God's Favorite, Moody Bible Institute, Has Sex and Money Scandals
I don't think there is a more conservative institution of Bible literalism than Moody. It has been the center of controversy for some years because alums claimed it was sliding away from literalism. Now there is a scandal involving sex and money. It can join the Catholic Church and Jerry Falwell Jr. at Liberty University in the noble enterprises of sex/money scandals.
When I first started blogging on the Fargo Forum's website I recall another blogger from nearby in Minnesota was so pleased her granddaughter was attending Moody. Bart Ehrman graduated from there.
I'm not saying sex and money scandals are more common within the clergy of Christianity than in other parts of society. What's obvious is that being on the inside of the faith, administration or clergy, does not help anyone avoid feelings of entitlement and righteous privilege. Neither reading the Bible nor knowing the tenets of the faith improve human behavior. Human just go on behaving the same way whether they are Christians, Hindus or atheists.
Let's not forget the often repeated conventional wisdom, without Christianity a person, even a society, is without moral grounding. Ask the sexually abused at Moody or among Catholics about "moral grounding." Is there moral grounding in paying the President of Moody $300,000 per year and then subsidizing his purchase of a home? Maybe it's approved somewhere in the Bible.
The responses of Moody and Catholic Bishops has been quite similar. It's been silence, except when forced to respond. The mafia also greeted investigations with silence.
All of these scandals within the faith make a mockery of the "Christian nation" argument. Is the U.S. somehow better if it founding fathers intended for it to be "Christian?" I've yet to see any evidence that they so intended but also that if they did it would be better in some way. If it is, in fact, a "Christian nation" why would it have elected a President who lies, does not pay his debts and cheats on his wives?
I will say this on behalf of scandals within Christianity, they are fun to blog about.
Jon, “I will say this on behalf of scandals within Christianity, they are fun to blog about.”
ReplyDeleteThe Moody Bible Institute blues are yet another example supporting the proposition that ultimately “ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle”.
Ardy B "ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle."
ReplyDeleteA powerful and insightful sentence. I'm reading a book, "Strange Rites," about all the different strands of belief young people are drifting toward instead of Christianity. There are feminists, male domination, natural law (not the Catholic version), computer spiritualists and more. All have some different abstract moral principle but are more about individuals finding something that satisfies their own emotional needs.
Sorry Jon I forgot to provide a citation for the quote in my 5:57 AM post.
DeleteIt is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
testing
ReplyDeletetesting
ReplyDelete"A powerful and insightful sentence". Guess you are a bit hard up for power and insight. Indeed. that said, let's unpack your assertion and see what we find. and what do we find? we find an outdated ethical philosophy ginned up by logical positivists in the 1920s/1930s. they conjured up a nice emotive view which held, inter alia, that ethical assertions are no more than puffs of emotion, merely a matter of subjective "feeling". remember the old 1960s cliche: if it feels good, do it? if I say that murder is wrong, I am not appealing to any objective ethical standard. I am rather saying only that I find murder emotionally repugnant, that subjectively I "feel" that murder is wrong. end of story. similarly if I riot and burn, it's because I find rioting and burning emotionally satisfying, kinda like getting high on drugs. now, another question. I am sitting here wondering how two supposedly intelligent old geezers could believe anything as stupid as that which you have asserted herein. BTW Jon, what is your understanding of natural law. how does it differ from the Catholic version?
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "BTW Jon, what is your understanding of natural law. how does it differ from the Catholic version."
DeleteIt would take some pages to explain what little I understand of it. And, there are different versions. I'll cover some in a blog later today. Here is a thumbnail: Alpha males physically and mentally dominate other males and all females. Look at the alpha lion or gorilla. This is natural law. Therefore, alpha human males should strut about raping women with impunity and entertaining themselves belittling lesser males. They call it natural law.
you are badly confused. you seem to be mixing the notion of a natural law of nature with the natural moral law. the law of nature is in fact what nature does. animals eat other animals. the fittest survive. species are wiped out. people are killed by hurricanes, etc. and maybe primitives lived in the way you would have it. if you think that you are in good company: old Thomas Hobbes thought of it in the same way. no real morality, just fear of death.so we all cut a "deal". huddle under the power of a strong man/ruler who defines what is moral or not and whose will is law. classical natural law theory is about 180 different than that. don't have time to write more just now.
DeleteUnknown Oct 20, 2020 at 1:14PM “I am sitting here wondering how two supposedly intelligent old geezers could believe anything as stupid.”
DeleteAgain, sorry I neglected to provide a citation for my quote. Here is the whole sentence, “Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
It was apparently the influence of Hume’s view on ethics that “ginned up” the logical positivists of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Personally I find ethics based on human emotion and sentiment much more in line with my life experience than that attributed to an infinite, immaterial, immutable, interminable, supernatural whatever. I suspect ginning up “objective ethical standards” from an infinite, immaterial, immutable, interminable, supernatural whatever took and takes a whole lot of human emotional and sentimental energy to conjure — “if it feels good, do it”. Is Catholicism’s Principle of Totality an objective ethical standard: “the general notion that, since parts are ordered for the good of the whole, they may be disposed of, if necessary, for the good of the whole”? Certainly, “Deliberately shooting an innocent man in order to preserve the good of the state would not be permissible.” https://catholicism.org/the-principle-of-totality.html . How about an enemy soldier in battle, or a person rioting and looting, or a drug dealer, or a genetically damaged fetus. What! No human emotion or sentiment there. All good flows from God, right. Hitler’s Nazi regime was bad but Himmler was a good Nazi?
unknown -- "you are badly confused."
DeleteIt's not my view, I'm only reflecting a body of writing that is contemporary. What you wrote does not capture what it's all about. The fact remains, anyone can use the term "natural law" and twist it toward their own advantage. That's what Catholics do--others are doing the same.
Unknown Oct 20, 2020 at 2:58 PM
DeleteAs a philosopher and Catholic apologist is it safe to assume you are a disciple of the A-Trinity; Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas? I believe they are the grounds keepers for the Natural Law Theory applicable to ethics and morality - the four causes, essence/ existence, actual/potential, and all that.
too bad that you didn't have a liberal education. maybe then you would get the point. interesting too: you say that people, those damned
Deletecatholics especially. "twist" the natural law. what do they twist it from? explain please.
Ardy B 408P. you mention the A trinity. that's probably true as far as it goes. and if I read you aright you don't hold Aristotlean metaphysics/ethics in any high regard, preferring Hume and his moral "sentiments" instead. it seems also that you have overlooked other natural law thinkers, both ancient and modern. folks like Cicero, the Stoics, MacIntyre, Veatch, Anscombe et al. that aside, I will respond to you with what, I grant, is a sweeping generalization. since the collapse of Christian orthodoxy in the west, ethicists and philosophers have been on a mad quest for an alterative ethical theory/foundation. God is dead and all that, so what are we to do? you apparently have bought into Hume's view, but failing to recognize that mere sentiment/emotion is a really shaky foundation on which to build an ethical system. you end up with the logical positivists "boo, hurrah" theory of ethics (that is if you can dignify it by calling it a theory). and then there is Kant's response to Hume (the Hume who awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers). Kant, by the way, is a tough read but you should, nonetheless, give him a try. in fine, all this modern commotion has lead MacIntrye to conclude that we are at a crossroads. either we fall back on some sort of Aristotlean approach to ethics or concede the ground to Nietzsche and all that that entails. have a good day.
ReplyDeleteUnknown Oct 21, 2020 at 9:04 AM
DeleteFine reply Unknown. Thanks. I don’t think I have enough time left to study all of the natural law thinkers. Tallied up, there is not an abundance of empirical evidence that intrinsic values and inherent rights are a panacea for the human condition, even as they are much celebrated in our ethics, politics, civil law, and religious morality. That’s not to say they are meaningless and natural law theory is pablum.
I’ll leave you with a rhetorical question. Why would a God create a shitshow like a planet populated by human beings slogging around in a pass/fail moral quagmire in a universe of exploding stars and voracious light sucking black holes except for entertainment?