tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post6826462925948165883..comments2023-06-30T07:19:03.441-07:00Comments on The Golden Ass: Walt Disney Is Christian GreyJason Hesiakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-40976434006874731962016-02-26T07:24:58.252-08:002016-02-26T07:24:58.252-08:00Still no sign of Erdman. Briefly on your latest, I...Still no sign of Erdman. Briefly on your latest, I can live with that. I too regard Zizek as an author of speculative fiction; also Freud and Nietzsche. I haven't read enough Marx to say, but it seems clear that a lot of people respond, both pro and con, to an image rather than to what Marx actually wrote. I'd say that my own book about Genesis 1 is a fiction, even if it's based on tight exegesis and reads like I'm trying to argue for its truth value. Eventually I rewrote that book, framed it as a six-day conversation going on in a medieval (or maybe post-apocalyptic) inn populated entirely by theologians. In a sense it's like Screwtape Letters, which for me works better as a novella than as an allegorical instruction manual infused by that legendary upper-class British sense of humour.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-54592067709650797592016-02-25T14:14:38.259-08:002016-02-25T14:14:38.259-08:00OK quickly before I head back to work...
The hist...OK quickly before I head back to work...<br /><br />The historical limitation of the kingdom of God isn't really an option for me. That's because of God's covenant with David. From 2 Samuel 7:<br /><br />And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”<br /><br />Of course, the point is, that was fulfilled in Jesus. The enemies from which rest was given were sin, Satan, and death. Part of why that covenant with David is important, too, is because of the primary theme of Romans - God's faithfulness, that God keeps His word. That has implications for your point about obedience, too. Of course, that doesn't mean that the story of God isn't a story of God at work in history. The familial focus in the NT is, I think, because of the presence of Jesus the son and because of our union with him. <br /><br />On infallibility:<br />I do not hold to the doctrine of infallibility. That doesn't mean that I don't take the scriptures to have authority derived from and extended out of the presence of Jesus Christ, who is the living Word and who has final authority. This means that the question of authority is at least partially addressed by practice, not just a doctrine. That, in turn, means that the scriptures proclaim the gospel. <br /><br />"Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true."<br /><br />That's interesting. I feel the similarly about, say, Zizek. Or W.B. Yeates, Le Corbusier, E.E. Cummings, the Coen Brothers. It would not be a stretch to say I love them all (Yeates would be a possible stretch, because I've had to distance myself from him, because I've had to break from allegiance to him). <br /><br />"Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being 'more human' than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam."<br /><br />Well, keep in mind that part of what I meant by that was that the Spirit doesn't make Christians into gods (but, rather, into men). That said, I could understand the offense. I have thought about that before, actually. But, I also think the shame, guilt, and alienation of my past left me in a place of feeling (or actually?) less than human, anyway. Kind of just makes sense. <br /><br />As for the whole justification for jihad thing - again, not if the model human is the one spoken of in Philippians 2 (serving, self-sacrificial love to the point of "obedience unto death"). In other words, to be human again is to be able to love fully God and others. Being human doesn't mean triumphalism. And, if it does mean triumphalism, then it's not being human again (but, rather, is either being less than or grasping for being more than human).Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-80371434059731149342016-02-25T08:37:42.891-08:002016-02-25T08:37:42.891-08:00On Erdman - sweet thanks.
On the rest - I have to...On Erdman - sweet thanks.<br /><br />On the rest - I have to get moving. Will return to this tonight. Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-13149656704193496952016-02-25T03:52:00.970-08:002016-02-25T03:52:00.970-08:00Certainly your exegesis is sound, Hesmaniak. There...Certainly your exegesis is sound, Hesmaniak. There are at least three options available for entertaining my speculations. <br /><br />One, the relationships and status differentials made explicit in the Bible might be historically limited rather than eternal. In Israel a king replaced the judges at some point in time; there was no eternal need for kingship to have taken hold, especially since God seemed to regard the king idea as a concession to the people's weakness. So kingship too might have been a time-limited intervention, even for God. For that matter even the exclusivity of Israel was a time-limited project, as we've discussed. To my recollection God never, or rarely, is called father in the OT, whereas in the NT God is addressed quite often by that more familial and familiar appellation. Obedience too could be a time-limited expectation. Obedience to a king presumably is permanent, even if the subjects are adults and the king is a child. Obedience to a parent is for children; when we become adults we put away childish things. I.e., God could have made shifts in his expectations over historical time, during the playing out of the fifth act. And since that act isn't scripted in Scripture it's the wrong place to look for your lines and your cues and your narrative arcs.<br /><br />Two, the Bible might not be inerrant or infallible, and so the writings contained therein should not be treated as gospel, so to speak. That's not a novel approach even among Christians, as I'm sure you'd acknowledge.<br /><br />Three, it's possible to regard all of these alternate theological possibilities as nuanced themes and plots and character developments in an arcane literary genre. Is it a nonfictional genre, where people down through the ages give expression to their ineffable encounters with the sublime? Or is it a kind of fan fiction?<br /><br />As a nonbeliever I'll take door number three. Are Christians living inside a fiction or a collective memoir? I guess I'll leave both possibilities open, along with others to which I've not given due consideration. While I'm pretty confident that God didn't create the world, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that he doesn't currently exist bodily in heaven, that the world will not be restored through God's intervention, it's possible that I'm wrong. And I do believe that people undergo transcendent experiences, including myself. Like the Catholic proliferation of saints and art, the Protestant proliferation of theological nuances can become a source of delight, even of inspiration, regardless of whether I believe any of those nuances to be true.<br /><br />Back to the church in the world and possible alliances between believers and nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, maybe it's enough for me that the Christians don't envision any particular earthly leaders as embodying greater approximations to a god incarnate, who sets policies supposedly dictated by God and to whom the other believers give obeisance. Also, I find it offensive for Christians to regard themselves as being "more human" than non-Christians, as Wright would have it -- sounds too much like whites being more human than blacks, or a justification for America and Europe to declare jihad on Islam. Otherwise, if Christians want to serve a king who has no material form that I can see, then whether he's imaginary or not doesn't really matter to me. If I can find common cause with some Christians and not others, that's fine; it's not like I find common cause with all nonbelievers either.<br /><br />As for Erdman, maybe he's slipped through an iconic portal into the eighth dimension. I'll drop him an email to see if he's been lurking here or if he got bored and moved on to more salient matters.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-27098648021911205192016-02-24T20:07:12.485-08:002016-02-24T20:07:12.485-08:00On the Jesus occupying two places in one...yes, so...On the Jesus occupying two places in one...yes, sort of, I guess. But the key here is that Christ is present in the church by extension through the work of the Spirit. That the distinction between Christ and his "body" the church is also highlighted by the fact that he stands over the church from his seat of authority in heaven as judge of the church.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-5012231534986076232016-02-24T19:52:27.646-08:002016-02-24T19:52:27.646-08:00"This would move toward a more horizontally d..."This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth."<br /><br />Definitively not. As N.T. Wright discusses a lot, often, and in detail, what being justified and glorified does is make humans more human, make us the humans we were made to be, restores the imageo dei. "Rule, fill, subdue." And, there is a difference between being - somewhat like the statues and images of any king in any territory of said king - as images of Him, representatives of God in God's territory, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being gods.<br /><br />"...it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."<br /><br />No. Hebrews 2 quotes Psalm 8, which is a royal Psalm about the King - obviously fulfilled in Jesus, which Hebrews 2 makes explicit. Hebrews 2 ends up heading to the image of Jesus as humanity's high priest. Obviously, then, the distinction remains. Part of the Christian tradition is that Jesus sits at the right hand of God as our mediator. The fact that he "had to be made like his brothers in every respect" (v. 17) obviously implies that there is a difference.<br /><br />And, the word "status" in the context of scriptural references brings to mind another scripture that puts these passages from Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 in perspective. Philippians 2:<br /><br />"5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."<br /><br />"...those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth."<br />And the charge of "ruling" as his representative. But the whole point of the "rule" of humanity is that it points to the ultimate rule of God. Obviously, then, again, the distinction is maintained.<br /><br />"To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry."<br /><br />Yes, agreed.<br /><br />"On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children?"<br /><br />No, absolutely not. The whole crux of the story is that faith in and love of God leads to "obedience of faith." If I had a kid, I wouldn't expect, nor rightfully require, such absolute obedience, because I'm not God! God, however, well, is God.<br /><br />"And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?"<br /><br />Because the firstborn "brother" is also God (in the flesh). The "younger siblings," however, are not God.<br /><br />Anyway, especially since this thread started with the accusation of imperialism, let's not forget that the obedience to which the brothers are called is that of "obedience unto death" in serving, self-sacrificial love. Again, Phil. 2. <br /><br />Anyway, speaking of that accusation, where's Erdman? Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-42403548925440525062016-02-24T19:49:02.180-08:002016-02-24T19:49:02.180-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-91280453102494978222016-02-24T19:48:28.945-08:002016-02-24T19:48:28.945-08:00Where two or more are gathered, firstborn of many ...Where two or more are gathered, firstborn of many brethren...are something more like ontological statements about the Spirit's work and participation in earthly affairs.<br /><br />And, my position is not that Jesus exists only in physical form. I have just been highlighting the fact that he didn't lose his corporeality in/after the ascension. I have been doing that partially because his wounds are the marks of his self-sacrifice and service, which we are to imitate in our proper restoration to the imageo dei. It also highlights the fact that the truth of the ascension is a mystery, since Jesus is in physical form but the whole point of heaven being God's throne is that heaven encompasses the whole earth (Psalm 19). <br /><br />"Or does he manifest himself spiritually as well, in such a way that he's present communally among the believers?"<br /><br />I don't think the Spirit is a "manifestation" of Jesus. In the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons (and one "essence"). <br /><br />"then isn't it plausible that the spiritual presence of Christ is not concentrated more intensely and powerfully among the leaders, but is in effect spread equally across the whole Christian collective?"<br /><br />Regardless of the above about "manifestation" vs. persons, I basically believe this to be true - the presence of Jesus extended into the church and the world through the work of the Spirit. In whom and how or how "intensely" the Spirit works, though, is up the Spirit. How "equal" or not it is, I'm not too worried about or really interested in. But, basically, if comparing humans to humans as compared to comparing humans to God, well, we might as well be equal(ly sinful and mortal). <br /><br />"This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth."<br /><br />Maybe. But, I certainly don't have a papist structure in mind, lol. <br /><br />To be continued...Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-69088992587942853802016-02-24T19:10:35.555-08:002016-02-24T19:10:35.555-08:00Maybe the clearer position on Jesus is this: Jesus...Maybe the clearer position on Jesus is this: Jesus occupies two places at one. One, he is in heaven seated bodily at the right hand. Two, he is on earth, taking as his bodily form the totality of all living Christians. john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-22675677895610304892016-02-24T18:57:08.653-08:002016-02-24T18:57:08.653-08:00I was thinking not only about church polity but al...I was thinking not only about church polity but also about the relationship between Jesus and the church becoming less hierarchical. Body of Christ, mind of Christ, where two or more are gathered, firstborn of many brethren -- are these to be regarded as metaphors, or as something more like ontological statements about Jesus's participation in earthly affairs? I understand your aversion to stinky metaphysical gas, but is it your position that Jesus exists exclusively in physical form in some ascendant plateau usually known as heaven? Or does he manifest himself spiritually as well, in such a way that he's present communally among the believers? If so, then isn't it plausible that the spiritual presence of Christ is not concentrated more intensely and powerfully among the leaders, but is in effect spread equally across the whole Christian collective? This would move toward a more horizontally distributed body and mind of Christ on earth. <br /><br />Taking it another step, possibly a borderline heretical one... Per Romans 8:29-30, if Jesus is firstborn among many brethren, and if the brethren are conformed to his image, and if those brethren aren't only justified but are also glorified, then isn't the distinction between Jesus and his brethren reduced considerably? I don't think you'd need to adopt some version of Orthodox theosis, where individual humans in effect become godlike. But it would seem that in passages like Romans 8 and Hebrews 2 there's less of a status differential between Jesus and the collective of those who come after, who are conformed to his image and glorified and positioned to resume the charge of subduing the earth.<br /><br />As a parent, I expect my kid not to remain lower in status to me as she matures. I also don't expect her to obey me. She should honor me in the same way as I honor her. To assert permanent authority over one's adult children, and to expect to be the final decision-maker in their lives, is a kind of self-idolatry. On similar grounds, wouldn't God the Father feel similarly about his maturing children? And why should the firstborn brother expect to retain authority over the younger siblings once they've reached adulthood?john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-80077100151118918622016-02-24T14:52:17.625-08:002016-02-24T14:52:17.625-08:00Also, for clarity, I generally regard the basic ur...Also, for clarity, I generally regard the basic urge of Christiandom as unchristian.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-60310520837504523492016-02-24T14:42:06.956-08:002016-02-24T14:42:06.956-08:00I would have zero problem with more horizontally d...I would have zero problem with more horizontally distributed church governance... Even like the idea...so long as we're talking about how a local body is visibly governed. But Jesus the King still sits at the right hand of God in physical form, the glory of his wounds still present. Even at the the consummation, the full frition, Christ is still Lord of Lords, and it's his presence that brings the full fruition in the first place.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-5100520616164704862016-02-24T13:14:29.273-08:002016-02-24T13:14:29.273-08:00Yes those are Graham quotes. There should be a clo...Yes those are Graham quotes. There should be a closed quote just before the altar call sentence.<br /><br />Certainly hierarchical governance figures prominently in the Bible. One could construe a speculative version of "fifth act" Christianity where hierarchy is set aside. There are Biblical passages that could point the way, some of which we've alluded to in this thread. Where two or more are gathered in my name there I am, we are the body of Christ, we have the mind of Christ, the firstborn of many brethren, the priesthood of believers, etc. Taken together, passages like these *could* be foreshadowing a more distributed horizontal governance, one that was beginning to take shape in the first century and that might come into greater fulfillment once the era of imperial Christendom centered in Rome and Constantinople, and maybe also in America, had been dismantled.<br /><br />I'll have to give further consideration to your familial melodrama and report my findings later.<br /><br /> john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-37187685897227716602016-02-24T11:53:54.118-08:002016-02-24T11:53:54.118-08:00Oops. Meant to say I could see how a non Christian...Oops. Meant to say I could see how a non Christian would see the hierarchical nature of the gospel as imperialist. (Especially considering the church's history of and with Christendom).Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-86519505077073498132016-02-24T10:25:41.059-08:002016-02-24T10:25:41.059-08:00Anyway, Erdman has disappeared, so I want to addre...Anyway, Erdman has disappeared, so I want to address this hierarchy thing.<br /><br />I can easily see how a "hierarchical" gospel that begins and ends with the kingdom of God (as the book of Acts does, btw) would or could very easily see that as imperialist, colonialist, whatever. (How or why Fundamentalist, I don't really know, though).<br /><br />But, for a Christian to say that just doesn't make any sense to me. The entrance into the Christian life in the first place, whether in the abstract or through/in a local body, is by submission to God and His ways. Part of the original intention for Adam was to "fill, rule, and subdue." Those realities and that language extended into the terms of the covenant with Israel. Again, see Deut. 27-30, which includes language of rule - rule over enemies, not being slaves to foreigners, etc, the opposite of which was the case under the curses of the covenant. And, again, Christ was the fulfillment of the covenant. Thomas, when he sees the risen Christ, declares, "My Lord and my God!" So, I don't understand how hierarchy could possibly be considered anything other than exactly the heart and center of the gospel. What surprised people was that their Lord and God was a crucified savior and that such an act of submission, service, and self-sacrificial love of the King of all of creation was the model for a new way of life. <br /><br />Also, I don't know how relevant this is, but the problem with over-bearing parents isn't hierarchy. "Honor your parents" obviously implies some obedience. The problem with exasperating parenting is idolatry. I know this from my experience as an exasperated child. <br /><br />Example: <br /><br />Daughter and Son-in-Law decide not to share the new baby name with anyone until the baby shower. Cousin who organizes the baby shower, by default, finds out the baby name. Mother has a problem with this, because it indicates the worth of the mother in relation to the Son-in-Law and, supposedly, to the cousin. (Not to mention the fact that the Mother had no input in the naming) These dynamics cause a HUGE family drama involving WAY too many people, blown WAY, WAY out of proportion. <br /><br />The problem here isn't that the Mother seeks to control and exert power over the daughter, per se. The problem is that the Mother finds her worth and identity in her child(ren). Out of that, the narrative of the daughter's baby shower was crafted by the hands of the Mother, so to speak. The narrative wasn't centered, based, or sourced on either the daughter, baby, or relationship between daughter, baby, and the Son-in-Law. Nor was the narrative of the baby shower crafted, so to speak, by some source over or higher than any of them (say, God). The daughter experiences this as exasperatingly controlling by the Mother and as a feeling of being trapped since the Mother is so butt-hurt that the cousin and Son-in-Law are apparently more important then her. Of course, the sacrifices to the idol here became the cousin and son-in-law, which made the dynamics of the event all the more difficult to navigate.<br />Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-51403076940846389392016-02-24T10:25:12.287-08:002016-02-24T10:25:12.287-08:00So, basically, it sounds like Hudson and Fitch bas...So, basically, it sounds like Hudson and Fitch basically agree but put it in different terms. <br /><br />"Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith."<br /><br />This is why Fitch refers to the alliance between evangelicalism and the state (whether it be capitalist or socialist) as an extension of Christendom. "The altar call was simple: 'If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian.'"<br /><br />"...the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society."<br /><br />N.T. Wright talks about the importance of the Scopes trial - set in TN and pitting the urban progressive evolutionists against the backwoods country bumpkin creationists and occurring with slavery and Jim Crow being not-at-all far in the background - in the formation of the uniqueness of American politico-social dynamics. The relationship between right, left, and the church in England is completely different. <br /><br />Anyway, Fitch highlights the discursive splits that arose out of those tensions within the American Protestant church. <br /><br />Also, in your second comment, were all those quotes FROM GRAHAM? Wow...<br /><br />"Since Communism was 'masterminded by Satan,' it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with 'flesh and blood and guns and bullets."'..."<br /><br />Recently, I noted to a conservative apologist on Fitch's FB page that, when I said that capitalism was "of the world," I simply meant that the source/cause was outside the church.Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-26881400275047642102016-02-24T05:04:08.467-08:002016-02-24T05:04:08.467-08:00Recently I read something about how business leade...Recently I read something about how business leaders in the 50s had a hand in revivalism a la Billy Graham, providing a lot of financial backing, organizational know-how, and mastery of the media to reinforce the cultural conservatism that had been destabilized during FDR's administration and WWII. Hudson again:<br /><br /><i>The political flavor of Graham's gospel had great appeal to ultraconservative segments of the population. Drawing a contrast with the Garden of Eden where there were "no union dues, no labor leaders, no snakes, no disease," Graham depicted the United States as "falling apart at the seams" as a result of deficit spending, "giveaway" foreign aid programs, "immorality in high places," the influence of "big labor" and "pinks and lavenders" in Washington, and "the infiltration of the left wing" into schools and churches. The "betrayals" at Yalta and Potsdam, the war in Korea, the bungling United Nations ("they set the policies and we shed the blood and pay the bills") were cited as evidence of the "deadly work" of Communism boring from within and were used to demonstrate that "we are living in the latter days" with a consequent urgency of repentance. Since Communism was "masterminded by Satan," it was a mistake to think that Satan can be defeated with "flesh and blood and guns and bullets." Only through a great revival, purging America of "the rats and termites that are subversively endeavoring to weaken the defense of this nation from within," could the United States be saved and the battle won, for "the greatest and most effective weapon against Communism today is the born-again Christian. The altar call was simple: "If you would be a true patriot, then become a Christian. If you would become a loyal American, becomes a loyal Christian."</i><br /><br />Clearly Falwell, Tea Party, and their man Trump continue this trajectory: make America great again through an alliance of traditional religion, xenophobia, military might, and big business. These are pretty much the pillars of fascism as previously erected by guys like Mussolini and Franco. The neo-evangelical outposts in a dying world seem driven by a different impulse, less triumphalist, in a sense less optimistic. It might constitute an even deeper conservatism: the world is going to hell, the best we can do is hunker down in our bunkers and ride out the shitstorm, issue invitations to those who might want to join us. On many levels I share this perspective, even if my bunker isn't a church.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-2020280493563427122016-02-24T05:03:35.835-08:002016-02-24T05:03:35.835-08:00Fitch's observations on the church prompted me...Fitch's observations on the church prompted me to pull Winthrop Hudson's <i>Religion in America</i> book off the shelf -- the main text in my American Church History class. He writes:<br /><br /><i>Despite the distractions of controversy and despite the shafts of ridicule directed by the "intellectuals" against those who made professions of religious faith, the mood of the Protestant churches in the 1920s was remarkably complacent. Curiously enough, during the very decades when Protestantism was reaching the peak of its prestige and apparent influence, the nerve which had impelled two centuries of advance was being cut. With its basic theological insights largely emasculated, Protestantism was robbed of any independently grounded vision of life and became more and more the creature of American culture rather than its creator. In this respect the culturally conditioned character of Fundamentalism was typical of Protestantism as a whole, the tension within Protestantism arising primarily out of the differing cultural orientation of the older agrarian and the newer urban society. "If the theology of the fundamentalists was archaic and anachronistic," Sidney E. Mead has observed, "that of the liberals was secularized and innocuous."</i><br /><br />That's pretty much what Fitch is saying. Hudson attributes the ineffectual turn in Protestantism to complacency, "victims of their own success." The American culture had become Protestantized, both in soul-saving and in social reform. <br /><br /><i>Proud of their achievements and pleased that their missions had been so largely accomplished, the churches relaxed and made peace with the world. From satisfaction with the culture, it was but a small step to the placing of confidence in the culture to nurture and sustain the Christian faith.</i><br /><br />[To be continued in the next comment...]john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-79068458219300743882016-02-23T14:39:07.442-08:002016-02-23T14:39:07.442-08:00"All I'm saying is that churches can pote..."All I'm saying is that churches can potentially calculate the likely popularity of changes they're considering, whether those changes are...And it sounds like you'd agree with that assessment of the situation in the commodified church."<br /><br />Oh...OK I get better now what you're saying. And yes, I would agree about the commodified church. I know for a fact that that happens, actually. I've had a pastor come out and explicitly say that he puts a lot of resources into the youth program, because it keeps people coming in the doors. <br /><br />"Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the 'kingdom of God' is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings."<br /><br />So, it's imperialist, because it's hierarchical? <br /><br />The difference is in HOW Caesar reigns as compared to HOW Jesus both reigns and revealed himself as the one who does so (as a crucified savior). Which Erdman discussed in detail, supposedly to refute me. <br /><br />As far as the final judgment of the world goes, I don't know, man. I don't have all the details worked out. I honestly don't even know if I believe in a hell or not (I tend to lean towards not, but I really dunno). I do, however, believe that there WILL BE some sort of final judgment of the world. The point Wright makes, again and again and in various places, is that that's a GOOD thing. As Wright says, why has that been forgotten? How can the world be put to rights if it there's no radical change that "requires" (meaning obviously involves) major sacrifices of the old? The change constitutes part of the act of judgment. And, btw, the language of those last four sentences all point very easily to the crucifixion of Jesus (as representative head of Israel and of humanity). (speaking of penal substitution)Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-32502041084439917292016-02-23T14:04:23.615-08:002016-02-23T14:04:23.615-08:00Sounds like we're tracking along nicely. Never...Sounds like we're tracking along nicely. Never mind about the part that isn't clear. All I'm saying is that churches can potentially calculate the likely popularity of changes they're considering, whether those changes are building programs, music programs, hiring a new preacher, accepting or rejecting same-sex marriage, or making doctrinal shifts. E.g., they could do focus groups, surveys, etc. to anticipate likely impacts on membership, satisfaction, giving, etc. And it sounds like you'd agree with that assessment of the situation in the commodified church.<br /><br /><br />Re: imperialism and colonialism...To speak of the "kingdom of God" is to invoke imperialism. An emperor is a supreme monarch, a higher title than king, a king of kings.<br /><br />"The world is on the path to destruction; the church is the invasion of resurrection life in the present"<br /><br />I.e. the church is setting up colonies. The term "invasion" is troubling, but I presume that the idea isn't to use these outposts as advance outposts for taking over enemy territory. Instead the emperor is going to let the world crash and burn, stepping in afterward to expand the colonies inside the tohu vabohu. On the other hand, it's not just that the world is going to destroy itself. The emperor has already passed judgment on the world and found it guilty, sentencing it to destruction if not sooner then later. I mean that's an NT Wright position, isn't it, as well as a Pauline one, that the church remnant outposts will be preserved through the coming apocalypse. From the world's POV, this is a kind of decadent nihilist scheme, and implicitly an aggressive one as well.<br /><br />john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-25841774824512373202016-02-23T13:45:52.907-08:002016-02-23T13:45:52.907-08:00Oh and back to the "render unto Caesar" ...Oh and back to the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state....Fitch argues in "The End of Evangelicalism?" that that that was only half true. By Fitch's reading, prior to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920's and '30's, the church was very socially active in trying to stamp out sin in all places and forms where it was/is found. It worked to help improve labor conditions, was involved in the suffrage movement, and a bunch of other examples he gave that I would have to look up to remember, lol. But, the basic point all that was leading to was that, after the fundamentalist-modernist controversies, the church split into two factions, one giving allegiance to "decisions for Christ," the other faction giving allegiance to "social justice." And, both factions immediately became tied to "traditional" (atonement) conservative values, on the one hand, and to "progressive" (social justice) concerns, on the other. In other words, the split in the church immediately had political ramifications. And, the church lost the power to challenge the state's injustices (like allowing the continuing proliferation of horrible working conditions). Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-85742832264733525852016-02-23T13:34:02.057-08:002016-02-23T13:34:02.057-08:00"...close affinity between evangelicalism and..."...close affinity between evangelicalism and the Republican party that dates at least to the 1950s, but I get it to some extent. Before that the church largely followed the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state, such that the church didn't involve itself in secular polities."<br /><br />That's true in the particular sense that the church didn't necessarily seem compelled to give its allegiance to one party or the other of the USA's bipartisan system. Not prior to the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the 1920's and '30's, at least.<br /><br />"But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church."<br /><br />For clarity, this is not what I have meant by the above in referring to the church as standing against what is now the state. I think those are things in which the church should be engaged, but I don't see anything wrong with the state's doing them, either. At least, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong per se. How the state practices education a lot of times...well I have a problem with that. But, generally speaking, when the world is doing good things, I say let the church join in.<br /><br />And, I think the Tea Party is silly. <br /><br />"Differences are homogenized via fungibility, such that they can all be substituted for one another, with the relative values in the substitution being standardized as price."<br />Fitch makes a very similar argument in "The End of Evangelism?" - from which I borrow heavily in my recent blog series. <br /><br />"...when nuance is homogenized, the only thing left is branding."<br />There's a commotion going around FB circles the last few days over what amounts to pretty much the same idea. People are in an uproar, because Mark Driscoll is starting a new mega-church in Phoenix. <br /><br />"So I suspect that nowadays churches do compete with one another for membership, contributions, political power, and so on, maneuvering for position."<br />One of the articles I saw posted was about how Mars Hill grew by "buying up the real-estate of" struggling and dying churches.<br /><br />"In theory and given adequate 'big data,' it would be possible for a trad Reformed church to calculate the 'return on investment' in members, money, etc. if it were to shift toward a Wright-based doctrine of justification Denominations are reduced to the least common denominator. Definition 2 for 'denomination': the amount of money that something is worth."<br />I don't really know what you meant by that...?Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-19832748223881139702016-02-23T11:56:28.312-08:002016-02-23T11:56:28.312-08:00I don't think the proliferation of differences...I don't think the proliferation of differences should be reduced to a marketplace, be those differences aesthetic or doctrinal. Quality needn't be converted into quantity. But I do think that the "Protestantisation" of differences does drive everything toward that reduction. Differences are homogenized via fungibility, such that they can all be substituted for one another, with the relative values in the substitution being standardized as price. That's what I said on Patrick's blog: when nuance is homogenized, the only thing left is branding. So I suspect that nowadays churches do compete with one another for membership, contributions, political power, and so on, maneuvering for position. In theory and given adequate "big data," it would be possible for a trad Reformed church to calculate the "return on investment" in members, money, etc. if it were to shift toward a Wright-based doctrine of justification Denominations are reduced to the least common denominator. Definition 2 for "denomination": the amount of money that something is worth.<br /><br />Back to the possibility of my cultivating an aesthetic of doctrinal differences. As you pointed out, the theological differences can spawn political differences, or possibly justify those differences post hoc. I've never fully understood the close affinity between evangelicalism and the Republican party that dates at least to the 1950s, but I get it to some extent. Before that the church largely followed the "render unto Caesar" division of church and state, such that the church didn't involve itself in secular polities. But there's also this idea of the church as beacon to the world, taking upon itself the responsibility for feeding the poor, educating the ignorant, taking care of the widows and orphans and so on. So now the state is presented as some kind of usurper or competitor to the church. The goal of the religious right then becomes not promoting Christian governmental policies (whatever those might be), but of dismantling government altogether. That's pretty much the position of the Tea Party. They're very active in Anne's home area of Lynchburg VA, where Falwell's home base is located. They get themselves elected to local governments, then start defunding public services like schools and libraries and garbage disposal, transitioning these services to the private sector. But this isn't a shift of responsibility from the government to the church, which has limited resources and will to take on these tasks. Instead it's a shift into investor-owned capitalist industry, where only those with resources to pay are able to obtain the necessary services and with profits accruing to the (mostly wealthy) investors. And so the capitalists have a strong incentive to elect religious conservatives, or at least those who talk the talk in the campaign speeches.<br /><br />Imperialism and colonialism, per Erdman: I'll have to get back to that one later.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-50652263499397874952016-02-23T07:17:11.506-08:002016-02-23T07:17:11.506-08:00Oh and no I don't remember Patrick :/
I proba...Oh and no I don't remember Patrick :/ <br />I probably would if given the appropriate reminder. Not sure, though. Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14986746.post-76415891537007640192016-02-23T06:56:15.630-08:002016-02-23T06:56:15.630-08:00BTW I recently came across this, which brings both...BTW I recently came across this, which brings both Doylomania's Catholic/catholicity thread together with Erdman's traumatized Sander's fans thread....<br /><br />Randy Myers <br />I agree. Recently one of my progressive colleagues submitted a post regarding Pope Francis' comments on Mr. Trump. Though my colleague said the Pope had a point, so did Mr. Trump in his response. The question is whether in America there is something we can call 'the church'? There is, instead, a marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers. That may be too strong a statement, but I'll stay with it.<br />Unlike · Reply · 5 · Yesterday at 9:45am<br /><br /><br />Mary Elizabeth Fisher <br />So you don't really think the person of the Spirit is active Randy Myers... Or so your post suggests to me....<br /><br />Solid realism for me requires I recognize there is a 'marketplace of denominations beholden to the subjectivity of consumers' BUT<br /><br />I also believe the Holy Spirit is acting despite our carnality<br />Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs<br /><br /><br />Randy Myers <br />Oh, I believe in the Holy Spirit and even the Spirit's activity both within and outside the church. I am just suggesting that there is not a church that is in agreement enough to take on the state or the market calling them under a discipline, at least not in the United States where the churches are divided up to the point that they are not able to call on accountability from the culture of neoliberalism.<br />Unlike · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs<br /><br />from here: https://www.facebook.com/fitchest/posts/10153745295048277<br /><br />Where Fitch also says: <br /><br />"Neoliberalism is the 'ideological' name for Reagan style capitalism and all the promises it offers to emancipate individuals. Meanwhile it has a host of disciplinary apparatuses in the state, and socialization systems via intermediary groups, that make us all believe in it. This keeps the middle classes entranced in its gaze, and perpetrates the injustices within the system. There is no resistance to all of this apart from the church. Yet progressive evangelicals regularly reject the church because of their past experience, instead of seeking to recover the church in its truer form. That's my oversimplistic summary of the state of things."Jason Hesiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628162727207930087noreply@blogger.com