, etc.
There is one way this new literature differs from that which you know about. It is that those who write in the field know and recognize the role of their own place and how it influences the way the interpret history, religion, etc. Your thread does not. That make the new material (I hesitate to call it new because it is a few decades old) is more timeless than the old.
As I mentioned to "helper", the basics of Christianity, Apostles Creed, etc. has built into it who should be in charge, which group is superior to the lessers. I've asked him to find and recognize where this appears. Apparently, neither one of you can recognize it. Some reading in philosophy would help you.
Jon; But you refuse to print a response. Is that how you win a debate? Guess so.
Deleteplease don't tell me what I have read and not read. I think that I quite aware of the principles of your "new" philosophy. for my part, you have embraced a new and, in fact, dangerous post-modernist dogmatism. crap by any other name is crap. BTW do I sense that someone else has entered into this discussion? this doesn't quite sound like Jon, the old Enlightenment atheist. also, please note that the enlightenment also falls to the axe of post-modernism. it's just another meta-narrative cooked up by old white men.
Deletethere is little opportunity for any real debate here. this new philosophy would, in effect, send several thousand years of western leaning down the memory hole, replacing it with a neo-Marxist, neo-Nietzschean philosophy as taught by the likes of Marcuse, the Frankfurt school, Derrida, Foucault and numerous others. In my opinion all that one can do is to point the source of the "thing" and then go on to critique it.
Deletehelper You, like Mark Anthony, said you could not find it. To anyone following this he/she would know this is not a new piece of information. Your argument is not with me but with an entire genre of literature going back about 40 years. Entire departments and university majors have formed around this literature. Instead of going into the argument I'm encouraging you to look for it within yourself or look at the literature itself. You should be able to see in the Apostles Creed the winners and losers it identifies.
ReplyDeleteJon; I did not say I could not find it. What you claim / accuse is not there.
DeleteThis "entire genre of lit. going back 40 yr. ----"Entire departments and universities have formed around this literature---ya da ya da. GIVES PAUSE to study more closely where parents send their kids to school.
Good point. I have read some of the conclusions deducted by some of them.- and you. I am not impressed. A group of self indulgence creating their own superiority . The most extreme form of pietism. (Ain't I special).
re. "win a debate". Your definition is everyone must agree with you. another symptom of the new school of thought.
helper "Is that how you win a debate? Guess so." A good debate does have participants repeating themselves over and over. Instead or repeating the position of old white men I'd like you to take a stab at the argument of the other side.
ReplyDeletere. repeating; You Jon are the mos guilty of repeating. "Old white men" is just a small example. Another is "wealthy goat herders". You constantly repeat subjects time after time. If only I had kept a log, I would guess about every 4-5 months the same old same old. As if to say it more, it may become so. That won't work on the south forty. But I give you credit for trying to twist your own repetition to accusation of all others, just by responding to your repetition.
DeleteI don't suppose you will print this also. "Silence all opposition." AAHH , that has been done in Europe and other places. North Korea most recently.