Matt Huisman has a few profound thoughts in comment world:
The tricky thing about moral condemnations is that you actually have to reference an agreed upon moral that has been violated. And the truth is that we’re not really capable of telling anyone that extra-marital sex is immoral anymore. We have developed the means to eliminate the physical harm - and why be upset with someone who has done no harm? What’s that? You say that some of us still slip up and make a mess? What a shame, but who can really blame someone for getting caught up in the moment and forgetting to take the necessary precautions – there but for the grace of God go I. Better make a note to redouble our appeals before the god of education, who is no doubt merciful and good, and able to save us from our current condition.
So where does this leave us as Christians? Should we be spitting fire and brimstone at those who scoff at their creator? Or do we simply need to recognize that the world has passed us (and God) by, and we’ve become irrelevant?
Neither. For while our compassion dictates that the church be useful to its fellow man as counselor, insurance policy and all-around handy man – it was never our central purpose.
General revelation is a good thing, and the world’s ever amassing competence and ability to overcome the obstacles that used to turn them to the divine will soon expose the hard reality of loneliness (or meaninglessness) that lurks behind every would-be panacea. Perhaps it is here where our efforts are best spent – where the real love of Jesus can best be understood.
We may be getting close to the time where ‘I told you so’ is no longer relevant as an introduction to the eternal – and that too is a good thing.
7 comments:
Phelps is not in the club at all, AT ALL.
Church attendance is going down in mainline Protestant denominations, but up in evangelical and more charismatic denominations and non-denominational churches. Oddly enough, it's the more liberal churches in both theology and political leanings that are losing members.
Some questions about Christians and political involvement, Tlaloc. Do you oppose Christians involved in politics qua politics, i.e. any positions, or only Christians taking positions you disagree with? Was the Roman Catholic Church wrong to excommunicate state officials in Louisiana for supporting segregation, or was MLK Jr. wrong to bring his religion into the public square? Or do Christians have a free pass to support policies you believe to be just?
And is it only Christians, or should all citizens informed by religious beliefs abstain from exercising their right to engage in political debate?
If I were with the Human Rights Campaign or any other gay advocacy organization, I'd be throwing money at Fred Phelps with two fists.
That's why I send Howard Dean as much as I can spare out of every pay check.
Hanging Phelps around the neck of Christians is like hanging Stalin around the neck of atheists and Hitler around the neck of Germans. It's beneath the level of respectful discourse and a risible form of the fallacy of guilt by association.
I'll take some deserved heat for Robertson, Falwell, and, to a much lesser extent, Dobson. They're not perfect, neither am I. But Phelps? C'mon . . .
And is church attendance the best yardstick by which to measure devoutness? I think not.
Although I have no statistics, it is my definite intuition that belief in God and the effort to improve life in accordance with His plan is very much on the rise in this country and has been since at least 1980.
Robertson is already a dinosaur, and a discredited one at that. The Moral Majority made its ill-fated run at true political social/political power awhile ago, but has, as Mr. Huisman acknowledges (a fine essay, Matt), been consigned to working to preserve its place at the very populated table of our polity, and that's as it should be.
If religion's voice is to be heard over the din of everybody fighting over the pork chops, it will be with arguments that, as Mr. Homnick intimates, feed the soul of man. We religionists just happen to believe, and seek to prove, that the nourishment offered by God's plan is what our souls truly hunger for.
That's our purpose around here, I think, and if anyone should resort to the banality of dogmatism, they should be thumped over the head with their Bible.
Hunter, TVD, thanks for the kind words - the encouragement is appreciated.
Tlaloc, I think we all can understand some of your frustrations with Christians. To the extent that attendance/devoutness is not what it could be, all believers need to look in the mirror - because what we have to offer is attractive, and has the neat secondary benefit of being true.
Unfortunately, we're not so good at keeping the truth in it's place. You have a very keen understanding of the effects of power on men, and can no doubt see how the lure of the 'truth' could distract and corrupt even the most well-intentioned.
Should HB, TVD and the rest of us spend all of our time 'thumping' (as TVD might say) those who get out of line? I don't know...I think I'll leave that to Hank Hanegraaff - I'd hate to put him out of business.
But it would be a shame if you let some of our antics distract you from examining where your current worldview really takes you in this life and beyond.
Post a Comment