|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Evangelical slide into Fundamentalism
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right, let's pick another rule, then.
Do women have to wear hats in your church?
If not, why not?
I've often wondered this, but I don't have an answer.
This is a red herring!
The reason for Paul's injunction was that in society in those days it was considered improper, indecent and immoral for a woman to have her head uncovered and her hair down - it was the sign of a loose woman.
Some Christian women, having found equality in Christ with men, were wont to dispolay that freedom in public by uncovering their heads. This would have been a scandal in the wider community and would have brought down even more criticism on the church.
Paul is merely telling the women not to give the impression that they have fewer morals than Roman society, it's not a rule that Christian women must wear hats because it's what Christ wants of his female disciples.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point, of course, that Orfeo is making Mudfrog, is that if you are going to contextualise head-coveering for women in church - as you have done here (and I agree with you, by the way) - then why not do the same with the verses that deal with same-sex relationships? Why not put those in context too?
Of course, there are arguments for and against that and sincerely held beliefs on both sides.
I'm beginning to agree with Kaplan about the 'fundamentalist' label being thrown around as a convenient canard at times - and this is an issue where I suspect that happens quite regularly.
@Grammatica, I agree with you about the evangelical propensity towards sound-bites and populalist approaches - you can see this at work in lots of ways, and not simply in the evangelical style of presentation (which borrows from chat-show formats and so on).
I do think, though, that you are over-doing the Pond comparison, though. You will find six-day Creationists in evangelical circles over here in the UK but not as ubiquitously as in the US.
We have fewer dispensationalists and King James only types too - but they do exist.
But then, we also have fewer evangelicals ...
On balance, I think that there is a creative tension within evangelicalism per se which tends to pull it back and forth between the twin poles of a form of post-evangelical relativism on the one hand and a doggedly dogmatic conservatism on the other. Both things are there at one and the same time.
I think SvitlanaV2 is right. Fundamentalism increases when secularism is rife and I expect to see a certain hardening of the evangelical arteries in the UK in coming decades - with some segments becoming increasingly marginalised and disengaged from the surrounding culture and society. That said, at its best, evangelicalism has been able to adapt and use aspects of the surrounding culture in order to express the Gospel in an enculturated idiom - but there are tensions all ways round.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right, let's pick another rule, then.
Do women have to wear hats in your church?
If not, why not?
I've often wondered this, but I don't have an answer.
This is a red herring!
The reason for Paul's injunction was that in society in those days it was considered improper, indecent and immoral for a woman to have her head uncovered and her hair down - it was the sign of a loose woman.
Some Christian women, having found equality in Christ with men, were wont to dispolay that freedom in public by uncovering their heads. This would have been a scandal in the wider community and would have brought down even more criticism on the church.
Paul is merely telling the women not to give the impression that they have fewer morals than Roman society, it's not a rule that Christian women must wear hats because it's what Christ wants of his female disciples.
Mudfrog, it's not remotely a red herring. You've just given an explanation that refers to cultural context. CONTEXT.
And yet, when people try to give an explanatino that refers to cultural context for certain OTHER injunctions, some won't hear of it.
Context is the absolute enemy of "the Bible says" kind of thinking. The Bible quite clearly says that women should wear head coverings. The only reason you can say that this applies to 1st century Corinthian women and not to 21st century Christian women everywhere is because you're able to analyse WHY the statement was made.
[ 28. July 2012, 09:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
By the way, there are clearly people who continue to take the hat thing seriously, and who despair at the number of women being led astray by false teaching in this area.
Worth reading. If only to grasp what it's like to be on the side of cultural context when someone is insisting that a Biblical statement continues to apply in the same literal form that it originally did.
And THIS rule is around 1,500 years closer to us, culturally, than the other one we've been tossing around.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
Absolutely, Orfeo. I think that the interpretation described by the group you linked to is a valid one, albeit not one to which many (including me) subscribe. It could be argued that since Paul invokes the view of the angels on the matter, and says that 'the very nature of things' teaches that this should be so, that this is one of those rules that should be obeyed whether we understand it or not. I know quite a few people who avoid black pudding, which is a similar issue IMO (did it come up earlier in the thread?).
On the subject of the number of fundamentalists in the UK, I don't share some folk's view of their rarity within mainstream churches. I certainly seem to keep falling amongst them, anyway! What I do find is that for the most part British fundamentalists tend to stick to imparting strong views on the usual Dead Horse topics, and don't seem to get as involved as the USAians in issues such as right-wing politics, headship and gun control.
I haven't heard much 'Left Behind' eschatology for a while, but I have a friend who seems to have swallowed wholesale the right-wing US viewpoint on Israel.
[edited to remove extraneous 'do's]
[ 28. July 2012, 10:48: Message edited by: mrs whibley ]
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fundamentalism increases when secularism is rife and I expect to see a certain hardening of the evangelical arteries in the UK in coming decades - with some segments becoming increasingly marginalised and disengaged from the surrounding culture and society. That said, at its best, evangelicalism has been able to adapt and use aspects of the surrounding culture in order to express the Gospel in an enculturated idiom - but there are tensions all ways round.
Some fundamentalists would surely say that there should be tension between themselves and the wider society! Other Christians seem far more ambiguous on the matter, skipping between approval and disapproval, at times trying to lead popular morality and at others, being led by it.
I don't think there's much point in being worried about the future of evangelicalism or fundamentalism without also being worried about the future of other parts of the church. Fundamentalism only matters if thrives while tolerant, cerebral, mainstream, caring Christianity fades away. But if they become equally marginal, on either side of a great sea of indifference, then they might as well just ignore each other.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some fundamentalists would surely say that there should be tension between themselves and the wider society!
Actually the phrase 'counter-cultural' is one which most mainstream churches want to claim - but actually fail spectacularly to demonstrate. In practice the lifestyle choices of the average Christian offer no evidence that they are living as disciples of Jesus. Funny that...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Mudfrog, it's not remotely a red herring. You've just given an explanation that refers to cultural context. CONTEXT.
And yet, when people try to give an explanatino that refers to cultural context for certain OTHER injunctions, some won't hear of it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It's those nasty liberals that try to put things in context all the time.
I'm afraid you're not allowed to Mudfrog!
(Unless you're listing to the liberal side? *God forbid*!)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I am very tempted (but I'm going to wimp out on it, partly because I haven't got the time to respond to it) to issue a general challenge to produce one single, solitary doctrine or moral principle which could not, with a modicum of effort and ingenuity, be explained away and nullified by a sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled application of contextualisation.
[ 29. July 2012, 04:25: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's those nasty liberals that try to put things in context all the time.
I'm afraid you're not allowed to Mudfrog!
(Unless you're listing to the liberal side? *God forbid*!)
Nope. It's those nasty Calvinists that try to put things in context all the time.
That scripture should always be interpreted taking into account the contexts of who the writer was, who it was written for and the culture in which they lived is an idea put forward by that great liberal thinker John Calvin. (But that's another thread.)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...a general challenge to produce one single, solitary doctrine or moral principle which could not, with a modicum of effort and ingenuity, be explained away and nullified by a sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled application of contextualisation.
Isn't this is rather easy - 'Love one another', 'Consider other's needs before your own', 'Submit to one another'. I'm sure there are more but those are just off the top of my head.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Posted on p. 3 of this thread by CSL1:
... I have no idea why Christians and others have gotten so foggy-headed on the same-sex issue and struggle to call it sin. [...] I know the debate well. I've been arouind nigh on five decades. And one side is decidedly shifty in it.
I have a theory which would explain why my conversation with CSL1 was going round in circles, why CSL1 thinks opponents in the same-sex relationships debate are 'shifty' and why CSL1 compared me to Clinton and Blair. It would also explain why CSL1, in good faith, found it difficult to answer my question 'how would you feel if someone compared your loving relationship to an abusive one.'
Years ago, I debated the same-sex relationships issue with a Christian friend. The argument went around in circles. Eventually, I realised that not only did he believe that same-sex relationships were wrong - he thought that I believed that, too - even when I had just explained why I disagreed with him! He was unshakeable in that belief. I found this quite disturbing.
CSL1, when you imagined yourself in a relationship that was being compared to an abusive one, you imagined yourself to be "living in a relationship that violated the precepts of my faith". You thought that you'd experience cognitive dissonance as a result. I was surprised by that. When I wrote 'your loving relationship' (in my question), I thought that you'd imagine yourself in a relationship which you believed to be right, not wrong.
The best explanation that I can think of is that - when Christians say that they disagree with you on the same-sex relationship then (like the friend I debated with, years ago) you think that they actually agree with you. If so, what would it take for you to accept that people genuinely disagree with you on this? In the debate with my friend, he was unshakeable in his conviction that I really agreed with him. For me, his closed mind seemed like a clear example of 'evangelicalism sliding into fundamentalism'.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really?
Sounds like Schliermacher's friend.
Which one?
He was pretty sociable.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...a general challenge to produce one single, solitary doctrine or moral principle which could not, with a modicum of effort and ingenuity, be explained away and nullified by a sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled application of contextualisation.
Isn't this is rather easy - 'Love one another', 'Consider other's needs before your own', 'Submit to one another'. I'm sure there are more but those are just off the top of my head.
Ah, this is nothing but what Neitzsche called a slave morality, produced by the subject status of the Jews under Roman occupation, and the even more poorer, weaker and worse-subjugated status of the early Christians.
Only a crude, foundationalistic fundamentalism would stick with such a pathetic and weak denial of the self.
Have we learned nothing from modern psychology, or from modern, liberal, individualistic politics?
First century people might have had no option but to be doormats, but we don't have to be!
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really?
Sounds like Schliermacher's friend.
Which one?
He was pretty sociable.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Calvin. Calvin and Schliermacher sound like they may have got along if Balaam is correct.....yet I thought it was Schliermacher that really instituted (no pun intended) that particular hermeneutical method....
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Really Evensong
Schleiermacher is a Reformed Theologian as much as Calvin albeit of the Liberal variety You'd expect there to be similarities and able to talk theology to each other although they are centuries and countries apart. Sometime I must create a time line of Reformed theologians out of interest. Its not just Zwingli, Calvin and stop.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I wasn't disagreeing Jengie - merely curious.
My knowledge of modern theologians (apart from Schleirmacher ) is abysmal.
Calvin always seems to be given a hard time by my ilk but I've been reading some Marylynne Robinson lately and she puts quite a different spin on the usual caricature of Calvin. Tho perhaps she's not on board with neo-Calvinism...?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I'm certainly no authority on modern theologians either, but I cannot think of any contemporary, self-professed Calvinist - theologian, Bible scholar, polemicist, whatever - who would have much sympathy with Schleiermacher.
Calvin certainly emphasised the grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture, but to the extent that Schleiermacher did, he drew radically different conclusions from those of Calvin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am very tempted (but I'm going to wimp out on it, partly because I haven't got the time to respond to it) to issue a general challenge to produce one single, solitary doctrine or moral principle which could not, with a modicum of effort and ingenuity, be explained away and nullified by a sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled application of contextualisation.
Well if it's ruthless and unprincipled, the answer is quite likely to be that there isn't one. If you can still even CALL that contextualisation. To me, context involves pointing to real, tangible material. Not conjured up explanations.
This is actually why, when I was investigating the issue of homosexuality, that I threw away an awful lot of 'pro-gay' guff. Because the explanations didn't hold up.
The stuff I did hold onto was the stuff that genuinely took the text seriously, that didn't come across like it was just trying to explain it away for the sake of convenience. That I couldn't immediately poke holes in. And especially if it could provide links and resonances with material elsewhere.
(Do you know what to me is the most persuasive argument that the 'sin of Sodom' was inhospitality? It suddenly makes Luke 10:8-12 ring out with a startling degree of meaning, WAY more meaning than it does if Sodom is just 'the ultimate bad city'.)
At the same time, though, there was plenty of 'anti-gay' stuff that I equally chucked away because of its weak explanations and justifications.
(I think the one that stuck with me, unfortunately, was the one that basically said "Pfft! Of course the sin of Sodom wasn't inhospitality. Who thinks inhospitality is a big deal?". Well, anyone who has the slightest clue about Middle Eastern culture, for starters.)
Lets face it, there is plenty of stuff on both sides of the 'fence' that has no rigour to it. It's the stuff that actually wrestles with serious questions that interests me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...a general challenge to produce one single, solitary doctrine or moral principle which could not, with a modicum of effort and ingenuity, be explained away and nullified by a sufficiently ruthless and unprincipled application of contextualisation.
Isn't this is rather easy - 'Love one another', 'Consider other's needs before your own', 'Submit to one another'. I'm sure there are more but those are just off the top of my head.
Ah, this is nothing but what Neitzsche called a slave morality, produced by the subject status of the Jews under Roman occupation, and the even more poorer, weaker and worse-subjugated status of the early Christians.
Only a crude, foundationalistic fundamentalism would stick with such a pathetic and weak denial of the self.
Have we learned nothing from modern psychology, or from modern, liberal, individualistic politics?
First century people might have had no option but to be doormats, but we don't have to be!
I've got a very nice quotation from Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch's recent article on the Cathars in the
Times Literary Supplement to post later.
But first, a quick defense of Nietzsche. It's by no means clear that he meant to attack Christianity by calling it a "slave morality." He saw the ethical teachings of Christianity as the only defense the powerless had against the attacks of the powerful, who held their lives in their hands. (As to what this might have meant to slaves in the ancient world, see the Spartan institution of the krypteia.)
What to do when the powerful have you so absolutely at their mercy? Why, teach them to be merciful, and teach them that they must.
Nietzsche rather admired the cleverness of this maneuver by the early Christians.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but this bears reading in the context of the present discussion.
Thanks to Bishop Alan Wilson's Facebook for the link to this challenging article.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
'sin of Sodom'
I have never regarded the Sodom episode as having the remotest bearing on the question of the rightness or wrongness of homosexual practices.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
'sin of Sodom'
I have never regarded the Sodom episode as having the remotest bearing on the question of the rightness or wrongness of homosexual practices.
Good-oh. Smart person. That was the first and simplest illustration that came to my head, probably because it's the easiest one to demolish.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Sorry to double-post, but this bears reading in the context of the present discussion.
Thanks to Bishop Alan Wilson's Facebook for the link to this challenging article.
That blog had the ring about it of one of these conversations:
"Pastor, a lot of people are upset about this."
"Who is upset?"
"Oh, they have asked me not to say, but there really are lots of people."
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Sorry to double-post, but this bears reading in the context of the present discussion.
Thanks to Bishop Alan Wilson's Facebook for the link to this challenging article.
That blog had the ring about it of one of these conversations:
"Pastor, a lot of people are upset about this."
"Who is upset?"
"Oh, they have asked me not to say, but there really are lots of people."
That doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomanea though. You will notice among the comments one by Peter Enns. He studied under Professor Kugel at Harvard, and what he learnt led him to challenge slightly the traditional model of inerrancy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns#Controversy
If you read that, you'll see exactly the same sentiments that were expressed in the blog post:
"WTS President Peter Lillback expressed that it "has caught the attention of the world so that we have scholars that love this book, and scholars who have criticized it very deeply…. We have students who have read it say it has liberated them. We have other students that say it's crushing their faith and removing them from their hope. We have churches that are considering it, and two Presbyteries have said they will not send students to study under Professor Enns here."
Note the last sentence.
Personally, I think he's well within the bounds of orthodoxy, but WTS ultimately did not and he was fired.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
mousethief: it ain´t you, it´s me ... I´m emerging ... several years ago here you were rightly amused at my outrage - as a then Evangelical - at theosis.
I´m no longer outraged.
CSL1: anadromously I think you repeated the legalistic position - held in common by Liberals and Evangelicals (and Romans etc) - that divorce is a sin, and so therefore can´remarriage be.
It can be.
Ah yes, it was about the woman contemplating divorce for her husband´s bankruptcies etc. A true grey area I would submit, in general. Failure to provide (on both ´sides´) was, is and always shall be grounds for divorce. There are RIGHTS in the marriage contract, always have been. Marriage is not some wierd extra-canonical, irrevocable, spooky state. It´s a contract where grace is needed aboce ALL.
If we´re get to get timelessly pre and postmodern, let´s.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Sorry to double-post, but this bears reading in the context of the present discussion.
Thanks to Bishop Alan Wilson's Facebook for the link to this challenging article.
That blog had the ring about it of one of these conversations:
"Pastor, a lot of people are upset about this."
"Who is upset?"
"Oh, they have asked me not to say, but there really are lots of people."
That doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomanea though. You will notice among the comments one by Peter Enns. He studied under Professor Kugel at Harvard, and what he learnt led him to challenge slightly the traditional model of inerrancy:
Peter Enns actually wrote the blog didn't he? So sort of predictable he'd be voicing exactly the same sentiments?
Considering his history it's not really surprising that he thinks it's a really big issue. And it may be. But personally I think "loads of people think this, I just can't tell you who" is a naff debating technique.
[ 30. July 2012, 09:29: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Wait, there's a seminary where the lecturers are required to teach that the Pope is the anti-Christ? Ok...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think "loads of people think this, I just can't tell you who" is a naff debating technique.
What's the guy supposed to do? He doesn't want to break confidentiality, but he's keen to raise what he thinks is a major issue in Christian scholarship. For what it's worth, I suspect he's right and I think he's bang on the money regarding cognitive dissonance.
I see it with several of my friends; they are educated people who, in other areas of life, can critically examine ideas and claims, but when it comes to matters of the faith they just dismiss evidence that contradicts their view. (I'm thinking in particular of creationism / evolution here, but it's broader than just this issue.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think "loads of people think this, I just can't tell you who" is a naff debating technique.
What's the guy supposed to do? He doesn't want to break confidentiality, but he's keen to raise what he thinks is a major issue in Christian scholarship. For what it's worth, I suspect he's right and I think he's bang on the money regarding cognitive dissonance.
He could, for example, tell us how many people he is talking about compared to the number of evangelicals in academia overall. I suspect the percentage he knows are struggling are a tiny tiny number.
But really, I think he's perfectly capable of raising the issue from his own experience. If there are others they should speak up in the name of academic integrity or keep quiet because they'd rather live in the status quo. Not promote some sort of online whispering campaign, which is no way to discuss an academic issue.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But really, I think he's perfectly capable of raising the issue from his own experience. If there are others they should speak up in the name of academic integrity or keep quiet because they'd rather live in the status quo.
At the risk of their careers? When even the mildest critiques (Enns') ends up with losing ones job? See the fate of Bruce Waltke.
At the moment a number of people in American Evangelicalism are keyed up for any challenges on the areas of inerrancy or YEC. Anything that seems strike at either of these will end up with the person involved being piled on by the likes of Mohler, Patterson etc.
Similarly anyone with who has studied either biblical studies or science at a 'secular' university can only survive at that sort of evangelical institution by discounting the majority of they learnt.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Leprechaun
I'm not a theologian, but my understanding was that the clergy have been unsettled by the consequences of their theological training since Victorian times. This is hardly a new thing, and these days it's not only card-carrying evangelicals who are affected. I've been in quite mainstream settings where clergy and theologians have confided that they couldn't or wouldn't reveal what they really believed to their congregations.
Being more interested in the sociology than the theology of these things, I think it's the inevitable gentrification of evangelicalism that leads to this kind of dissonance. Congregations that are growing in respectability no longer want passionate but ill-educated pastors, so they send them off for degrees and diplomas, etc. But the price they pay is that the gap between themselves and their pastors grows wider. The ministry becomes more dependent upon intellectual prowess, and therefore attracts a different kind of candidate. Sooner or later, it has to attract a different kind of congregation (most obviously, fewer poor people), but in any case, you end up with a church less at ease with itself, because the clergy can no longer 'speak to' the congregation in the same way, and the congregation are no longer on the same wavelength as the clergy.
I'm not saying that evangelical clergy shouldn't be intellectuals, but the transition is often problematic.
(Evangelicals in the CofE probably undergo a different sociological process, though. It would be interesting to analyse what makes them different.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But really, I think he's perfectly capable of raising the issue from his own experience. If there are others they should speak up in the name of academic integrity or keep quiet because they'd rather live in the status quo.
At the risk of their careers? When even the mildest critiques (Enns') ends up with losing ones job? See the fate of Bruce Waltke.
The "fate"? He moved from one evangelical seminary to another, within the same state. It's hardly penury. And Peter Enns hasn't exactly done badly out of it either - Incarnation and Inspiration wasn't on my Amazon wish list until it all kicked off at WTS, and I guess I'm not the only one.
Anyway, it doesn't help evangelicalism be intellectually honest to say "lots of people feel like me, they just won't say." It simply feeds the climate of suspicion and limits learning from each other.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The "fate"? He moved from one evangelical seminary to another, within the same state. It's hardly penury.
I was referring more to the fact that expressing mild levels of scepticism lost him his job. He was well known and well respected and was able to get another job with a less prestigious institution (probably losing out on the benefits of seniority in the process).
quote:
Anyway, it doesn't help evangelicalism be intellectually honest to say "lots of people feel like me, they just won't say." It simply feeds the climate of suspicion and limits learning from each other.
It doesn't really help if evangelicals keep shooting the messenger - and all the evidence is that questioning creationism or inerrancy causes problems for you if you are an American evangelical.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It doesn't really help if evangelicals keep shooting the messenger - and all the evidence is that questioning creationism or inerrancy causes problems for you if you are an American evangelical.
Are you aware that you have turned a criticism of evangelicals into one about American evangelicals?
Personally I think it is a pretty fair call, about American evangelicalism that is, but I'm not convinced it applies to global (or even English speaking) evangelicalism.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It doesn't really help if evangelicals keep shooting the messenger - and all the evidence is that questioning creationism or inerrancy causes problems for you if you are an American evangelical.
Are you aware that you have turned a criticism of evangelicals into one about American evangelicals?
Personally I think it is a pretty fair call, about American evangelicalism that is, but I'm not convinced it applies to global (or even English speaking) evangelicalism.
I'm always hearing that "British evangelicals aren't like that." [Or even "English-speaking Evangelicals aren't like that."] But where is the evidence for it?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you aware that you have turned a criticism of evangelicals into one about American evangelicals?
Personally I think it is a pretty fair call, about American evangelicalism that is, but I'm not convinced it applies to global (or even English speaking) evangelicalism.
Yes, I'm aware of that the examples I gave were US centric, and I agree with you that it's more of an issue over there than it is over here in the UK.
It does depend on what sort of circles you move in though, and it is my personal belief that in some circles it is becoming more of an issue - as they take cues from the US based movements that influence them heavily.
The thread is about the evangelical slide into fundamentalism after all.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
I'm always hearing that "British evangelicals aren't like that." [Or even "English-speaking Evangelicals aren't like that."] But where is the evidence for it?
Huh? You want evidence to prove a negative?
Isn't the question - where is the evidence that British evangelicals are like that?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Huh? You want evidence to prove a negative?
[Tangent]
I have seen this notion expressed often -- "You can't prove a negative" and similar. AFAICS, it is complete nonsense. I can say, e.g., that I have evidence that the world is round or that the world is not flat. The same evidence that counts for establishing the positive statement counts for establishing the negative statement. If anything, the negative statement should be easier to establish, as it allows for greater variation in what shape the world actually has. [/Tangent]
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Huh? You want evidence to prove a negative?
[Tangent]
I have seen this notion expressed often -- "You can't prove a negative" and similar. AFAICS, it is complete nonsense. I can say, e.g., that I have evidence that the world is round or that the world is not flat. The same evidence that counts for establishing the positive statement counts for establishing the negative statement. If anything, the negative statement should be easier to establish, as it allows for greater variation in what shape the world actually has. [/Tangent]
--Tom Clune
Only if you can find an equal but opposite positive statement, in other words one which is mutually exclusive with the other, where the two of them cover all the bases, i.e. there is no case which isn't one or the other. Only then does disproof of the positive equal proof of the negative, or vice versa.
The "positive" of, "No X are Y" is "All Y are not-X." It's not like the world is flat or the world is not-flat. We're talking about a universal negative which is notoriously difficult to prove. You never know when the one black swan in all of existence is going to fly over the horizon.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Huh? You want evidence to prove a negative?
[Tangent]
I have seen this notion expressed often -- "You can't prove a negative" and similar. AFAICS, it is complete nonsense. I can say, e.g., that I have evidence that the world is round or that the world is not flat. The same evidence that counts for establishing the positive statement counts for establishing the negative statement. If anything, the negative statement should be easier to establish, as it allows for greater variation in what shape the world actually has. [/Tangent]
--Tom Clune
Only if you can find an equal but opposite positive statement, in other words one which is mutually exclusive with the other, where the two of them cover all the bases, i.e. there is no case which isn't one or the other.
You can see that this is false in the example that I gave. Saying that the world is round is considerably more restrictive than saying that the world is not flat. For example, offering evidence that the world is toroidal would count as supporting the assertion that the world is not flat, but would also count as evidence that the world is not round. The real point, though, is that statements containing the word "not" are not somehow massively more immune from demonstration than statements lacking that word.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think the real issue is the negative universal, as illustrated by the claim there are no black swans. It can't be "proven" until you know for a fact you have seen every single swan in the world.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think the real issue is the negative universal, as illustrated by the claim there are no black swans. It can't be "proven" until you know for a fact you have seen every single swan in the world.
But how is that different from a positive universal? Is it any harder to prove that no swans are black than to prove that all swans are white? There really doesn't seem to be any basis in fact for this old "Can't prove a negative" canard that I can see.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
...but my presumption of good faith is wearing a bit thin....jumping through yet another hoop will help you.
I'm acting in good faith here, but I fully admit I'm trying to back you into a corner so that you face the consequences of your ethos. You still haven't answered my question about the farmer and the sheep or the adult and the eight year old.
Explain your purposive approach in relationship to those specific examples, just as I specifically told you--but you missed it due to skimming--how I would feel.
Since when do either sheep or eight year olds have the capacity to stand up to you and say "I love this man, what we're doing isn't wrong?"
Because if you're asking about the farmer or the adult, you're asking the wrong question.
So your criterion for determining whether something is morally non-objectionable is if all parties to the activity are: 1). consenting and 2). have the capacity to render the opinion that their particular activity is not objectionable?
Wouldn't that take a Deity or any higher standard-giver out of the formulation? Couldn't that lead to morally objectionable results?
E.g., assume a high priest with a knife to the throat of a sacrificial virgin, assume both "have the capacity to stand up to you and say 'what we're doing isn't wrong'?" Now, does that make the human sacrifice right?
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
For example, a child of eight can certainly consent to playing rec football...
Every rec football league I've ever known required parental consent before the child could participate.
That's beside the point. Of course for liability reasons (and don't argue with me here, I'm a law prof, this much I know ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) organizations require parental/guardian consent. My point was as between the parent and child, a child can say "Yes mom/dad, I'd like to play football." That was the only point I was making. From that premise, I wanted to try and discern whether the person with whom I was debating made any distinction between sex and other activities which we'd all agree a child can form an opinion upon, and if so, why/why not?
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Leprechaun - thank you, that's helpful. I think you're right, we almost understand each other. Maybe you can help out with my conversation with CSL1, which is going around in circles. When neither side in a debate thinks that the other is really listening, then the chances of 'almost understanding each other' seem distant.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
... Here's what I said, a direct quote:
"I'd probably be experiencing severe cognitive dissonance, I'd probably have developed a certain defensiveness, I'd likely feel angry and try to find some weak spot in the accuser who compared my relationship to other sins.
So I answered your question. ...
In the post that you quoted, you assumed that you were imagining yourself to be in an "objectively wrong" relationship. If you read my posts, then you know that wasn't what I meant. I asked how you'd feel in one situation; you told me how you'd feel in a different situation. You're still not answering the question.
OK, I'll answer it now--though I feel led to believe I'm the one being led about in circles while you give the most circular and vague responses to my very direct questions, but, here goes...
If someone said that a monogamous sexual relationship between a married man and woman of 23 years was comparable to beastiality, I'd feel as if the person to whom I was speaking was irrational and confused, I'd be nonplussed. If the person persisted in this, challenging my relationship, I'd think they were deranged, I might get irritated, angry, or, if my better side was operating, I'd feel sympathy and compassion for the accuser in their delusion.
Why? Because there is absolutely no standard in any religious system in the history of the world--and certainly not in my religious tradition--that would condemn such a relationship! This is most undoubtedly not the case with homosexual practices, which are condemned by a number of religious traditions, including my own.
So in light of that fact, I'm at a loss for your line of questioning here.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Posted on p. 3 of this thread by CSL1:
... I have no idea why Christians and others have gotten so foggy-headed on the same-sex issue and struggle to call it sin. [...] I know the debate well. I've been arouind nigh on five decades. And one side is decidedly shifty in it.
I have a theory which would explain why my conversation with CSL1 was going round in circles, why CSL1 thinks opponents in the same-sex relationships debate are 'shifty' and why CSL1 compared me to Clinton and Blair. It would also explain why CSL1, in good faith, found it difficult to answer my question 'how would you feel if someone compared your loving relationship to an abusive one.'
Years ago, I debated the same-sex relationships issue with a Christian friend. The argument went around in circles. Eventually, I realised that not only did he believe that same-sex relationships were wrong - he thought that I believed that, too - even when I had just explained why I disagreed with him! He was unshakeable in that belief. I found this quite disturbing.
CSL1, when you imagined yourself in a relationship that was being compared to an abusive one, you imagined yourself to be "living in a relationship that violated the precepts of my faith". You thought that you'd experience cognitive dissonance as a result. I was surprised by that. When I wrote 'your loving relationship' (in my question), I thought that you'd imagine yourself in a relationship which you believed to be right, not wrong.
The best explanation that I can think of is that - when Christians say that they disagree with you on the same-sex relationship then (like the friend I debated with, years ago) you think that they actually agree with you.
Trust me here, at no point in our exchanges have I for a second thought that you agreed with me. Thought never crossed my mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
If so, what would it take for you to accept that people genuinely disagree with you on this?
That train, my dear Alwyn, has already arrived. I am quite well aware that a very large number of people are want to fudge this issue, was that not the very point of my post that you referenced? I said that a large number of Christians have gone fuzzy-headed on this issue. My whole point was that a large number disagree with me! I simply don't get you, what are you thinking?.
[ 30. July 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: CSL1 ]
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
