Sometime over the weekend, or late last week (I forget which), I got a hint that some of you were having trouble posting comments. But comments kept coming, so I decided to watch and wait.
Then I had a busy weekend — I drove to Birmingham AND back on Saturday, knocking back coffee and doing my Dean Moriarty impersonation, ahem, yes!; then we kept the twins for several hours Sunday — and didn’t think about it.
Now, I see that all day today, I’ve found a total of only two comments waiting for me in the “pending comments” queue, which just ain’t natural. Both of those comments were from Karen McLeod — which is fine; we love to hear from Karen; but I’m wondering what happened to everybody else.
So I’m wondering … did you try to comment today? If so, and if you’re not Karen, I don’t know about it. So please e-mail me at brad@bradwarthen.com so I’ll know about it, and can start trying to fix the problem.
Thank you.
Let’s find out!
Looks like Wally’s OK. And I see Doug has been heard from, on a couple of other posts. Anyone else out there?
Sorry, but I guess I don’t have a thick enough skin for blogging, and the temptation for me to react too strongly is too great as a result.
This blog seems to belong pretty much to cynics now, and besides, I belong to one of those fundamentalist denominations, The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) that Kathleen and Karen despise. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to figure out why people think the church should just fit in with whatever the prevailing winds of ethics are–I have never thought that was the church’s job.
I was visiting my folks in Aiken, so the absence today of my heretofore ubiquitous comments is no fault of the system.
Herb– If you are talking about me, I have no problem with PCA (ARP is a bit much, though). I also hardly think I’m a cynic? What do you see in my views that I don’t? I believe I am progressive, but that I sometimes get discouraged by the forces that would keep our state barefoot and pregnant.
I don’t think the church should just fit in with the prevailing winds of ethics, unless coincidentally those winds of ethics seem to be just and true. If the prevailing winds of ethics said to cut off aid to poor kids because they would just breed and create a “culture of dependency” I would hope the church would stand athwart that wind and shout “Stop.” Of course the poor will always be with us, but the Jesus I believe in fed the hungry without judging them.
If on the other hand, we come to see that some traditions of the church were merely products of sinful self-interest, blindness or ignorance, possibly culturally based, I would hope that we would work swiftly to correct the wrongs done.
Sorry Kathryn, not Kathleen. Rather negative of me, my apologies. But I would request that we not stamp on people’s religious convictions or church membership. It’s probably more of a part of a person’s identity than anything else we have.
Herb, I don’t despise you or your church. You have every right to your beliefs, just as I have a right to mine. I’ll debate issues with you, if you present them as issues, which is pretty much what blog comments seem to do. If you simply state something as your personal belief, then that’s fine. Just don’t expect me to be swayed by an assertion of personal belief. Would love to see you on the blog again, tho.
Kathryn,
You’re probably mixing up the PCA with the PCUSA, and I doubt you’d be happy with the PCA any more than the ARP.
But that all is not what I’m complaining about. I just find it arrogant and belittling to dismiss one’s church beliefs and affiliation by throwing around words like “fundamentalist,” which has become almost a swear word. The mere act of labeling someone else with a negative term can easily be judgmental in and of itself. Journalists are, in my estimation, some of the worst offenders of that, which is a judgmental statement to make, I suppose.
I guess we could both go a long way if we were to take out the piece of lumber in our own eyes before we go removing the splinters that others have.
Stamp on people’s religious convictions or church affiliation…
Hmmm. I truly have no wish to offend or disrespect anyone, within limits. There is a limit, though. Lots of people hold truly offensive beliefs and/or belong to churches with truly offensive beliefs. Where to draw the line?
I certainly would not consider you or your church, based on what I know, in any way offensive. I try really hard to be tolerant, and to acknowledge that I do not always have a lock on the truth.
It’s just that some beliefs deeply held by others are just as deeply offensive to me. Radical Islam holds that women are dangerous and should be locked away, covered up and generally deprived of basic liberties. For a long time, Christian churches had no problem with slavery or Jim Crow. The Catholic Church’s insistence on obedience over pretty much every thing else resulted in a lot of abuse.
Your beliefs on transubstantiation or wine versus juice for Communion are fine. I, for one, prefer the old language version of the Episcopal service and Renaissance and traditional Anglican and Lutheran church music. If you prefer contemporary worship, more power to you.
I just find it hard to respect allegedly Christian beliefs that run counter to my understanding of Jesus and his teachings.
I surely do not have to bring your attention to the words of Jesus against divorce, yet I cannot find anything He said opposing homosexuality, for example. Thus, when the “religious Right” wants to defend marriage on religious grounds, I think Jesus would rather we tighten up the standards for heterosexual marriage (fundamentalists are the most divorced group, I understand) rather than deny gays that right.
Divorce does not deeply offend me, although I have seen up close how damaging it can be, especially to the children. I fail to see how allowing two people of the same sex to marry could possibly cause that kind of damage, yet, hurtfully, they are denied that right, often for religious-based reasons.
So… I take it no one’s having trouble posting comments, since y’all have the leisure to engage in religious debate…
PCA, ARP, PCUSA, this kind of Anglican, that kind of Anglican, various flavors of Lutheran, not to mention the many kinds of Baptist, which are legion… I tell you what, I don’t know how you folks remember WHAT you are. Once Luther and Calvin and King Henry VIII and all them got this ball rolling, y’all haven’t known where to quit. It’s just a schism a minute with you people.
At this point, I would insert one of those smiley-face things, if I were the sort who did cutesy things like that. But I don’t, because the Pope said not to, and we’re all about obedience…
But y’all know when I’m joshing with you in a friendly manner, right? No? You don’t? Man! You prods are SO-O-O-O sensitive…
Brad, just another brainwashed Catholic.
Kneel, sit, kneel, sit, stand, get in line, sit, kneel, give us all your money, kneel, sit and then leave and turn a blind eye to what the church and it’s priests are doing.
Actually, if you think Catholics give money, you’re barking up the wrong church. We are notorious for sitting on our wallets — even though these days, Catholics are more affluent than Protestants.
It’s a problem. If you want to find a church where people give all their money, go to a Baptist Church. They know how to get that done…
Brad–
I know far too many RCs to let that one slide. Aside from certain zealous converts, most are too checked-out and apathetic and used to ignoring the Pope to bother to split. Cafeteria Catholics…The ones who are still observant largely seem to show up to get their tickets punched–under an hour and out! Theology? Meh…
They carefully don’t eat meat on Fridays in Lent while consulting their horoscopes religiously. Wouldn’t miss Mass on a day of obligation–and they can pick up their contraceptives on the way home!
Why split from that?
Of course the Episcopal Church, for one, is chockablock with former Catholics, including the Dean of Trinity Cathedral.
Brad, just another brainwashed Catholic.
Kneel, sit, kneel, sit, stand, get in line, sit, kneel, give us all your money, kneel, sit and then leave and turn a blind eye to what the church and it’s priests are doing.
I see the blog has given up on its civility policy.
Kathryn,
I do not profess to be a religious scholar nor a biblical scholar. However, I have studied the Bible and when I read or hear anyone commenting about homosexuality and that is was not addressed by Jesus, I find it difficult to avoid a response.
So, one more time into the fray. Jesus, according to the different versions of biblical language, King James, NIV, and many other translations into modern language, never addressed the subject directly. However, Jesus did say the following, according to one modern translation.
NLT Study Bible: Matthew 5:17 – 20.
17.”Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.”
18. “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved.”
19.”So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
20. “But I warn you – unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!”
The KJV uses the language of the day to describe the written law of Moses in verse 18. “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Then, if you go to Leviticus and read the law of Moses regarding homosexuality, it is very clear the act is against God’s law. Along with warnings about incest, bestiality and other sexual practices, in particular, Chapter 18; verse 22 directly addresses the subject.
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” NIV.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” KJV.
“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.” From another NIV.
Leviticus goes on in Chapter 20, verse 13 to describe the punishment for practicing homosexuality. Death. This is where the prophecy of Jesus coming comes into the picture. With Jesus’ birth and death, the promised new covenant was fulfilled. No longer will those who follow God and believed/believe Jesus to be the Son of God, be subjected to the physical punishment called for under the Law of Moses. For the believers who accepted or accept Jesus as their Savior, they can approach the Throne of God without intercession of a priest or rabbi, confess their sins, repent, and ask for forgiveness.
My response is not meant to force my beliefs on you or anyone else. It is to try to, in my own words, explain what I believe to be the proper interpretation on how God and Jesus viewed homosexuality. “Not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,….”
Yeahhhh… I was going to make those same points to Kathryn, but I was busy arguing with her about other stuff, so I let that go.
Basically, Jesus didn’t see fit to address the issue — either that, or what he said was sufficiently unremarkable that no one bothered to write it down. For instance, if he had said “people of the same sex should be able to get married,” I sort of think people would have remembered and passed that on. It would have been a real “man bites dog” thing in those days.
The best that can be said is that, to the extent that we go by the Gospels (and what else do we have), Jesus sort of had a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach. Or at least, you can’t infer anything more “liberal” on the subject than that, given the lack of a record…
And when you speak of same sex marriage in such terms as “rather than deny gays that right,” once again you’re speaking of marriage as something other than what it is. I don’t think of it as something individuals GET TO DO, and society just gets out of their way. Marriage is something that society sets up and regulates and blesses for its own reasons. And the obvious reason for ALL societies to have developed something called marriage is the one Kathryn alludes to — children. The point is to create a stable partnership of people who are responsible for the kids they produce. If it weren’t for society’s interest in doing that, we wouldn’t have anything called marriage.
Finally, to take off on something else that Kathryn says about Catholics — the real kind of Catholics, that is, “RCs” as Kathryn calls them (and do you call people from San Juan “PRs”?)…
It’s interesting how people from outside are always pointing at Catholics failing to perfectly live out their doctrines. This comes up just because we do HAVE doctrines, and ones we’re serious about (unlike some “Catholic lite” denominations we could name). Hey, people are human. Catholics know that better than anybody. That’s one of the things that has always struck me about the church — it’s full of raw, flesh-and-blood real humanity, from the crucifix right down to having big families, we really roll up our sleeves and dig into the nitty-gritty of life. It’s a fertile, fecund, red-blooded way of life.
But people looking at it from outside kind of sneer at the fact that Catholics don’t follow all of their own rules. And here’s why that is: Because whether you follow all the rules or not, you’re still Catholic — until you decide to remove yourself from the communion. This makes Catholicism different from protestantism, in which the denomination you embrace DEFINES itself by its doctrinal differences from us RCs and from all the other flavors of protestantism.
Just to take this thought and wail with it a little further — You know who the most strict theists of all are? Atheists. I’ve found that the more strident atheists insist that if you believe in God, you have to believe in God in THIS particular way (a way that atheists define and reject). You can’t be loose and laissez faire about it. They want you to believe in a big white guy with a beard up in the clouds, and if you have a more abstract, less defined notion, they get offended at your lack of orthodoxy.
You ever notice that? I say this with all due respect and affection, because there are atheists very close to me whom I love dearly, but it’s an irony that jumps out at me…
@ Brad –Dude, you called us “Prods.” RC is easier to type, plus it reminds me of the Monty Python “Dead bishop on the landing skit–the Church Police.” [“There’s a dead bishop on the landing.” “Anglican or RC?” “Ow can you tell?” “Tattoed on the back o’ the neck.”
You scoff at our many denominations. I merely pointed out one major difference I have observed.
Sorry if it is not perceived as civil. I certainly do not intend to offend–merely to debate, albeit in a pointed way from time to time.
As far as atheists go, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and their ilk are often pretty poor in their straw man argumentation–they can make Glenn Beck seem nice–no, strike that. That said, they do raise a lot of interesting points about the problem of an omnipotent God who loves us, intervenes on our behalf, yet allows such suffering to go on. Yeah, I know most of the counter arguments to that, but still.
Around here, I find myself far too often siding with the atheists/nontheists simply in reaction to the public piety our politicians, et al. indulge in. Whatever happened to praying quietly in your room?
@ Bart– Okay, do you eat pork or shellfish? Wear garments of mixed fibers? Make your wife undergo ritual cleansing once a month? There’s a whole lot of stuff in the Old Testament that has fallen by the wayside. Besides, a lot of scholarship suggests that the words used in the anti-homosexuality passages you cite refer to nonconsensual or underage relationships, not the sort of totally consensual relationships that marriage might encompass.
I laud your restraint in not imposing your beliefs on others. Would that others were more tolerant, where no harm results thereby. Someone else’s salvation or lack thereof is not sound basis for legislation in this country.
I would like to apologize to the extent I am too judgmental. It’s hard for me to analyze and reach values-based conclusions without judging others.
And the obvious reason for ALL societies to have developed something called marriage is the one Kathryn alludes to — children.
Certainly. Of course in OUR society there is no reason why we must base marriage on that commonality that runs through ALL societies. Nor do I see a reason for the purpose of marriage to be limited to that purpose for which it was first developed. I think it just has to make sense in our own. And I think that it is true that our society sees it fit to bind people together in marriage regardless of the prospects of children.
Not to mention that where gays can adopt, there absolutely must be gay marriage by that standard of children.
We let old people marry. We let the young, but infertile marry. We let people, like me, who never had any intention of having children marry.
I kind of like the Louisiana two-level marriage, where couples can agree to a less-divorce-able level of marriage. It kind of ought to be required if children are involved. Then again, in all this Defense of Marriage, no one seems to want to make it harder to get married or divorced, do they?
Oh, and passing on property was also a huge reason for marriage. The ability to transfer property other than through blood or marriage is a modern invention.
So should we limit marriage to landowners?
Look what I started! Well, it was interesting.
Actually, I think Brad is hiding the fact that there are many more varieties within the RC church than we Protestants have.
The real major schism within Protestantism came when the “new theology” began to redefine Christianity, primarily in the 18th century onwards. Luther’s sola scriptura was slowly jettisoned. The problem with that is that Jesus gets then redefined however the prevailing winds like him. I prefer the “primitive” understanding of the early church–without the pope (though I have generally very high respect for the men who have held that office in recent decades), celibacy (not in Scripture), and the fulfillment of OT law in the teaching of Christ and his directly appointed apostles.
But please, as Bart has said, I intend to force my beliefs on no one. But being labeled as a “fundy” because I belong to a church that limits the leadership of women–on the basis of its understanding of biblical teaching on Creation and the roles of men and women–is not fair. Not that I agree with all the PCA applications–that’s the fun of being a Protestant. Besides, if you don’t belong to a church, you can’t really voice your opinion within it, and work toward positive change.
But, on my part, a personal thanks to everyone for what seemed to me to be a fair exchange on a very sensitive topic!
That should be “with the fulfillment of OT law in the teaching of Christ . . . .” As Paul writes, “we do not negate the law, we establish it.” The outward rites become absorbed in the teaching about real, inward purity. The sexual conduct code of Leviticus 18 is confirmed in Acts and the Epistles. But wow, that is another subject for another day.
No Kathryn, I don’t eat shellfish but not for religious reasons. I am allergic to shellfish. Which, by the way, is one or was one of my favorite foods.
Yes, I do wear garments of mixed fibers.
Does the fact that I do both change anything?
The New Testament has given us a new covenant and one of the things it released us from were dietary and other laws that had nothing to do with the condition of the person’s soul or how they are inside. References are found in several locations in the New Testament. One for example, Acts 10: 10 – 15.
The difference in food and clothing that is eaten or worn by humans and the condition of the heart or what is inside each of us is an ongoing debate between believers and non-believers alike as to meaning in the New Testament.
There is a good article by Father William Nicholas at the Catholic San Francisco Online Edition website on the subject of the “Shrimp-cocktail” defense. Since I am not adept at copying and posting links, if you enter Catholic San Francisco shrimp-coctail defense, it will take you to the article – if you are interested.
I understand where you are coming from and although I disagree with your thought process or argument, it is yours and I respect that. For the record, my wife doesn’t undergo ritual cleansing once a month unless you count her cleaning my clock in a debate.
I would like to hear from Herb on the topic if he is willing to share. I value his comments.
What each of us does with our lives is up to us. The belief system we develop and follow is generally a long journey and we are capable of change along the way. As we grow older and see things from a different perspective, attitudes can change if we are convinced it is the right thing to do. I have changed my views on many issues but only after careful thinking and consideration of as many facts I can gather. Some issues, I still won’t budge on and don’t see myself doing so in this lifetime.
The only comment you made that bothers me is the very last one. I find it bothersome that someone with your obvious intelligence and ability to evaluate and critical thinking, would be judgmental of others. I can only hope that what you were trying to convey is that you judge actions and attitudes, not the person.
Herb– I never labeled you a “fundy”–You labeled yourself an evangelical, which I respect greatly, especially when it is practiced as civilly as you do.
Bart–
I was trying to say that I was “busted’ for being judgmental, meaning inappropriately judgmental, sometimes. I try not to be judgmental, but then there are times when it is appropriate, and there are times when I just do it and am wrong for doing so. It’s a bit of a family/cultural thing, which I know is wrong, but I don’t always do right.Rotary is good for keeping me loose. Putting me in a room once a week with real people many of whom believe things very different from what I do, but whom I cannot help but respect is a great exercise. Far too many of us get trapped in the firehouse–we don’t get out enough among people who believe different things than we do, yet are great people anyway.
Being judgmental can be good sometimes. For example, people who abuse animals or children. I judge them harshly. I understand they may have had a tough life that made them that way, but that does not excuse their actions. People who hurt other people gratuitously, callously.
Sometimes, after a lot of effort, I have had to accept that someone was just going to continue to treat me a certain unhealthy-for-me way, and cut them out of my life. That sort of thing. Maybe even people who drive and text….it’s a callous disregard for the safety of others for a very trivial reason.
Touche’ Kathryn–I suspect it is also judgmental, in a way, to falsely take on a label that someone has not actually used. I guess I am overly sensitive in that regard, having been accused of being a fundamentalist many times. A friend in Germany, a Lutheran youth pastor who was accused of the same thing many times, besides dealing with the East German police before reunification, and the problems of affluence since, once said that, when he is accused of such, he asks the other person what their foundation (Fundament) is. All of us are fundamentalists of a sort. Our faith is in something.
And I agree with your firehouse analogy; the problem is, life is so short to get everywhere we would like to be. How to do that, and stay focused . . . .
Bart, I like teaching things like NT Survey, but Systematic Theology is far beyond my expertise. And the relationship of Law and Gospel is one of the most difficult themes in that field. I can only remark that I agree with your comments above, well said. I did have an excellent Hebraist scholar in seminary who said once that “fulfillment” is the key word in understanding Christ’s relationship to the Law.
I think a problem we may have is that we have nowadays virtually no positive relationship with laws, and what we know of the NT, well we tend to latch on to Pharisaistic casuistry as the only expression of it. I was always puzzled by Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s love for Psalm 119–it was his favorite of all, and he loved the Psalms. Not my idea of an afternoon reading time, but it shows a completely different relationship to the Lawgiver than most of us are used to.
If you ever get a chance, listen to a series by Rev. Tim Keller of Redeemer Pres Church in Manhattan on 1 Cor. 13. It probably unlocks this subject more than anything I’ve ever heard. Many folks think that 1 Cor. 13 is a nice sentimental chapter to be read at weddings; he shows how it is a revolutionary description of the transformed life, as are many other passages in the NT that we often take as just being a list of virtues.
Again, I’ve appreciated this exchange. It is beneficial to be in “conversation” with those with whom I disagree on somethings (we disagree on politics, correct?), but from whom I can learn. And change my views, at times. Which is another reason I have a love/hate relationship with blogging. One’s comments, and one’s views, stay there forever to be read.
I’ve always wondered whether the opposite of Systematic Theology was Buckshot Theology.
I’m writing a piece of fiction, and one of the inspirations is an article I read in The Lutheran magazine shortly after Reunification. East Germans were bewailing that they had traded their sense of community and spirituality for 40 acres and a mule (or whatever it was they got from the West). They lost what really mattered to be poor relations to their cousins in the West…Freedom’s just another word…
As far as views staying forever to be read, I think to a great extent it’s like the Stasi files—meticulous day-after-day records of people’s lives, that no one ever had a chance to see, for the most part. The sheer volume of blog entries!!!
There are steps one can take to lower the ranking of ones posts on Google, but you’d have to Google to find out what they are.
Kathryn, Herb,
Excellent exchange and all within the civility we are all capable of.
Thanks.
Kathryn,
You may not see this, since this post is so old, but thanks again for the exchange, and please let me know if when you get your book published.
The problem is that in some countries police forces that may not be as good as the Stasi are still adept at finding out everything they want to know, though I guess they can get that done, with or without blog comments.