May 31, 2005
Does Western Christendom Still Believe in God?
{This is a repost of one of my favorite posts at the old place. I'm gradually moving the best stuff over here -- eventually, I'll have everything in it's proper chronological order, but I want to put these first so that new readers can enjoy these "historic" posts. This is originally from November 21, 2004}
I need to define my terms first, because I'm using the word 'Christendom' in a different way than I usually do. I'm going to use Christendom to describe Western society in general, assuming (I think correctly) that much of Western culture, especially it's morality, is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I started thinking about this topic on Thursday in my Intro to Philosophy class, as we discussed Nietzsche's The Madman and it's claim that God is dead. I'll start by letting the text speak for itself:
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
02:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1221 words, total size 7 kb.
May 30, 2005
What IS Fundamentalism?
I'm reposting this from
several posts I made on
the old blog. I'm not reposting the whole thing -- just some parts, so you might want to head over there and read the full posts I made a little over a year ago. I just finished reading this piece by
Frank Schaeffer. I like Frank -- I've read his books about his son in the Marines (
Keepin Faith and
Faith of Our Sons) and enjoyed them immensely. I've read his father's works, and been blessed by them. But I'm not sure that Frank "gets Fundamentalism" as well as he thinks he does. What is needed is a good definition of what fundamentalism is, and what it isn't.
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
02:43 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I like the term "historic fundamentalist". But I still would prefer a substitute for fundamentalist, even when used with historic. My earliest recollection of the use of the term fundamentalist was when, as a teenager, I was dragged to a youth conference at Jack Hyles church. Almost in the same sentence that he called himself a fundamentalist, he was asking a young man with long hair to leave the building. Then he proceded to pick on The Imperials. (my favorite group at the time)
So even by putting "historic" in front, I get squeemish about being identified as a fundamentalist of any kind, when in fact....I am.
Posted by: Terry McCann at May 31, 2005 03:22 PM (g/EAS)
2
I'm finding a lot of people calling themselves 'Biblicists' -- that might be the way to go, I don't know. Labels are difficult things -- even the term "Christian" was coined by our enemies.
I went to a Hyles youth conference when I was 16. Heard all about how you shouldn't kiss a girl until you marry her. That never took (and I know some guys who were VERY disappointed when some of the girls mentioned how much they LIKED that idea).
Posted by: Warren at June 01, 2005 12:36 PM (a64K1)
3
I'm a little surprised to find Frank Schaeffer (whose work I've enjoyed over the years - even the Calvin Becker books) calling his father a fundamentalist with all of the overtones that that word carries in the Protestant world. Schaeffer himself used the label Bible believing Christian and was certainly embraced far more readily by those who considered themselves evangelical than by those who styled themselves fundamentalists (at least that was the case in my neck of the woods). Most of the fundamentalists I knew considered Schaeffer to be too intellectual and too worldly (after all he listened to the Mother's of Invention, watched Satyricon and actually knew who Picasso and Dali were).
In Sham Pearls For Real Swine Frank makes some valid points about American fundamentalism/evangelicalism. None of that book seemed to be pointed at his parents, both of whom in their published works disassociated themselves from the sort of high culture denying/pop culture embracing that he was critiqueing. It seems strange that he now uses the word fundamentalist to identify both of his parents.
Francis Schaeffer towards the end of his life obviously had problems even with evangelicalism (The Great Evangelical Disaster deals with that). I suspect (as does Frank himself) that had his father lived longer he might have found himself in one of the historic branches of Christendom. Frank moved to Greek Orthodoxy, in large part because he was rejecting the logical rational thought of Western Christianity. After reading Sham Pearls and at least one book that he referred to in it, I ended up ultimately becoming a Roman Catholic. Greek Orthodoxy would have been a less painful move (although not a very realistic one in my area), but my study of Church history led me home to Rome.
I understand why Frank rejected Protestantism, I even understand why he became Orthodox. What I have difficulty understanding is why he now identifies his parents with a branch of Protestantism that they conciously chose to not identify themselves with. Perhaps he is only using the historic definition of fundamentalism, but the word is so loaded at this point, and he knows that, that it seems like a slur to use it in reference to his parents.
A lot of people have assumed that the Becker books are thinly veiled pictures of the Schaeffers. While there are details that obviously come from real life (the pot throwing and Calvin's lack of education) as detailed by Edith and by Susan Macaulay, it seems to me that much of what Frank is caricaturing is the lives that people who came to L'Abri described. I suspect that he has combined the worst parts of his parents with the worst parts of the true fundamentalists he was exposed to as he wrote the Becker books. The admiration that he clearly had for his father and the love he has for his mother has come through even in these post Becker years. When you read about their reaction to his getting Genie pregnant when he was 17 you do not see the reaction of the Beckers. You see the reaction of the Schaeffer's as Edith portrays them in What is A Family.
Both Francis and Edith made it clear over the years that when you expect perfection or nothing you will get nothing. The problem in fundamentalist circles was and is so often that perfection is what is expected. That is why it is so disturbing to see Frank identifying his parents with something that they clearly (at least in their published work and audio tapes) rejected.
I continue to be enriched by much of what the Schaeffers wrote, even while my conclusions have led me to a place they would not have intended. I do not consider Dr. Schaeffer's word the final authority, but I do consider that he raised questions that Christians need to consider in our post-modern world. Many people have come along since Dr. Schaeffer's death to grapple with these questions, some in response to Dr. Schaeffer, others because they in their own study began to realize the importance of the issues. I rarely look at my Schaeffer books anymore, but I will freely admit the intellectual debt that I owe him. I never would have dared to ask the questions, read the books, watch the films had he not challenged me to move beyond the fundamentalism of my youth.
I suspect that Frank would not be Orthodox today if his father had been a typical fundamentalist. I suspect that all of the high art to which he was exposed played a part in where he ended up.
Posted by: Liz at September 13, 2005 02:52 PM (4S/Vw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Judge Tells Parents what Religion to Teach
Ok, now I may be in disagreement with everyone who reads this blog on this issue. But that's never stopped me from shooting off my mouth before.
A judge in Indianapolis has decreed that a set of divorced parents can't teach their kid their religion. Because that religion is Wicca.
I disagree with pretty much everything Wicca teaches. I think they are totally wrong, and deceived, concerning the nature of the supernatural world. I sometimes wish that Christians had as much of an appreciation for the spiritual forces that are out there, though -- we tend to separate things into "God did it" and "Not real at all" and reject the whole "Satan did it" category out of hand. But I don't believe that everything supernatural is essentially good, or should be harnessed.
BUT -- last time I checked, the Constitution prohibited government interference in religion, including the religious instruction of children by their parents. As far as I can tell, the parents are in agreement about the religious training that their kids should have -- it may be the only thing they agree on, I don't know. The judge has prohibited the teaching of "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." No definition of what "mainstream religious beliefs and rituals" actually ARE.
THAT'S a problem area. Evangelicalism is often considered non-mainstream. So the parents can't teach their kids evangelical Christianity? Never says that specifically, but it could be interpreted that way.
I hate to use the phrase "slippery slope" here, but it seems to fit. A dangerous precident has been established if this decision holds up. The government, or at least a representative of the government, is dictating to parents what type of religious training and education that their child can have. That is simply wrong.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:53 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree with you, Warren. The parents are wrong, dead wrong, in my opinion, but the judge's ruling is unconstitutional. I would support those parents' legal battle in the same way as I support free speech for all points of view. No matter how wrong I think they are, when the government starts judging what you can and can't say (or teach your children) based on what THEY think is acceptable speech or religious beliefs, that's when Christians need to start worrying. Because it will only be a matter of time - and not long at all based on what I've seen - before OUR beliefs are judged to be intolerant and unacceptable.
Posted by: songstress7 at May 30, 2005 12:13 PM (ie93s)
2
I think that's what worries me the most about a lot of things that Cristians are trying to get passed into law -- there is a LOT of stuff that could come back to haunt us, in the not-too-distant future.
Posted by: Warren at May 30, 2005 02:15 PM (a64K1)
3
Wow. I can't believe the nerve of that judge!
I agree that Wicca is not a good religion to teach children, but that is their right as parents and no judge should ever be allowed to interfere in that decision. I hope that judge faces disciplinary action.
Who's to say that children can't be "rescued" from such religions anyway? I know people who've been saved from atheism, Catholicism, and Judaism. Why can't God save the child from Wiccanism?
You know, some people could make the same argument against Catholicism being harmful or Islam being harmful, if they really wanted to stretch the limits of truth.
This is so wrong. I sure hope this judge is not allowed to continue this way. I'm simply appalled.
Posted by: Kelly Miller at May 30, 2005 04:10 PM (weNac)
4
As a Pagan and a former Wiccan, I have to agree here. I don't like all of the things that Wicca teaches, but then I don't like a lot of the things that Satanism, many occult orders like the Golden Dawn, Buddhism, (to be perfectly honest) Christianity, Islam and even Hinduism teach, either. That's beside the point.
What's PERFECTLY on-topic is that *no one* in the government has the right to interfere with the teaching and dissemination of *any* religion. You can worship the Megalomaniacal Star Goat, whatever. The government should have nothing to do with it. While I may not believe that Jesus is the one true way, I will stand up and openly declare that it is your right - given by your God, my Gods and everyone else's too - to believe, teach and practice that, and to worship as you so choose.
End of rant.
~May you never thirst,
Anja
Posted by: Anja Flower at November 04, 2005 09:57 PM (jhSHN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 28, 2005
New Feature
Yes, I have succumbed. If you haven't noticed yet, there is a flickr box on the right sidebar. Right now, you can see pictures of my daughter's first dance recital, my daughter and me playing the guitar together, and my wife and daughter on the way to this year's prom (we chaperoned).
You won't see many shots of me, because I take most of the pictures. You WILL see lots of pictures of my daughter, because ... I take most of the pictures.
I'll add to it as I feel inclined.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:53 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Now that there is a serious cutie.
Posted by: songstress7 at May 29, 2005 12:05 AM (ie93s)
2
That is a neat feature.
Your daughter is gorgeous!
Posted by: Kelly Miller at May 30, 2005 06:43 PM (weNac)
3
Thank you thank you!
I take absolutely no credit for my daughter's good looks -- but all the credit in the world for her onery attitude!! She doesn't look like Daddy, but she has my personality.
Sometimes that might not be such a good thing ...
Posted by: Warren at May 30, 2005 10:15 PM (a64K1)
4
LOL! I think she looks a lot like you, actually.
Both Doc and I are ornery, so our boys never stood a chance! They also have the infamous "Miller Persistance", which isn't always a wonderful trait.
Posted by: Kelly Miller at May 31, 2005 12:07 AM (weNac)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 27, 2005
How then shall we Blog?
This is one of those posts that is hard to categorize, so I've dumped it into everything else. It's a little bit Intolerant Tolerance, but it's also a little bit Theology, but it doesn't really fit into those categories at all.
A bunch of us from Mind and Media have joined Blogcritics. Seems to be a perfect fit -- they review books, so do we. Match made in Heaven, right?
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:31 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.
1
For what it's worth, Warren, I think you're taking the right approach. Obviously engaging in a flame-war is going to be a bad witness, and just leaving accomplishes nothing. Staying, and hopefully becoming a member of the community and allowing them to see other facets of your personality, looks like the best course of action, if you can develop a thick enough skin to take the insults that will surely still find you every so often.
Posted by: songstress7 at May 28, 2005 12:45 AM (ie93s)
2
I've heard that at least one person left because of the mistreatment -- and I don't want to knock that person's decision. It's a personal choice, and I'm sure they didn't do it lightly, or without a lot of thought. But whatever the reason for leaving, it gives "the other side" a victory, at least in theor perception.
In reading some of the reaction to some other folks' offerings at the site, I wonder if I would have stuck around if my post had been similarly attacked. At least most of my commentors were targeting specific issues, and not just insulting my intelligence (or lack thereof). Ad hominem is tough to combat, and I have seen a lot of that exhibited.
I'll probably post a review of Total Truth there when I finish it, just to irritate some people (lol). But I'll probably do some other reviews first.
Posted by: Warren at May 28, 2005 12:41 PM (a64K1)
3
Great, I can type ad hominem with no problem, but I mistype things like their (in my comment) and high (in the post).
Sad thing is, two years ago I taught keyboarding to junior high school kids. How's THAT for "those who can't do, teach?"
Posted by: Warren at May 31, 2005 01:47 PM (a64K1)
4
You mean as a Christian we are not to blast them into submission. Now that is a novel concept. lol
Keep up the great work!
Posted by: Wayne M at June 02, 2005 06:39 AM (y/2WM)
5
lol, Wayne.
The sad thing is, a LOT of people haven't figured that out yet.
Posted by: Warren at June 02, 2005 09:12 AM (a64K1)
6
Total Truth!! Now that WILL be interesting! Love that book. Thanks for the experiential advice. I am new at this. Hopefully, God helps us to be gracious. You say yelling doesn't change minds but truthfully, I have never witnessed s changing of minds. I'd love to hear about a bending of the minds, rather than blending. Let us know if some lightbulbs go on, k?
Posted by: cwv warrior at June 02, 2005 12:59 PM (yP3uI)
7
I do think there are times to respond in kind. After all, there are two parts to the double proverb:
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:4-5, ESV)
Some people need to be put in their place, and only sarcasm or telling it like it is about downright awful reasoning will do it. Other people need to experience other kinds of responses. The trick is knowing when each is appropriate.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at June 25, 2005 07:39 PM (Ihkjb)
8
I agree, Jeremy. The problem is that I don't always know when each is appropriate. I tend to shy away from nailing people to the wall until it's the last resort -- which is probably not the best way to do things.
Posted by: Warren at June 25, 2005 08:03 PM (iJfPJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 26, 2005
Is the Reformation Over?
Mark Noll has co-written a new book with Carolyn Nystrom called
Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Asessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism that attempts to answer just this question. I just found out that the book is scheduled to be out in July, and it's on my reading list (now WAY too long).
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
08:28 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The last paragraph reminded me of Mark 9:39-41
"...for whoever is not against us is for us."
Good post.
Posted by: kyer at May 27, 2005 01:25 AM (oY0vI)
2
What unites us is greater than what divides us. While many Evangelicals (like me) had the greatest respect and admiration for Pope John Paul II, there were some things that troubled us about him. The depth of his Marian devotion led some to question his salvation.
Praise God that the burden of judging such a great man as Karol Wojtyla belongs to Him alone.
Pope Benedict XVI appears to be poised to move towards greater Christian unity.
In "Dominie Iesus", which was widely considered to have been authored largely by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the "filique" was dropped from a restatement of the Nicene Creed.
Also Ratzinger was very prominent in outreach to Evangelicals and Protestants during John Paul II's papacy. The new Pope has made Christian unity a priority for his Papacy.
Posted by: William C. Fisher at May 30, 2005 04:33 PM (GBA+6)
3
I applaud the positive attitude of the authors of the book, who emphasize that Christians, if they are indeed Christians of the faith preached by Christ, must emphasize what they have in common, not what divides them.
To answer the question, however, IS the reformation over, I have to believe that no, it continues, it multiplies, it dissents, argues and splinters. To follow just one branch, we see that the Methodists begat the Pentecosals, who begat the Assembly of God, who begat Jimmy Swaggart, who begat TBN and Benny Hinn. Somewhere down the road Joel Olsteen popped up. If you are a masochist, you can detour to Ken Copeland. One splinter of the gospel taken from the previous splinter becomes the basis for a whole new megachurch.
Who dares guess what their descendants and offshoots will preach in 20 years time?
Sadly, the reformation continues. Those who value the faith of Christ will try to brake that development.
Izydor
Posted by: Izydor at August 20, 2005 10:31 PM (RQis0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blogroll Cruise: 5/26/2005
This is my very first Blogroll Cruise at the new site. So let's get started!! For those who aren't familiar, this is just a look at posts that have caught my attention while surfing through my blogroll. I do this every so often, supposedly as a service to my readers, but actually because I can't think of anything original to write ...
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.
May 25, 2005
Pagan Roots?
I'm writing this in response to some reactions to my review of James White's
The King James Only Controversy over at
Blogcritics. Most of the comments on the review have little to do with the actual subject of the book (the controversy over modern translations of the Bible), but rather toiuch on the roots of Christianity itself.
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:06 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 780 words, total size 5 kb.
May 24, 2005
One Year Ago Today ...
I have no idea what to write today, other than to let you know that I've got
another review (actually
two) at Blogcritics. And the KJVO review has generated a little bit of discussion (more than most of my posts at my own blog -- hmmm). So go over there and read -- and respond!
The real reason for this post is to take a trip back in time. One year ago today, what was I writing about? I was trying to refute the whole "all evangelicals are Reconstructionists" insanity (and probably doing a bad job of it), and I was confounded by the insanity of Christian secessionists who wanted to spark secession by one or two states. I had made a minor change to the blog template (not many people noticed...). But I was also busy wishing Nick Queen a happy birthday. Hmmm. If that was a year ago today -- that means it's Nick's birthday again!!!
Head over to his blog and wish him a happy birthday. Tell him I sent you!
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
08:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
May 23, 2005
What's on YOUR Desk?
From
Rebecca Writes, via
Challies.com.
What books are on my desk? Well, my desk is almost too small for the computer I have on it, so I'm including what's stacked up next to it:
- The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth by Vincent Taylor
- Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity by David de Silva
(both now overdue from the library at Southern)
- At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist edited by Michael A.G. Haykin
- The Holy Bible: New American Standard Version
- The Holy Bible: English Standard Version
- Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
- God's Bestsellerby Bryan Moynahan
So what books are on YOUR desk?
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My desk is too small for books, too, so I'll mention what's on the small bookcase next to my desk.
On the top shelf, I have a couple of expand-a-folders, my Bible, the phone book, a complete book of Robert Frost's works (he's my favorite poet), a Roget's thesaurus, a dictionary, and a French dictionary.
On the bottom shelf, I have a few Food and Family magazines by Kraft (some great stuff in there!), a selection of Shakespeare, a few works by Mark Twain, a couple of Jane Austen novels, my crocheting books, two books on parakeets and cockatiels, and one or two odd magazines--usually Ladies' Home Journal.
Not interesting to most younger folks nowadays. I'm long past the angst stage. I like some of the classics!
Posted by: Kelly Miller at May 23, 2005 08:43 PM (weNac)
2
Most of mine are left over from the last papers I wrote for school or they're Mind and Media books I'm reviewing -- though I REALLY need to finish God's Bestseller -- I've only got 20 pages or so to go.
Posted by: Warren at May 24, 2005 08:27 PM (a64K1)
3
The Crimson Sword, by Eldon Thompson.
The Hot Kid, by Elmore Leonard
Digital Audio Essentials
Directing Feature Films, by Mark Travis
Fast Food Nation
The Christian Imagination
That's what is on the desk right now. That doesn't include the stack next to the bookcase, or the bookcase itself.
Posted by: Bill Wallo at May 25, 2005 05:36 PM (Hdn6c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 21, 2005
Mark Study: Mark 7:24-30
And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.
(Mark 7:24-30 ESV)
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
10:30 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hi! You say the woman was blessed because of her persistence. But it was her faith in Jesus that led to her persistence. She believed Jesus could and would heal her daughter, which happened in the end. Others in the gospels asked for miracles that never happened because they didn't ask in faith.
Posted by: Ronnie Ward at May 23, 2005 07:55 AM (VWGUs)
2
Good point. The bottom line was her faith, which caused her to be persistent.
Posted by: Warren at May 23, 2005 09:14 AM (a64K1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blog Critics
I am now a part of the vast cabal known as
Blogcritics. My first post is right
here, so go over there and read it, and comment!!
If you blog, and you review things like books or music, or even movies, Blogcritics is the place YOU need to be. Why not apply?
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
01:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
May 20, 2005
May 18, 2005
Good Question!
The
New York Sun has asked a question that I think we should all be asking ourselves in light of Newsweek's article about Qur'an desecrations
more...
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
09:01 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I hear your frustration and to an extent, I agree with you. However, when I look at the greatest injustice ever, the crucifixion of Jesus and all the events surrounding it, I am reminded of how Jesus himself reacted. In Matt 26:50, he rebules Peter for his anger and gives a stern warning about living and dying by the sword. In Matt 27:12,13, Jesus remains silent while being accused. What was He trying to teach us here?
When you say the "bible is abused", are you talking about someone's written copy? Can't only believers abuse Scripture through our acts of disobedience? Does not true desecration happens at the hands of the very people for whom the Word of God was written?
I do agree with you about our apathy but IÂ’m not sure I agree with you as to what our reaction should be. On the political and social side, yes we should continue to safeguard our constitutional freedoms. On the spiritual side, we need to realize that the Word of God lives in us, Psalm 119:11. We need to pray for those who do not know what we know, who do not have what we have and who will not be where weÂ’ll be someday unless they find the Hope that springs eternal.
Posted by: Terry McCann at May 18, 2005 10:19 AM (3HZMI)
2
I think the true desecration is when we who claim to be Christians ignore it's precepts and live more according to the dictates of a modern philosophy than Biblical teachings.
I think that the biggest problem I have with Bible desecration is not that we don't riot and protest, but that we aren't even offended. And we are expected to be offended when similar things happen to other faiths (and we should be).
Posted by: Warren at May 18, 2005 03:47 PM (a64K1)
3
I look at it this way. Regardless of your religious beliefs the words printed in a book are just words printed in ink, no matter if they come from a divine source. An action against the book it's self does nothing to alter the words or their meaning. So even if you totally destroy the book, drag it through mud, urinate on it burn it or flush it, the words and meaning contained in the book live on. I do believe we should be respectful of other peoples beliefs and make an effort to not trample on them, but the actions of a few people in desecrating the Koran does not amount to an endorsement by the US Government against Islam. The widespread desecration of the Bible by the Saudi Government and most of the Followers of Islam is an official endorsement against Christianity. Should I be offended and speak out or protest? No because no matter what they do, the truths contained in the Bible will stand, they can do nothing to alter that.
Posted by: JIm at June 04, 2005 01:25 PM (n+UM/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 16, 2005
Kristof and Spong
I haven't been mocking Nicholas Kristof lately, but his latest effort has really got me ... laughing.
In his attempt to reimagine Christianity, Kristof has engaged the arch-heretic John Shelby Spong. Paul was a gay man who attacked homosexuality to keep his own desires in check. Judas didn't betray Christ, because Paul (as well as the ever-elusive Q source) doesn't mention the betrayal at all. Never mind that Paul doesn't attempt to give an account of the life of Christ, and the betrayal never really factored into his ministry or teachings. If Paul didn't mention it, then it didn't happen. And Q seems to be the last refuge of doubt -- if we see something that all three Synoptics have in common, it has to be from Q (rather than it having to do with the common inspiration of God that the writers labored under).
Kristof comes short of actually agreeing with Spong, but he does say "at least he's engaged in the debate," and encourages liberals to engage conservative Christians on their own turf, on their own terms. If Spong is the best they have, I think they're better off with their current strategy of ridicule and ignore.
Posted by: Warren Kelly at
05:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
66kb generated in CPU 0.0216, elapsed 0.3308 seconds.
69 queries taking 0.3167 seconds, 233 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
