Remonstrans
Couch Potatoes
04/25/08
Couch Potatoes
Doug Pagitt explained why they have those ratty sofas at Solomon's Porch: someone sitting on a sofa is more likely to converse with someone else sitting on a sofa. I'm sure there are some studies to back that up. Surely no one who regards sacred tradition as properly informing a liturgy would suppose something that silly without having some hard science to back it up. Maybe there was a Rand Study.
A traditional understanding of church is that either the Host or a text is central to what goes on there. Even when pentecostals sat in a circle it was because of the possibility of a special revelation. With emergents it is "conversation". Wherever two or three sofas are gathered together, there is conversation in the midst of them.
Journey Church in Dallas had sofas. I did not notice great conversation, really. There was the same facilitator-provoked, facilitator-directed post-lesson audience participation I had seen many times in Sunday School when everyone was sitting in proper chairs, so I'm still not a strict proponent of the sofa/conversation theory.
Perhaps we should not hold emergents too responsible for their words, sermons, lectures and books; they have simple-minded and disparaging things to say about words, sermons, linearity and rationality, and they have demonstrated that words, sermons, linearity and rationality are not things they are conversant with.
Or even competent in.
So I have been out observing their conversation. Here's an interesting bit.
Kevin is talking about Tony's new book, and Tony is writing about how emergents "live eschatologically". I like eschatology as much as the next guy so my ears perked right up.
And this leads to another feature of emergents, what Tony refers to as "a hope-filled orientation" (p.72). Emergents live eschatologically, i.e., in light of God's future, a glorious future that has come and is coming still. They're convinced that Jesus came with good news and that God has a program of all-inclusive love, wholeness and restoration for the world and they're eager to get on board with God's agenda. Their view of heaven, therefore, like my own, is not that of a disembodied place in the great by-and-by, but an embodied future where things--earthly things like relationships, drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems, all things--are the way God ultimately intends them to be. That future, they believe, is something to get excited about and to start actively anticipating.
I don't need to elaborate at length that this eschatology of drinking water, economic systems and eco-systems is pretty boring and probably not biblical. The conversation was flagging a bit, so Kevin took a much-appreciated detour.
The English word sex comes from the Latin secare which literally...
Yes, I know it seems you've jumped a few screens ahead, but bear with me:
The English word sex comes from the Latin secare which literally means to cut-off or to sever. To be "sexed" is, in a very meaningful sense, to be cut-off, disconnected from a whole or severed from it. And that, I think, is part of the human condition, to find yourself self-aware, aware of a kind of loneliness, incompleteness or un-wholeness. Sexuality is nothing more and nothing less than that drive or energy in all of us for communion, relationship, connection, affection and wholeness. "It is not good for man to be alone." That is sexuality. And what is the eschaton if not community, connection and wholeness? Communion with God and each other. If sexuality is the question, the eschaton is its answer. So, sexuality and eschatology are actually deeply connected. In fact the one (sexuality) is aimed at the other (the eschaton).
Well, isn't that precious?
Very fanciful and a wonderful conversation-starter, but strictly speaking it is not at all true. At least not according to the OED which has shown some interest and expertise in words.
The Latin word secare was not intended to convey this cornpone, sophomoric notion of being cut off from the whole as in some sort of psycho-sexual alienation; it has to do with a sectioning, division or distinction that exists between male and female in the animal kingdom.
I'm tempted to suggest that some people sell a bean bag and buy a book. The OED wouldn't be a bad start. If they refuse to do that, I'd recommend a helpful mouseclick.
And this goes right to the problem of "conversation". You put a bunch of half-wits in couches and this is what happens. You have a comical pooling of ignorance in desperate need of a book and a definition.
The difference between these people and a hot air balloon is just the balloon.
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: Kevin [Visitor] 
· http://www.holyskinandbone.blogspot.com
· http://www.holyskinandbone.blogspot.com
Hmmm. Couple of questions. What isn't biblical in the picture of living eschatologically that I painted? Another question. You quote an entire paragraph of mine and then you say, "...it is not at all true." What's not at all true? If you read what I said carefully you will have noticed, btw, that I didn't say the meaning of the Latin secare is to be cut off from a whole or severed from it. Go back and read what I said. I'll wait.....(you back? Okay.) What I said was that to be "sexed" was "in a very meaningful sense to be cut off or disconnected from a whole. That very meaningful sense is not of course the OED sense.
One last thing. Why all the ad hominems and name calling? I'm a half-wit? What are your criteria for halfwitedness?
One last thing. Why all the ad hominems and name calling? I'm a half-wit? What are your criteria for halfwitedness?
Permalink
04/25/08 @ 07:58 2 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Ah, some easy questions.
The first one is too easy: by “not biblical” I mean that the facts are not found in the Bible. Sorry I didn’t elaborate further; I thought it was pretty obvious. Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world.
You are certainly entitled to any silly inference you like, but it’s not an argument against the inferences you deny traditional Christians, like the kingdom being a disembodied place (whatever that means). I never heard anyone say that the kingdom was a disembodied place.
I’m even trying to recall a single eco-friendly work Jesus ever did as an example to us. He destroyed some pigs and inflicted economic harm on someone. He cursed a tree.
Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?
Second, what is not true about the paragraph that begins with “The English word sex…”?
tr.v. sexed, sex•ing, sex•es
1. To determine the sex of (an organism).
2. Slang a. To arouse sexually. Often used with up. b. To increase the appeal or attractiveness of. Often used with up.
According to the first definition, to determine the sex of an organism is not for it to be cut off, disconnected or severed from the whole unless perhaps you take the organism off to a separate room because it is shy.
According to the second definition, to be sexually aroused or to doll oneself up is not to be cut off, disconnected or severed from the whole, although again perhaps some grooming is best done in private.
You just made this all up.
Noun 1. Eschaton - (New Testament) day at the end of time following Armageddon when God will decree the fates of all individual humans according to the good and evil of their earthly lives.
Then there’s this one:
Last, one criterion I have for determining half-wittedness (aside from egregious abuse of language) is noting who can spell the word and who can’t.
The first one is too easy: by “not biblical” I mean that the facts are not found in the Bible. Sorry I didn’t elaborate further; I thought it was pretty obvious. Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world.
You are certainly entitled to any silly inference you like, but it’s not an argument against the inferences you deny traditional Christians, like the kingdom being a disembodied place (whatever that means). I never heard anyone say that the kingdom was a disembodied place.
I’m even trying to recall a single eco-friendly work Jesus ever did as an example to us. He destroyed some pigs and inflicted economic harm on someone. He cursed a tree.
Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?
Second, what is not true about the paragraph that begins with “The English word sex…”?
To be "sexed" is, in a very meaningful sense, to be cut-off, disconnected from a whole or severed from it.That part isn’t true.
tr.v. sexed, sex•ing, sex•es
1. To determine the sex of (an organism).
2. Slang a. To arouse sexually. Often used with up. b. To increase the appeal or attractiveness of. Often used with up.
According to the first definition, to determine the sex of an organism is not for it to be cut off, disconnected or severed from the whole unless perhaps you take the organism off to a separate room because it is shy.
According to the second definition, to be sexually aroused or to doll oneself up is not to be cut off, disconnected or severed from the whole, although again perhaps some grooming is best done in private.
You just made this all up.
And what is the eschaton if not community, connection and wholeness?Well, try this:
Noun 1. Eschaton - (New Testament) day at the end of time following Armageddon when God will decree the fates of all individual humans according to the good and evil of their earthly lives.
Then there’s this one:
So, sexuality and eschatology are actually deeply connected.No, actually they are not. It was an endearing attempt to sound deep, but that part is not true either.
Last, one criterion I have for determining half-wittedness (aside from egregious abuse of language) is noting who can spell the word and who can’t.
Permalink
04/25/08 @ 09:47 3 Comment from: chris [Visitor]
Question from the cheap seats: Why do emergents so commonly retaliate with accusations of masturbation when held up to objective measuring sticks? Are they saying that there is something out there that is objectively wrong, or do they just have masturbation and thinking reversed in their mental programming? I am mystified by their seeming consistency here where they should be all over the place.
Permalink
04/25/08 @ 11:18 4 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I’m not sure I have a definitive answer, but certain possibilities suggest themselves.
1. it could be a conventional parting expression used by emergentsBut I'm open to alternative explanations.
2. like all profanity, it may offer the joy of expression without that fatigue of reflection
3. for one who denies the existence of truth, another’s insistence on an idea may strike them as mere self-gratification
4. perhaps they feel it sounds more grown-up than saying “you big poopyhead”
Permalink
04/25/08 @ 12:22 5 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
Seems to be an interesting use of an etymological fallacy in the word study area.
Seems that some emergents have some tie to Kenneth Wuest - who woulda thunk it?
But, I've been doing some reading in pomo myself and, in particular, its theological distractions. I think what you described is best identified by Vanhooser in his opening chapter of Postmodern Theology. He identifies the sin of modernity as pride. Then, he identifies the sin of postmodernity as sloth. He throws in an interesting quote by Dorothy L. Sayers to describe the connection:
"sloth is the sin 'that believes in nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.'" (p. 23)
I think this appropriately describes the vacuous nature of the emergent movement, and the reason for their sloppiness of intellect. For them, there nothing about which to think seriously.
Seems that some emergents have some tie to Kenneth Wuest - who woulda thunk it?
But, I've been doing some reading in pomo myself and, in particular, its theological distractions. I think what you described is best identified by Vanhooser in his opening chapter of Postmodern Theology. He identifies the sin of modernity as pride. Then, he identifies the sin of postmodernity as sloth. He throws in an interesting quote by Dorothy L. Sayers to describe the connection:
"sloth is the sin 'that believes in nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.'" (p. 23)
I think this appropriately describes the vacuous nature of the emergent movement, and the reason for their sloppiness of intellect. For them, there nothing about which to think seriously.
Permalink
04/26/08 @ 08:38 6 Comment from: Sofros [Visitor]
I would add to exlibris' comment that for the Emergents, there is nothing about which to think seriously. I think that for them, there is nothing left about which to think. Contemplating how much carbon emissions is coming out of the exhaust of your truck is not thinking. Attempting to fabricate a false link between sex and eschatology is not thinking. It takes very little thought to adapt to the popular culture (and thus desecrate Christianity). Contemplation of the Holiness of God takes thought. The Emergents have failed to predicate, and thus they have failed to think. Their hatred of predication (for with predication comes a truth-claim) has caused the demise of their thoughts.
Permalink
04/26/08 @ 11:15 7 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Sayers makes an interesting point; I’m not convinced of Vanhoozer’s application. Sloth may be a personal trait of Emergents, but I really don’t think it is a defining trait of Emergence—or postmodernism. From what I’ve seen, heard and read, these people would be slothful whatever their theological spasms. I’m not sure where the observation gets us.
Try to imagine how the emergent movement would change if it found a really crackerjack thinker.
I know that to look at Pagitt, to visit Emergent gatherings and to sample the assorted cohorts one is immediately tempted to picture a sloth. Or a pig. I just think it’s deeper than that. Sloths are not activists. They’re not even wannabe activists. Sloths don’t pretend (however comically) to be artists and philosophers.
I don’t see sloth as animating these people.
But I disagree with exlibris and Sofros to this extent. It is true that their ideas don’t bear scrutiny and my tone is intended to convey my lack of respect for their pretense; in that sense there really is nothing to “think about”.
But behind that pretense there is very much to give consideration to. We should be considering emergence not for its pretentions but for its appeals.
A simple example of what I mean.
Carson said, “For almost everyone within the movement, this works out as an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationality; as experience over against truth; on inclusion over against exclusion; on participation over against individualism and the heroic loner.” *
Now I look at that statement as a lifetime member in the Great Feelings Association. I have persistently doodled with K.s, BWVs, opuses, loitered around museum collections and poetry from Chaucer to Simic, and no one is going to convince me this bunch places an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationality. Bad as they are in the cognitive domain, they are far worse in the affective domain.
I think this movement is significant for what it shows us about us. This postmodern church could exist only as a parasite within modernism. This could be a church only in a place where parishioners have no souls, a place with theology professors but no poets. Their dichotomy is false and our reaction is revealing. We demand they define themselves when we should be laughing at what they do.
Why is no one laughing?
I think this is the really spooky bit.
_______________
* Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 29
Try to imagine how the emergent movement would change if it found a really crackerjack thinker.
I know that to look at Pagitt, to visit Emergent gatherings and to sample the assorted cohorts one is immediately tempted to picture a sloth. Or a pig. I just think it’s deeper than that. Sloths are not activists. They’re not even wannabe activists. Sloths don’t pretend (however comically) to be artists and philosophers.
I don’t see sloth as animating these people.
But I disagree with exlibris and Sofros to this extent. It is true that their ideas don’t bear scrutiny and my tone is intended to convey my lack of respect for their pretense; in that sense there really is nothing to “think about”.
But behind that pretense there is very much to give consideration to. We should be considering emergence not for its pretentions but for its appeals.
A simple example of what I mean.
Carson said, “For almost everyone within the movement, this works out as an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationality; as experience over against truth; on inclusion over against exclusion; on participation over against individualism and the heroic loner.” *
Now I look at that statement as a lifetime member in the Great Feelings Association. I have persistently doodled with K.s, BWVs, opuses, loitered around museum collections and poetry from Chaucer to Simic, and no one is going to convince me this bunch places an emphasis on feelings and affections over against linear thought and rationality. Bad as they are in the cognitive domain, they are far worse in the affective domain.
I think this movement is significant for what it shows us about us. This postmodern church could exist only as a parasite within modernism. This could be a church only in a place where parishioners have no souls, a place with theology professors but no poets. Their dichotomy is false and our reaction is revealing. We demand they define themselves when we should be laughing at what they do.
Why is no one laughing?
I think this is the really spooky bit.
_______________
* Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 29
Permalink
04/26/08 @ 13:25 8 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]
Well, what you find in postmodernity provokes this thought from me.
I do believe Vanhooser describes a symptom rather than the virus that caused the disease. The more I look at this pomo stuff and all the nonsense it generates (emergent couch potatoes being just a populist example), I find it to be merely modernity at the end of the road. The despair of not being able to arrive at truth because of the modern rejection of a priori assumptions (I know, redundant) has settled into uneasy nonsensical hilarity of the sort seen in someone experiencing a nervous breakdown.
But, here is a great tragedy: at just the moment we are willing to admit the legitmacy of a priori assumptions, we discover that modernity effectively stripped us of the ability to evaluate a priori assumptions. We even have difficulty understanding the correlation of the true with the beautiful.
Why is no one laughing?
Because no one knows shtick from art.
There is little difference from the emergent who takes this wresting of "sex" seriously, the fundamentalist who believes that only music in a major key is God-honoring, and the evangelical who buys a t-shirt at the local "Christian" bookstore.
I do believe Vanhooser describes a symptom rather than the virus that caused the disease. The more I look at this pomo stuff and all the nonsense it generates (emergent couch potatoes being just a populist example), I find it to be merely modernity at the end of the road. The despair of not being able to arrive at truth because of the modern rejection of a priori assumptions (I know, redundant) has settled into uneasy nonsensical hilarity of the sort seen in someone experiencing a nervous breakdown.
But, here is a great tragedy: at just the moment we are willing to admit the legitmacy of a priori assumptions, we discover that modernity effectively stripped us of the ability to evaluate a priori assumptions. We even have difficulty understanding the correlation of the true with the beautiful.
Why is no one laughing?
Because no one knows shtick from art.
There is little difference from the emergent who takes this wresting of "sex" seriously, the fundamentalist who believes that only music in a major key is God-honoring, and the evangelical who buys a t-shirt at the local "Christian" bookstore.
Permalink
04/26/08 @ 16:33 9 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Precisely.
From Uncle Charlie to Patch to Veggie Tales, from Billy Sunday to Kevin Corcoran [sexuality is aimed at the eschaton], we have been ardently devoted to kitsch, fluff and tinsel.
From Uncle Charlie to Patch to Veggie Tales, from Billy Sunday to Kevin Corcoran [sexuality is aimed at the eschaton], we have been ardently devoted to kitsch, fluff and tinsel.
Permalink
04/27/08 @ 08:44 10 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
Several questions (oddly that's somewhat like how Kevin started...hopefully this will fare a little bit better)...
First your idea, or at least the implication, that eco-systems, economic systems are politically freighted and, thus, Jesus never said anything about them, is interesting. To make a claim that Jesus was Lord meant significant things, not least of which was that certain people in power were not the omnipotent rulers of the world they claimed to be (think Caesar). Thus, to call Jesus as the Lord and Savior would have had "political freight" to it in those days.
Well, what did Jesus actually say, though, specifically about eco-systems, economics, etc? Should the meek inherit an earth that's been polluted and damaged, or one that is in good condition. And as for economics, what's this about the poor inheriting anything? You might say that Jesus is talking about the spiritually poor, but I certainly don't see that in the text. I'm assuming you appeal to a plain view of reading and interpreting Scripture, so I'm just wondering where this idea of Jesus only being concerned with spiritual--and thus meaning non-material--matters comes from within the text.
Secondly, I find your claim that Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" an allusion to John 18:36, quite interesting, as that's not what he said. The Greek actually has Jesus saying that his Kingdom "is not from this world" meaning that it is not the sort of Kingdom that Pilate's is. Again, do you have evidence from the text that Jesus is making the contrast between his kingdom and Pilate's one political/non-political things, physical/spiritual difference?
Thirdly, the OED, while it is a great dictionary, there's a problem with it (actually with dictionaries in general). Dictionaries don't make up what words mean out of thin air. All they are doing is giving the various ways in which a word is used, and I stress the word used. Over the years words come to mean different things. Words can and do have the flexibility to be used in different ways as years go by. Now that doesn't make every use of any word suitable. Language would fall apart if it did that. Nevertheless, there is still that flexibility that words have that they can be used to say different things. Regarding the OED itself, I found on their website, OED.com, that there are several other definitions, mainly the first one of "sex" as a noun talking about the division of organisms between males and females. It looks on the surface of it, without going too far down the rabbit hole, to see at least something plausible about Kevin's use of "sex" in connection with eschatology (as far as being reunited goes). What was your reason for thinking it was hogwash again?
Sorry for the long comment, but I find this discussion fascinating, speaking as someone's who is not firmly in any of these camps, and I just had a lot of unanswered questions.
Cheers,
Jay C.
First your idea, or at least the implication, that eco-systems, economic systems are politically freighted and, thus, Jesus never said anything about them, is interesting. To make a claim that Jesus was Lord meant significant things, not least of which was that certain people in power were not the omnipotent rulers of the world they claimed to be (think Caesar). Thus, to call Jesus as the Lord and Savior would have had "political freight" to it in those days.
Well, what did Jesus actually say, though, specifically about eco-systems, economics, etc? Should the meek inherit an earth that's been polluted and damaged, or one that is in good condition. And as for economics, what's this about the poor inheriting anything? You might say that Jesus is talking about the spiritually poor, but I certainly don't see that in the text. I'm assuming you appeal to a plain view of reading and interpreting Scripture, so I'm just wondering where this idea of Jesus only being concerned with spiritual--and thus meaning non-material--matters comes from within the text.
Secondly, I find your claim that Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" an allusion to John 18:36, quite interesting, as that's not what he said. The Greek actually has Jesus saying that his Kingdom "is not from this world" meaning that it is not the sort of Kingdom that Pilate's is. Again, do you have evidence from the text that Jesus is making the contrast between his kingdom and Pilate's one political/non-political things, physical/spiritual difference?
Thirdly, the OED, while it is a great dictionary, there's a problem with it (actually with dictionaries in general). Dictionaries don't make up what words mean out of thin air. All they are doing is giving the various ways in which a word is used, and I stress the word used. Over the years words come to mean different things. Words can and do have the flexibility to be used in different ways as years go by. Now that doesn't make every use of any word suitable. Language would fall apart if it did that. Nevertheless, there is still that flexibility that words have that they can be used to say different things. Regarding the OED itself, I found on their website, OED.com, that there are several other definitions, mainly the first one of "sex" as a noun talking about the division of organisms between males and females. It looks on the surface of it, without going too far down the rabbit hole, to see at least something plausible about Kevin's use of "sex" in connection with eschatology (as far as being reunited goes). What was your reason for thinking it was hogwash again?
Sorry for the long comment, but I find this discussion fascinating, speaking as someone's who is not firmly in any of these camps, and I just had a lot of unanswered questions.
Cheers,
Jay C.
Permalink
04/30/08 @ 13:26 11 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, first I think we have to clarify a few things.
To begin with, it didn’t take the Incarnation for kings and caesars (or anyone else) to divine that they were not omnipotent. No matter how powerful they were, they knew they weren’t omnipotent. If they had all power they would not have feared rivals. Clearly they feared rivals. Even their gods weren’t omnipotent.
I don’t think anyone would deny that the moment Jesus started preaching about the Kingdom many understood the Kingdom to have political implications, not least of which were the disciples themselves. Their hope was that it involved the withdrawal of Romans.
Second, you’ve taken only part of my statement; I notice you omitted the context. This is unfortunate.
Third, “…and, thus, Jesus never said anything about them”?
“and thus”? Let’s try to tidy that up.
I never said that Jesus didn’t speak of them because they were politically freighted; Jesus spoke of politically freighted things. Like paying taxes and obeying laws. What Jesus didn’t do was describe his Kingdom in a way more consistent with Corcoran’s view than, say, Tim LaHaye’s.
My point was that these are interpretations which Kevin contrasted with a kingdom that was “a disembodied place in the great by-and-by”. This was clearly inaccurate, dismissive and not offered in the interest of “dialog”.
Jesus also said “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation” and “the Kingdom is within you”. These are not consistent with the interpretations of Jones and Corcoran.
Your third paragraph fares just as poorly: “…spiritual--and thus meaning non-material”? [There’s that tricky thus again.] You say that like spiritual and material cannot exist together in a single entity. You need to take that question to someone who is not both material and spiritual and one who is not anticipating a kingdom that is both material and spiritual.
ouk estin ek kosmou toutou
ek can be rendered of or from. Lenski translates it: “The kingship that is mine is not of this world”. Your interpretation is incorrect inasmuch as yours places the contrast between Jesus’ kingdom and Pilate’s. It is quite alright to translate ek as from (I think that is preferable, but the construction does not demand it), but the point of contrast is not between Jesus’ and Pilate’s kingdom but His kingdom and all earthly kingdoms; that is the strength of ek here. His was a heavenly kingdom, and that is the distinction at issue and raises oodles of questions about drinking water and eco-systems.
As for what sort of earth the meek shall inherit, I’m hoping for a spiffy one with all the bells and whistles. Clean would also be nice. The difference, again, is not what the kingdom will be like but by whom and by what means it will be established.
My quote does come from John 18, but the substance of my argument does not rest there alone. It rests on many passages and quite a few parables such as the one in Matthew 22--which also does not accord with the ideas of Jones and Corcoran.
I know that dictionaries don’t make up words. I know that words change. I know that words are flexible. I’ve made up words myself and I think some of them are real winners. I’m pinning my retirement hopes on five words I’ve invented myself.
But you are mistaken in believing that misrepresenting the meanings of Latin roots is a way to construct an argument. If Corcoran wants to be silly, I’m all for it. But let’s not blame an innocent Latin root. He said, “And what is the eschaton if not community, connection and wholeness”.
This is exactly where dictionaries come in handy; we can look up and see what the eschaton is if not community, connection and wholeness.
Finally, it has to be clear by now that I don’t object to long comments. The one piece of advice I would offer is that you don’t study theology on a sofa.
To begin with, it didn’t take the Incarnation for kings and caesars (or anyone else) to divine that they were not omnipotent. No matter how powerful they were, they knew they weren’t omnipotent. If they had all power they would not have feared rivals. Clearly they feared rivals. Even their gods weren’t omnipotent.
I don’t think anyone would deny that the moment Jesus started preaching about the Kingdom many understood the Kingdom to have political implications, not least of which were the disciples themselves. Their hope was that it involved the withdrawal of Romans.
Second, you’ve taken only part of my statement; I notice you omitted the context. This is unfortunate.
Third, “…and, thus, Jesus never said anything about them”?
“and thus”? Let’s try to tidy that up.
I never said that Jesus didn’t speak of them because they were politically freighted; Jesus spoke of politically freighted things. Like paying taxes and obeying laws. What Jesus didn’t do was describe his Kingdom in a way more consistent with Corcoran’s view than, say, Tim LaHaye’s.
My point was that these are interpretations which Kevin contrasted with a kingdom that was “a disembodied place in the great by-and-by”. This was clearly inaccurate, dismissive and not offered in the interest of “dialog”.
Jesus also said “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation” and “the Kingdom is within you”. These are not consistent with the interpretations of Jones and Corcoran.
Your third paragraph fares just as poorly: “…spiritual--and thus meaning non-material”? [There’s that tricky thus again.] You say that like spiritual and material cannot exist together in a single entity. You need to take that question to someone who is not both material and spiritual and one who is not anticipating a kingdom that is both material and spiritual.
ouk estin ek kosmou toutou
ek can be rendered of or from. Lenski translates it: “The kingship that is mine is not of this world”. Your interpretation is incorrect inasmuch as yours places the contrast between Jesus’ kingdom and Pilate’s. It is quite alright to translate ek as from (I think that is preferable, but the construction does not demand it), but the point of contrast is not between Jesus’ and Pilate’s kingdom but His kingdom and all earthly kingdoms; that is the strength of ek here. His was a heavenly kingdom, and that is the distinction at issue and raises oodles of questions about drinking water and eco-systems.
As for what sort of earth the meek shall inherit, I’m hoping for a spiffy one with all the bells and whistles. Clean would also be nice. The difference, again, is not what the kingdom will be like but by whom and by what means it will be established.
My quote does come from John 18, but the substance of my argument does not rest there alone. It rests on many passages and quite a few parables such as the one in Matthew 22--which also does not accord with the ideas of Jones and Corcoran.
I know that dictionaries don’t make up words. I know that words change. I know that words are flexible. I’ve made up words myself and I think some of them are real winners. I’m pinning my retirement hopes on five words I’ve invented myself.
But you are mistaken in believing that misrepresenting the meanings of Latin roots is a way to construct an argument. If Corcoran wants to be silly, I’m all for it. But let’s not blame an innocent Latin root. He said, “And what is the eschaton if not community, connection and wholeness”.
This is exactly where dictionaries come in handy; we can look up and see what the eschaton is if not community, connection and wholeness.
Finally, it has to be clear by now that I don’t object to long comments. The one piece of advice I would offer is that you don’t study theology on a sofa.
Permalink
04/30/08 @ 18:03 12 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
This is good...
I'll do some clarifying of my own. By omnipotent, I didn't mean it in the sense of being truly possessing all logically possible power. I was simply meaning that they saw themselves as the rulers of the world who had to answer to no one and to whom the entire world was subject. Though some of them did conceive of themselves as the sons of divine beings (this was common in the Ceasar dynasty), which would have been an interesting claim if someone from a small, backwaters movement started to take that same title for someone else...
Regarding my use of only a selection, unless there's a distortion that my selective reading produces (that is corrected by a surrounding sentence), then I see no problem with using only a small portion of what you say. Indeed, it would be stupid to have to reproduce the entire passage just to make one little point about one part, but I'll try to be more careful of that if you want me to.
Was I wrong in interpreting you to saying that Jesus never spoke about matters with "political implications." What you actually said was this:
These [ecosystems, etc] are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world."
The juxtaposition of these two sentences, with one talking about politically freighted stuff, and another talking about what Jesus actually said, seems to justify the conclusion that Jesus did not speak about those things.
Your response is that because these statements were politically freighted is not the reason or cause for Jesus not speaking about them, but simply an accidental, non-essential quality of these statements. That's a fair response I guess. I guess my next question would be what Jesus was trying to portray in those statements if he wasn't primarily talking about political things? For example, what is Jesus talking about when he says to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's?"
You also claim that Kevin's interpretations of your views are clearly inaccurate, dismissive, not aimed at dialogue, but you didn't go into any detail about what you view is about. Could you elaborate so that it is clear that you're not talking about a disembodied pie in the sky?
Also can you on what"The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation" and "The Kingdom is within you" means.
So Jesus' worldview does fit better with LaHaye's than Corcoran? Can you elaborate on this, as I don't know much about either of them specifically.
Reading back through your response, you claim to have never heard people speak about a "disembodied kingdom." I find this rather hard to believe, for if you've ever heard someone sing the song "This world aint my home, I'm just a passing through" or things like it, that's what that means. Material earth will be destroyed and the souls of the elect will exist in some other place w/o a physical body (disembodied) state.
At the point about physical/non-material part of my post, I was giving my interpretation of what I thought is your position. My interpretation of you would go something like this: Politics, for example, deals with physical things, so Jesus did not say anything about them. I did not intend to mean that I believed that such a duality wasn't possible or the actual way of the world. I was characterizing you, and as I've already said, I'm not totally convinced from what you've said that my interpretation is far off, but I'm open to being persuaded.
Your analysis of my interpretation of John 18:36 is puzzling. The contrast is between Jesus and the kingdoms of this world, not between Jesus and Pilate's kingdom. Isn't Pilate one example of a kingdom of this world? When you say that Jesus's Kingdom is a heavenly one, what kind of contrast are you talking about?
As for Latin roots, forgive me if this sounds repetitive, but I'm not convinced that you've demonstrated that Kevin has "misrepresented the meanings of Latin roots." I don't think you've demonstrated this. Eschaton may not necessarily include community, etc. but that certainly doesn't disqualify it by any means.
As for my butchering of the English language, I ask for a little grace. Blog posts/comments are not always polished pieces of academic work, so grammatical problems can result.
I'll do some clarifying of my own. By omnipotent, I didn't mean it in the sense of being truly possessing all logically possible power. I was simply meaning that they saw themselves as the rulers of the world who had to answer to no one and to whom the entire world was subject. Though some of them did conceive of themselves as the sons of divine beings (this was common in the Ceasar dynasty), which would have been an interesting claim if someone from a small, backwaters movement started to take that same title for someone else...
Regarding my use of only a selection, unless there's a distortion that my selective reading produces (that is corrected by a surrounding sentence), then I see no problem with using only a small portion of what you say. Indeed, it would be stupid to have to reproduce the entire passage just to make one little point about one part, but I'll try to be more careful of that if you want me to.
Was I wrong in interpreting you to saying that Jesus never spoke about matters with "political implications." What you actually said was this:
These [ecosystems, etc] are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world."
The juxtaposition of these two sentences, with one talking about politically freighted stuff, and another talking about what Jesus actually said, seems to justify the conclusion that Jesus did not speak about those things.
Your response is that because these statements were politically freighted is not the reason or cause for Jesus not speaking about them, but simply an accidental, non-essential quality of these statements. That's a fair response I guess. I guess my next question would be what Jesus was trying to portray in those statements if he wasn't primarily talking about political things? For example, what is Jesus talking about when he says to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God what is God's?"
You also claim that Kevin's interpretations of your views are clearly inaccurate, dismissive, not aimed at dialogue, but you didn't go into any detail about what you view is about. Could you elaborate so that it is clear that you're not talking about a disembodied pie in the sky?
Also can you on what"The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation" and "The Kingdom is within you" means.
So Jesus' worldview does fit better with LaHaye's than Corcoran? Can you elaborate on this, as I don't know much about either of them specifically.
Reading back through your response, you claim to have never heard people speak about a "disembodied kingdom." I find this rather hard to believe, for if you've ever heard someone sing the song "This world aint my home, I'm just a passing through" or things like it, that's what that means. Material earth will be destroyed and the souls of the elect will exist in some other place w/o a physical body (disembodied) state.
At the point about physical/non-material part of my post, I was giving my interpretation of what I thought is your position. My interpretation of you would go something like this: Politics, for example, deals with physical things, so Jesus did not say anything about them. I did not intend to mean that I believed that such a duality wasn't possible or the actual way of the world. I was characterizing you, and as I've already said, I'm not totally convinced from what you've said that my interpretation is far off, but I'm open to being persuaded.
Your analysis of my interpretation of John 18:36 is puzzling. The contrast is between Jesus and the kingdoms of this world, not between Jesus and Pilate's kingdom. Isn't Pilate one example of a kingdom of this world? When you say that Jesus's Kingdom is a heavenly one, what kind of contrast are you talking about?
As for Latin roots, forgive me if this sounds repetitive, but I'm not convinced that you've demonstrated that Kevin has "misrepresented the meanings of Latin roots." I don't think you've demonstrated this. Eschaton may not necessarily include community, etc. but that certainly doesn't disqualify it by any means.
As for my butchering of the English language, I ask for a little grace. Blog posts/comments are not always polished pieces of academic work, so grammatical problems can result.
Permalink
04/30/08 @ 22:21 13 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, see, there’s the problem: you said omnipotent, but you apparently meant something else. That would have been nice to know.
Actually, yes, there was a distortion in your omission. We had a series of ideas from which you selected only a couple for me to explain. While that would have been possible, it wouldn’t have reflected the flow of the discussion which contained all the elements. We were getting off track.
And yes, you were wrong. Kevin’s entire context involved more than just relationships and political implications. These have been the stuff of theological debate for a long time. What Kevin was doing was insinuating a particular kind of political implication. He was making a distinction between political implications as traditionally understood and the political implications he wanted to nuance into the conversation. This was clear in his context, Jones’s whole novel take on “living eschatologically”.
I mean, I don’t know that it is worth pursuing now because I don’t know how much of eschatology or church history you know [see below], and I don’t know if you are playing dumb for the sake of making a point. But let me just give an example of what I mean.
There are certain people who believe in a millennial reign of Jesus on David’s throne in a city you can see with Google Earth (not at all by-and-by-in-the-sky). If these people were to argue that we should destroy all the Muslim countries and all Israel’s Arab enemies in anticipation of and preparation for that kingdom, and if they were to call that “living eschatologically”, “living in the light of God’s future”, and “a hope-filled orientation”, people would be having cows all over the place—enough to reinstate the sacrificial system by the end of today.
I would expect those certain people to give an explanation for such a view. Likewise with this “eschatological living” theory of Corcoran’s.
But again, I think the opportunity for that discussion has passed. These were Corc’s ideas and he bowed out. Apparently he is ok with misrepresenting the eschatological views of the “by-and-by” crowd, but he seems a little sensitive about his own odd views.
You know, “scratches like a cat and bleeds at a touch”?
I’m going to tread lightly here, because I suspect your notions of Christian theology are not well-considered:
In addition, this simple—and embarrassingly banal—song alludes to the eternal state, not the millennial kingdom. There is a difference in their mind, whether you & Corc know it or not, that does justify fairer treatment.
And yes, Pilate’s kingdom was one of the earthly kingdoms, but it in no way stood for any and all kingdoms; the distinction is a necessary one to understand Jesus’ statement in context.
I’m still trying to sort through my feelings about your butchery of the English language. I’m not sure if it is my place to extend grace as it is really, technically, not my property.
But I will muse on this at length later today.
Actually, yes, there was a distortion in your omission. We had a series of ideas from which you selected only a couple for me to explain. While that would have been possible, it wouldn’t have reflected the flow of the discussion which contained all the elements. We were getting off track.
And yes, you were wrong. Kevin’s entire context involved more than just relationships and political implications. These have been the stuff of theological debate for a long time. What Kevin was doing was insinuating a particular kind of political implication. He was making a distinction between political implications as traditionally understood and the political implications he wanted to nuance into the conversation. This was clear in his context, Jones’s whole novel take on “living eschatologically”.
I mean, I don’t know that it is worth pursuing now because I don’t know how much of eschatology or church history you know [see below], and I don’t know if you are playing dumb for the sake of making a point. But let me just give an example of what I mean.
There are certain people who believe in a millennial reign of Jesus on David’s throne in a city you can see with Google Earth (not at all by-and-by-in-the-sky). If these people were to argue that we should destroy all the Muslim countries and all Israel’s Arab enemies in anticipation of and preparation for that kingdom, and if they were to call that “living eschatologically”, “living in the light of God’s future”, and “a hope-filled orientation”, people would be having cows all over the place—enough to reinstate the sacrificial system by the end of today.
I would expect those certain people to give an explanation for such a view. Likewise with this “eschatological living” theory of Corcoran’s.
But again, I think the opportunity for that discussion has passed. These were Corc’s ideas and he bowed out. Apparently he is ok with misrepresenting the eschatological views of the “by-and-by” crowd, but he seems a little sensitive about his own odd views.
You know, “scratches like a cat and bleeds at a touch”?
I’m going to tread lightly here, because I suspect your notions of Christian theology are not well-considered:
“This world aint [‘is not’ is the way the song goes] my home, I'm just a passing through" or things like it, that's what that means. Material earth will be destroyed and the souls of the elect will exist in some other place w/o a physical body (disembodied) state.Yes, souls will exist elsewhere but their bodies will be resurrected. So to say they will be w/o a physical body is a misrepresentation of their view. (I, for instance, am convinced that my body will be returned to me and that I shall always be as breathtakingly handsome as you see me today.)
In addition, this simple—and embarrassingly banal—song alludes to the eternal state, not the millennial kingdom. There is a difference in their mind, whether you & Corc know it or not, that does justify fairer treatment.
And yes, Pilate’s kingdom was one of the earthly kingdoms, but it in no way stood for any and all kingdoms; the distinction is a necessary one to understand Jesus’ statement in context.
I’m still trying to sort through my feelings about your butchery of the English language. I’m not sure if it is my place to extend grace as it is really, technically, not my property.
But I will muse on this at length later today.
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 06:24 14 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
I think my use of the word "omnipotent" was completely consistent with one of its definitions (see defns. 2 and 3 in the OED)
Looking back on your original post (the one I responded to initially) you say
"Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world...Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?"
I responded with a possible interpretation of things Jesus said that would have encouraged a certain attitude about economic systems, environment, etc. (I'm assuming the green reference is shorthand that includes the other things like drinking water, economic systems). I gave an answer to your question that you posed to Kevin but never got an answer.
The millenial reign of Jesus on David's literal throne is an interesting counter-example but I'm not sure it demonstrates what it is intended to. Is Rapture included in this form of eschatology? If so, when in relation to this, and for what purpose? Furthermore, what's going to happen after this millenial reign is over? Is this material world thrown away or does it get included a New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 21 I think it is)? Given your statement about that song I used--saying that it refers to the eternal state--it would seem that the millenial is just a delay of earth's destruction, so that it happens at a later time. Okay, so you believe you'll have a body, but will it actually be a physical body of cells, etc? If so, then you're not part of my critique. I however have heard people who claim to be Christians say that the physical body does not matter, that the we'll become something analogous to disembodied beings like angels.
I apologize if I was taken to mean that my characterization is true of all people who believe in a Rapture that none of them believe in the resurrection of the body. I didn't mean to characterize everyone as having this same characteristic. I did mean to say that this is a common feature of many proponents of Rapture-esque theology (and similar systems like it). I seem to remember hearing about an official in the Reagan Admin. that appealed to the imminent return of Jesus as reason not to be worried about environmental issues. I've also heard it attributed to Jerry Falwell that the environmental movement was a distraction from the real tasks of the Gospel. The idea that this earth does not matter in light of Jesus's return when the earth will basically be blasted into ittie bittie pieces is what I'm responding to.
What is the distinction between Pilate and other earthly kings? You say there is a distinction, but do not elaborate at all.
Looking back on your original post (the one I responded to initially) you say
"Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world...Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?"
I responded with a possible interpretation of things Jesus said that would have encouraged a certain attitude about economic systems, environment, etc. (I'm assuming the green reference is shorthand that includes the other things like drinking water, economic systems). I gave an answer to your question that you posed to Kevin but never got an answer.
The millenial reign of Jesus on David's literal throne is an interesting counter-example but I'm not sure it demonstrates what it is intended to. Is Rapture included in this form of eschatology? If so, when in relation to this, and for what purpose? Furthermore, what's going to happen after this millenial reign is over? Is this material world thrown away or does it get included a New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 21 I think it is)? Given your statement about that song I used--saying that it refers to the eternal state--it would seem that the millenial is just a delay of earth's destruction, so that it happens at a later time. Okay, so you believe you'll have a body, but will it actually be a physical body of cells, etc? If so, then you're not part of my critique. I however have heard people who claim to be Christians say that the physical body does not matter, that the we'll become something analogous to disembodied beings like angels.
I apologize if I was taken to mean that my characterization is true of all people who believe in a Rapture that none of them believe in the resurrection of the body. I didn't mean to characterize everyone as having this same characteristic. I did mean to say that this is a common feature of many proponents of Rapture-esque theology (and similar systems like it). I seem to remember hearing about an official in the Reagan Admin. that appealed to the imminent return of Jesus as reason not to be worried about environmental issues. I've also heard it attributed to Jerry Falwell that the environmental movement was a distraction from the real tasks of the Gospel. The idea that this earth does not matter in light of Jesus's return when the earth will basically be blasted into ittie bittie pieces is what I'm responding to.
What is the distinction between Pilate and other earthly kings? You say there is a distinction, but do not elaborate at all.
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 08:59 15 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Hmmm. I’m not sure what to say at this point that you will find persuasive.
I don’t deny that there are secondary definitions for the word omnipotent which are perfectly defensible usages in the right context. But you yourself introduced the notion with this statement:
Now is the time in the conversation to head off any confusions that might follow. If omnipotence is indeed significant in the game, then there was no caesar who was even suiting up. This may seem like a quibble to you, but it really isn’t. Jesus’ claims were not based on his omnipotence, indeed the Kingdom was an offer to Israel. Rome was not even on the map, as it were. If his claims were based on power, the matter could have been resolved with everyone repairing to the graveyard for a catered demonstration. I’m sure Jesus would have found this preferable to a crucifixion.
So I maintain that this is not the quibble it may appear to a non-theologian.
As for your third paragraph, I really wasn’t looking to you for a question I put to Kevin. I mean I appreciate it and all, but as we can all see by now, this is far too complicated for you to be answering for Kevin. (Not to mention all the semantic plasticity issues involved.)
Is the rapture included in this form of eschatology? Again, I hate to be rude, but this is far more complex than you suppose. Is the rapture a part of some eschatological schemes? Absolutely, but it may annoy you to learn that the significance and timing of the Rapture has more to do with the Tribulation than it does the Kingdom. The Tribulation and the Kingdom are as different as the Kingdom is from the eternal state, and there are oodles of competing interpretations brought to every detail.
I fear you are venturing into a field that has been trivialized for a long time. Trivialized by people on both sides of all questions.
Finally, I did not elaborate on the distinction between Pilate’s rule and all other rules because there is nothing to elaborate. Jesus’ claim involved a distinction between his kingdom and all earthly kingdoms, not just Pilate’s. This is not the Riddle of the Sphinx here.
To say that the apple in my left hand is different from the apple in my right hand is one kind of statement. To say that the apple in my left hand his different from any apple that has been plucked from any tree that ever was, is a very different kind of statement. Jesus is very much making the second kind of statement.
I don’t deny that there are secondary definitions for the word omnipotent which are perfectly defensible usages in the right context. But you yourself introduced the notion with this statement:
To make a claim that Jesus was Lord meant significant things, not least of which was that certain people in power were not the omnipotent rulers of the world they claimed to be (think Caesar).If you are contrasting the potencies of Jesus’ kingship and Caesar’s (and the significance of those potencies), then omnipotent is not the right word to describe Caesar’s. By this moment in history it had been noised abroad that Jesus had fed thousands of people and raised the dead. No caesar was making that claim. This is one of those things one could let slide…if it weren’t for your own statement in which you point to the significance of power and the claim to power.
Now is the time in the conversation to head off any confusions that might follow. If omnipotence is indeed significant in the game, then there was no caesar who was even suiting up. This may seem like a quibble to you, but it really isn’t. Jesus’ claims were not based on his omnipotence, indeed the Kingdom was an offer to Israel. Rome was not even on the map, as it were. If his claims were based on power, the matter could have been resolved with everyone repairing to the graveyard for a catered demonstration. I’m sure Jesus would have found this preferable to a crucifixion.
So I maintain that this is not the quibble it may appear to a non-theologian.
As for your third paragraph, I really wasn’t looking to you for a question I put to Kevin. I mean I appreciate it and all, but as we can all see by now, this is far too complicated for you to be answering for Kevin. (Not to mention all the semantic plasticity issues involved.)
The millenial reign of Jesus on David's literal throne is an interesting counter-example but I'm not sure it demonstrates what it is intended to.It merely illustrates that a belief in a literal reign in a geographically identified location is not fairly described as a “disembodied place in the great by-and-by”.
Is the rapture included in this form of eschatology? Again, I hate to be rude, but this is far more complex than you suppose. Is the rapture a part of some eschatological schemes? Absolutely, but it may annoy you to learn that the significance and timing of the Rapture has more to do with the Tribulation than it does the Kingdom. The Tribulation and the Kingdom are as different as the Kingdom is from the eternal state, and there are oodles of competing interpretations brought to every detail.
I fear you are venturing into a field that has been trivialized for a long time. Trivialized by people on both sides of all questions.
Finally, I did not elaborate on the distinction between Pilate’s rule and all other rules because there is nothing to elaborate. Jesus’ claim involved a distinction between his kingdom and all earthly kingdoms, not just Pilate’s. This is not the Riddle of the Sphinx here.
To say that the apple in my left hand is different from the apple in my right hand is one kind of statement. To say that the apple in my left hand his different from any apple that has been plucked from any tree that ever was, is a very different kind of statement. Jesus is very much making the second kind of statement.
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 11:32 16 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
I don't doubt that Rapture theologies are not monolithic and that every group/person has a different way of putting these things in relation to each other. My point is simply that the way its been portrayed to me has been that in the final tally, when all is said and done, the focus of a large portion of Christians today believe that their eternal state will not involve a physical body, but will be a spiritual disembodied soul in some place other than earth. That they have in their system a temporal period where Jesus reigns on Earth is interesting but, if, when that time ends, the elect are taken to some other place, then my original characterization of them as focusing on a immaterial afterlife rather than an embodied afterlife of resurrection of the body seems to stand.
You said: "Now is the time in the conversation to head off any confusions that might follow. If omnipotence is indeed significant in the game, then there was no caesar who was even suiting up. This may seem like a quibble to you, but it really isn’t. Jesus’ claims were not based on his omnipotence, indeed the Kingdom was an offer to Israel. Rome was not even on the map, as it were. If his claims were based on power, the matter could have been resolved with everyone repairing to the graveyard for a catered demonstration. I’m sure Jesus would have found this preferable to a crucifixion."
Caesar made the claim that he was in fact the ruler of the world, no one else was above him giving him orders. He claimed that kind of authority (Perhaps that's what is making us not see eye-to-eye here. If I said that I was talking about omnipotence in terms of absolute authority and sovereignty over the world, does that clarify what I'm saying?)
Rapture type eschatology might be trivialized, but I think it is an equally trivializing claim to say that it's so complex that we can't say anything about the end products.
Perhaps you mean its too complex to deal with in a blog comment. If so, what book-length sources do you suggest?
You said: "Now is the time in the conversation to head off any confusions that might follow. If omnipotence is indeed significant in the game, then there was no caesar who was even suiting up. This may seem like a quibble to you, but it really isn’t. Jesus’ claims were not based on his omnipotence, indeed the Kingdom was an offer to Israel. Rome was not even on the map, as it were. If his claims were based on power, the matter could have been resolved with everyone repairing to the graveyard for a catered demonstration. I’m sure Jesus would have found this preferable to a crucifixion."
Caesar made the claim that he was in fact the ruler of the world, no one else was above him giving him orders. He claimed that kind of authority (Perhaps that's what is making us not see eye-to-eye here. If I said that I was talking about omnipotence in terms of absolute authority and sovereignty over the world, does that clarify what I'm saying?)
Rapture type eschatology might be trivialized, but I think it is an equally trivializing claim to say that it's so complex that we can't say anything about the end products.
Perhaps you mean its too complex to deal with in a blog comment. If so, what book-length sources do you suggest?
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 13:46 17 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
However it has been put to you in the past, I put it to you now that that is not correct.
I’ll go further. The first testimony (chronologically) we have on this comes from Job who says, “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God”.
“My flesh”.
I cannot say whether or not I can keep my mole and the scar on the back of my left index finger, and I hope to lose the glasses, but this is the flesh that will be returned to me.
No one has said eschatology it too complex to summarize, it just isn’t what we do on this blog. It would take more than a comment; it would take more than a blog, especially if you are not conversant with the differences between the Tribulation, the Kingdom and the eternal state.
It’s not that it isn’t an interesting topic, it’s just not our purpose here.
If you were to pursue it at length, I think what I would tell you—just off the top of my head, and I didn’t learn it this way myself—but I think I would recommend going through George N.H. Peters’ Theocratic Kingdom first.
I’ll go further. The first testimony (chronologically) we have on this comes from Job who says, “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God”.
“My flesh”.
I cannot say whether or not I can keep my mole and the scar on the back of my left index finger, and I hope to lose the glasses, but this is the flesh that will be returned to me.
No one has said eschatology it too complex to summarize, it just isn’t what we do on this blog. It would take more than a comment; it would take more than a blog, especially if you are not conversant with the differences between the Tribulation, the Kingdom and the eternal state.
It’s not that it isn’t an interesting topic, it’s just not our purpose here.
If you were to pursue it at length, I think what I would tell you—just off the top of my head, and I didn’t learn it this way myself—but I think I would recommend going through George N.H. Peters’ Theocratic Kingdom first.
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 15:23 18 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
I understand and fully agree that the Bible is replete with references to resurrection of the body (Ez. 37, Romans 8, 1 Cor. 15, 2 Cor. 5, etc.). What I find interesting is that there are Christians who believe everything about resurrection but fail to understand the implications of it. For example, the environment, until very recently, has not been seen as a priority by many Christians. Social injustice has been pushed to the back burner if not off the stove altogether, on the premise that what happens to people in their bodies does not matter since their soul is what matters. These two examples are demonstrative of my point about people who may accept resurrection insofar as they are concerned, but pay no mind to the necessary consequences of such a belief. Much of their reason for thinking that these things don't matter have often come from the fact that they believe this world will not last, so there's no point in trying to change the world.
I guess since I'm new this blog, I must ask: what do you do on this blog? What are the goals you hope to achieve?
I guess since I'm new this blog, I must ask: what do you do on this blog? What are the goals you hope to achieve?
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 17:16 19 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Really?!
I never thought about that. So people who think the soul matters also think the body and the environment don’t matter?
That’s pretty scary. Makes me wonder about those Amish people; they’ve prolly been abusing the environment for generations.
Have you reported this to an environmental watchdog group or a government agency or something?
I never thought about that. So people who think the soul matters also think the body and the environment don’t matter?
That’s pretty scary. Makes me wonder about those Amish people; they’ve prolly been abusing the environment for generations.
Have you reported this to an environmental watchdog group or a government agency or something?
Permalink
05/01/08 @ 20:14 20 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
"So people who think the soul matters also think the body and the environment don’t matter?"
You're distorting what I'm saying. The issue is not that concern for the soul necessarily makes one feel the environment is not worth anything. When one is emphasized to the denigration of the other is the problem. My uneducated, unsupported guess is that the Amish may be better at keeping this tension than mainstream Christians.
You're distorting what I'm saying. The issue is not that concern for the soul necessarily makes one feel the environment is not worth anything. When one is emphasized to the denigration of the other is the problem. My uneducated, unsupported guess is that the Amish may be better at keeping this tension than mainstream Christians.
Permalink
05/02/08 @ 00:24 21 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Your “uneducated, unsupported guess”?
It’s rather hard to do anything really productive with uneducated, unsupported guesses, especially for me since I lived near and conversed with the Amish. (And when I say “conversed”, I don’t mean like emergents “converse”.)
I think you should collect these uneducated, unsupported guesses on 3X5 cards, organize them into workable categories, label them, put them in a box and then burn the box.
It’s rather hard to do anything really productive with uneducated, unsupported guesses, especially for me since I lived near and conversed with the Amish. (And when I say “conversed”, I don’t mean like emergents “converse”.)
I think you should collect these uneducated, unsupported guesses on 3X5 cards, organize them into workable categories, label them, put them in a box and then burn the box.
Permalink
05/02/08 @ 05:35 22 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
In retrospect, that probably was a really dumb thing to say on my part. The point still stands that your first question in comment 19 is clearly a false dichotomy (I'm not sure looking back on it if I made that criticism clear in my last comment). People who think the soul matters are not obligated to think that material world--and what goes on in it--is worthless. If for one think that both are important, and I think that this belief is well grounded in scripture, not least Genesis 1 and 2.
Permalink
05/05/08 @ 11:56 23 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Pardon me, Jay C., but you were the one who suggested that because Christians place high value on spiritual matters, we therefore place none on the physical world. Dissidens' question in comment 19 was a rhetorical rephrasing of what you were saying, not an expression of his own view (as evidenced by his reference to the Amish).
While there may be some truth in the idea that some Christians ignore environmental issues, it's hardly a universal truth that Christian focus on the spiritual leads to wanton disregard for the environment. Again, you were the one who posited a connection between concern for the spiritual and disdain for the environment.
Then again, the Bible also indicates that this earth with be destroyed by fire, and the resurrected saints will inhabit a new earth. Are you concerned that we'll trash that one, too?
You're not just toying with us, are you?
While there may be some truth in the idea that some Christians ignore environmental issues, it's hardly a universal truth that Christian focus on the spiritual leads to wanton disregard for the environment. Again, you were the one who posited a connection between concern for the spiritual and disdain for the environment.
Then again, the Bible also indicates that this earth with be destroyed by fire, and the resurrected saints will inhabit a new earth. Are you concerned that we'll trash that one, too?
You're not just toying with us, are you?
Permalink
05/05/08 @ 14:08 24 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
danofsteel:
Do you think it ever occurred to Jay C. that the converse might be equally true: that these environmentalist tramps are insufficiently concerned for the soul?
Do you think it ever occurred to Jay C. that the converse might be equally true: that these environmentalist tramps are insufficiently concerned for the soul?
Permalink
05/05/08 @ 20:08 25 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
Dan,
Am I the one making up the idea that placing too much value in the spiritual leads to putting little to no value in the material? To go all the way back to D's response to Kevin in Comment 2:
"Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world.
I’m even trying to recall a single eco-friendly work Jesus ever did as an example to us. He destroyed some pigs and inflicted economic harm on someone. He cursed a tree.
Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?"
Now this seems to shift a lot of emphasis away from the material world, or at least some of the things that go on in the material world. Perhaps it's not a total stripping of importance (after all, there's supposed to be a resurrection where we get back what seems to be our material bodies). What I find striking is that this belief in resurrection of the body does not also generate corollary beliefs about this world and its current operations (not least of which is how we treat this planet).
In 2 Peter 3:10, it talks about the world being destroyed by fire. But the idea of destruction is misleading here if we actually look at the text. It speaks about the earth coming under judgment, of the heavens "dissolving" and the elements melting down. I don't think (though I have no knowledge of the Greek) that there's sufficient evidence to say that we're talking about total metaphysical annihilation here (a la Stoic philosophy), simply a very harsh judgement (I like to think of 1 Cor. 3 as a useful analogy here). The metaphysical stuff, I think anyway, will be continuous for the most part through this judgement. Will I be worried about us trashing that new world? No, simply b/c trashing the world only happens in a state of rebellion and exile, and I'm fairly certain that the description of new heavens and new earth includes a returns from exile and a renewed state of obedience to God and resulting stewardship of creation.
Dissidens,
The converse is true. Some environmentalists (sadly even some allegedly Christian ones) emphasize the material at the expense of the spiritual. I never denied that that was a problem, but given the participants of this discussion, that's not a problem that needs to be in the forefront of the discussion. Like discussing with fashion models the problems of obesity, it's important and true but not that pertinent to the current participants.
Am I the one making up the idea that placing too much value in the spiritual leads to putting little to no value in the material? To go all the way back to D's response to Kevin in Comment 2:
"Jesus said nothing about his kingdom being about drinking water, economic systems, eco-systems. These are obvious inferences and politically freighted interpretations. What he actually said was that his kingdom was not of this world.
I’m even trying to recall a single eco-friendly work Jesus ever did as an example to us. He destroyed some pigs and inflicted economic harm on someone. He cursed a tree.
Do you recall any sermons where he encouraged a green attitude in his followers?"
Now this seems to shift a lot of emphasis away from the material world, or at least some of the things that go on in the material world. Perhaps it's not a total stripping of importance (after all, there's supposed to be a resurrection where we get back what seems to be our material bodies). What I find striking is that this belief in resurrection of the body does not also generate corollary beliefs about this world and its current operations (not least of which is how we treat this planet).
In 2 Peter 3:10, it talks about the world being destroyed by fire. But the idea of destruction is misleading here if we actually look at the text. It speaks about the earth coming under judgment, of the heavens "dissolving" and the elements melting down. I don't think (though I have no knowledge of the Greek) that there's sufficient evidence to say that we're talking about total metaphysical annihilation here (a la Stoic philosophy), simply a very harsh judgement (I like to think of 1 Cor. 3 as a useful analogy here). The metaphysical stuff, I think anyway, will be continuous for the most part through this judgement. Will I be worried about us trashing that new world? No, simply b/c trashing the world only happens in a state of rebellion and exile, and I'm fairly certain that the description of new heavens and new earth includes a returns from exile and a renewed state of obedience to God and resulting stewardship of creation.
Dissidens,
The converse is true. Some environmentalists (sadly even some allegedly Christian ones) emphasize the material at the expense of the spiritual. I never denied that that was a problem, but given the participants of this discussion, that's not a problem that needs to be in the forefront of the discussion. Like discussing with fashion models the problems of obesity, it's important and true but not that pertinent to the current participants.
Permalink
05/05/08 @ 23:05 26 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Jay C.,
I'm lost track of where you got confused about dissidens point regarding Kevin's environmentalist statements. I don't think I can help there.
Jesus came to save men's souls, and that certainly appears to be the entire focus of His earthly ministry. No one here suggested that Jesus' misssion leads to or should lead to disdain for the environment, only that the environment was not Jesus' mission.
But, I'd very much like some clarification on this:
I'm lost track of where you got confused about dissidens point regarding Kevin's environmentalist statements. I don't think I can help there.
Jesus came to save men's souls, and that certainly appears to be the entire focus of His earthly ministry. No one here suggested that Jesus' misssion leads to or should lead to disdain for the environment, only that the environment was not Jesus' mission.
But, I'd very much like some clarification on this:
"What I find striking is that this belief in resurrection of the body does not also generate corollary beliefs about this world and its current operations (not least of which is how we treat this planet)."While beliefs about man's position in the world as caretaker (a al Genesis 1&2) would lead to beleifs about stewardship of the planet, how would belief in the resurrection lead to "corollary beliefs about this world and its current operations"?
Permalink
05/06/08 @ 06:05 27 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
If the resurrection of the body is true, then that doesn't just mean that we'll go to heaven when we die. At the end of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul doesn't say, "Therefore look forward to the joy that awaits you in heaven." He does say "Therefore my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." (1 Cor 15:58). Paul connects the resurrection with the present work of the Christian in bringing about new creation in all areas of life, which includes not only the environment but every facet of human existence (including politics). Does this help?
Permalink
05/06/08 @ 06:24 28 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Not really, Jay C.
Are you expecting us to be resurrected back on the old decaying planet we started on? Or do you view the resurrection as figurative?
I don't follow.
Are you expecting us to be resurrected back on the old decaying planet we started on? Or do you view the resurrection as figurative?
I don't follow.
Permalink
05/07/08 @ 13:41 29 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
I believe in a completely literal resurrection, assuming by literal you mean an actual restoration of physical material bodies. The problem lies with what we're going back to. Will it be an old, decaying planet? I don't believe so. It will just be redeemed and restored. The exile of death and decay (Romans 8) will be over. That seems weird to us on this side of it, as we can only imagine matter as following laws of entropy, of scarcity, and ruthless competition. That will be changed. I don't have much details that clear things up, but a paradigmatic example might be to look at the post-Easter narratives in the Gospels. Presumably it is the same body that hung on the cross two days earlier, otherwise he wouldn't have the scars of the nails. But at the same time he is able to do strange things (pass through locked doors, disappear from people's sight, etc) that our normal bodies currently can't do. It's a strange thing, but it seems that 1) Jesus was both full body (the same body) and also 2) transformed in some significant way that didn't detract from 1).
As before, does that help?
As before, does that help?
Permalink
05/07/08 @ 17:34 30 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
That helps in understanding your view of the resurrection, but I still don't see the connection to the environment.
As I see it, taking care of the environment is a stewardship issue. Also, it's related to the fact that we don't know how long we'll be here and don't have any alternative if we make this planet uninhabitable.
Why do you think a proper appreciation for the resurrection should lead to increased focus on the environment?
As I see it, taking care of the environment is a stewardship issue. Also, it's related to the fact that we don't know how long we'll be here and don't have any alternative if we make this planet uninhabitable.
Why do you think a proper appreciation for the resurrection should lead to increased focus on the environment?
Permalink
05/08/08 @ 15:46 31 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
At the end of 1 Cor. 15, Paul admonishes the Corinthians to be steadfast and immovable "knowing that in the Lord their labor is not in vain. What Paul is saying is that because the resurrection is a reality, then there new creation taking place (2 Cor 5:17) and it is now our job, as representatives and agents of that new creation, to begin to begin bringing that new creation into all aspects of life. Obviously we need the Spirit to guide us in this work, lest we fall into a strictly social gospel.
As far as the environment goes, if that is also going to be a part of new creation, then what God's call to us is to begin treating the world in light of this promised future reacation. Does that make sense?
Thanks for your honest questions and for discussing them in a civil manner.
As far as the environment goes, if that is also going to be a part of new creation, then what God's call to us is to begin treating the world in light of this promised future reacation. Does that make sense?
Thanks for your honest questions and for discussing them in a civil manner.
Permalink
05/08/08 @ 16:49 32 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
How is the current environment going play a role in the new creation? I think that's the part I'm missing.
Permalink
05/09/08 @ 09:39 33 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
Two reasons. 1). The current environment matters because God is going to restore the entire earth and all the things in it. The current environment matters because if we are truly God's people then we ought to want to participate in the giving of grace in the present to the whole world, including the environment.
2.)Let me give you an analogy to illustrate another reason (which does go along with the first one). Suppose I were to say about my body, "well, it really doesn't matter if I sin or not. One day God's going to restore and cleanse me from all this sin and such, and I won't get it right until then, so there's really no need to put much effort in the present to work at perfecting my body." If I were to say that, your response would almost certainly say that the fact that God in the future will make everything right does not give me the right to just sit back and relax and wallow in sin. No, if I was truly redeemed, then you would say that there is a job to do, that of bringing your whole person into conformity with the image of Christ (Rom. 12:2) in the present. If we are to bring our individual persons into conformity with the will of God, why should we let our environment just, as it were, wallow in sin and exile?
2.)Let me give you an analogy to illustrate another reason (which does go along with the first one). Suppose I were to say about my body, "well, it really doesn't matter if I sin or not. One day God's going to restore and cleanse me from all this sin and such, and I won't get it right until then, so there's really no need to put much effort in the present to work at perfecting my body." If I were to say that, your response would almost certainly say that the fact that God in the future will make everything right does not give me the right to just sit back and relax and wallow in sin. No, if I was truly redeemed, then you would say that there is a job to do, that of bringing your whole person into conformity with the image of Christ (Rom. 12:2) in the present. If we are to bring our individual persons into conformity with the will of God, why should we let our environment just, as it were, wallow in sin and exile?
Permalink
05/14/08 @ 16:16 34 Comment from: James Joyce [Visitor]
If we are to bring our individual persons into conformity with the will of God, why should we let our environment just, as it were, wallow in sin and exile?
The line of personal conformity to the will of God is clearly defined in scripture. Do not lie, steal, lust, hate, covet, etc.
There is however, no clearly defined line of conformity for "environmental sin".
Is it a sin to eat meat? What about organic meat?Drive a car? 2 cars? What if you drive each car less often? Are synthetic fabrics ok? At what point does the earth's carbon content conform to the will of God? What atmospheric temperature does God will for creation? I guess I could go on ad nauseaum.
I have found that those who are personally conforming their bodies to God's will have a greater concern for God's creation as a by product.
But I have met many that are obsessive about the environment who do not seem to show any signs of personal holiness. They worship the creation and not the Creator. And that grieves me.
The line of personal conformity to the will of God is clearly defined in scripture. Do not lie, steal, lust, hate, covet, etc.
There is however, no clearly defined line of conformity for "environmental sin".
Is it a sin to eat meat? What about organic meat?Drive a car? 2 cars? What if you drive each car less often? Are synthetic fabrics ok? At what point does the earth's carbon content conform to the will of God? What atmospheric temperature does God will for creation? I guess I could go on ad nauseaum.
I have found that those who are personally conforming their bodies to God's will have a greater concern for God's creation as a by product.
But I have met many that are obsessive about the environment who do not seem to show any signs of personal holiness. They worship the creation and not the Creator. And that grieves me.
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 10:05 35 Comment from: Jay C. [Visitor]
These are really good questions. How much has to be done before creation is brought back fully into conformity? That's not an easy question to answer. Is it a sin to eat meat, drive a car, etc? I don't have a hard and fast answer to these questions, but these are all issues that are left to be worked out.
I'm sure you'd agree with this, but I'm just saying it to make a point. Jesus said "Be holy for I am holy." Yes, that includes the list of do nots that I guess it's easy to know if we've transgressed or not. What about the "list" of dos (love your neighbor as yourself, be a cheerful giver, obey authorities, etc.) How much of those do we have to have to be considered conformed to the image of Christ? Furthermore, to ask the kinds of questions you ask about the environment, what does it mean to love your neighbor as yourself? What/How much must you do to demonstrate that? I think that personal holiness isn't as cut and dried as you made it out to be.
Your last statement is true, there are people who exalt the environment to too high a place, which is obviously a problem that you bring up mentioning Romans 1. I think this is what you mean when you talk about these people being "obsessive", and if so, then I agree. I will say that there's a difference between being obsessive in the above sense and being passionate about the environment. "Be holy for I am holy" is a very high bar to meet.
I'm sure you'd agree with this, but I'm just saying it to make a point. Jesus said "Be holy for I am holy." Yes, that includes the list of do nots that I guess it's easy to know if we've transgressed or not. What about the "list" of dos (love your neighbor as yourself, be a cheerful giver, obey authorities, etc.) How much of those do we have to have to be considered conformed to the image of Christ? Furthermore, to ask the kinds of questions you ask about the environment, what does it mean to love your neighbor as yourself? What/How much must you do to demonstrate that? I think that personal holiness isn't as cut and dried as you made it out to be.
Your last statement is true, there are people who exalt the environment to too high a place, which is obviously a problem that you bring up mentioning Romans 1. I think this is what you mean when you talk about these people being "obsessive", and if so, then I agree. I will say that there's a difference between being obsessive in the above sense and being passionate about the environment. "Be holy for I am holy" is a very high bar to meet.
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 10:40 36 Comment from: danofsteel [Member]
Jay C.,
I've already acknowledged that there are reasons for protecting the environment. The issue is not whether Christians should trash the planet.
The issue is that you suggested that a correct appreciation for the resurrection would lead to a increased focus on protecting the environment. You still have not explained that connection, and I suspect your eschatology is too different from mine for me to make sense of your responses.
In your last response, this is the only thing that even remotely relates to the resurrection:
This suggest to me that you believe this includes landfills, raw sewage, and nuclear dumps. We have to clean up it now because we're going to be stuck with it for all eternity?
The idea that the resurrection is the motivation for environmentalism doesn't make sense.
I've already acknowledged that there are reasons for protecting the environment. The issue is not whether Christians should trash the planet.
The issue is that you suggested that a correct appreciation for the resurrection would lead to a increased focus on protecting the environment. You still have not explained that connection, and I suspect your eschatology is too different from mine for me to make sense of your responses.
In your last response, this is the only thing that even remotely relates to the resurrection:
The current environment matters because God is going to restore the entire earth and all the things in it.
This suggest to me that you believe this includes landfills, raw sewage, and nuclear dumps. We have to clean up it now because we're going to be stuck with it for all eternity?
The idea that the resurrection is the motivation for environmentalism doesn't make sense.
Permalink
05/15/08 @ 10:41 37 Comment from: Frank Turk [Visitor] · http://centuri0n.blogspot.com
· http://centuri0n.blogspot.com
I used to blog like this. Now I am reduced to book reviews.
Thank God someone still has a little starch in their shorts.
Thank God someone still has a little starch in their shorts.
Permalink
05/16/08 @ 03:16 38 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Hey, FT.
Be not weary in well doing.
Be not weary in well doing.
Permalink
05/16/08 @ 06:16 39 Comment from: Ben H [Visitor]
Pardon the intrusion.
This has made for intruiging reading, and like many debates, the key arguments are not so much the points in question - but rather the difficulty in articulating exactly what each is trying to say to the other.
Jay C: I admire your relentless pursuing of this discussion, but it feels to me like too much partly-related dust has been stirred up. Dissidens seems to have tired of your energetic writing. Pursue this further yourself - you obviously have a great desire for understanding that is being held back by incomplete views and your professed 'uneducated, unsupported' state.
Dissidens: Your grasp of language and learning is admirable, "And though ... you [may] understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and have all faith..." I ask only why instead of correcting and teaching Jay C (in whose opening comment he admitted he had 'a lot of unanswered questions'), you repeatedly proceeded to open up with all barrels on his flawed arguments? Surely you can discern the difference between a person earnestly desiring intellectual exchange and finding themselves out of their depth, and the 'fool' of Solomon's Proverbs? Should both be rebuked?
I am grateful then that my God, who understanding all mysteries, deals gently with me even in the ignorance I mistake for wisdom.
This has made for intruiging reading, and like many debates, the key arguments are not so much the points in question - but rather the difficulty in articulating exactly what each is trying to say to the other.
Jay C: I admire your relentless pursuing of this discussion, but it feels to me like too much partly-related dust has been stirred up. Dissidens seems to have tired of your energetic writing. Pursue this further yourself - you obviously have a great desire for understanding that is being held back by incomplete views and your professed 'uneducated, unsupported' state.
Dissidens: Your grasp of language and learning is admirable, "And though ... you [may] understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and have all faith..." I ask only why instead of correcting and teaching Jay C (in whose opening comment he admitted he had 'a lot of unanswered questions'), you repeatedly proceeded to open up with all barrels on his flawed arguments? Surely you can discern the difference between a person earnestly desiring intellectual exchange and finding themselves out of their depth, and the 'fool' of Solomon's Proverbs? Should both be rebuked?
I am grateful then that my God, who understanding all mysteries, deals gently with me even in the ignorance I mistake for wisdom.
Permalink
05/29/08 @ 08:26 40 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Ben:
Well, I think the difference here is one of perception. You appear to think that Chris is arguing in good faith. I have reasons to doubt it. I have never believed that a “person earnestly desiring intellectual exchange” persists in definitions which have been challenged. I think he saw what happened with Corcoran and tried to make a second—less bumbling—approach, but I think the same end was in view.
I don’t think it is all that difficult for others—and there is always an audience in a public blog exchange—to observe the subtle or insinuating comments scattered about. Take for instance your quotation from I Corinthians.
I am not in the least offended by your insinuation that because I “[may] understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and have all faith…” it might be inferred that I also lack charity.
I am not offended, but I do note it. When you say that, or when Corcoran makes a crack about “a disembodied place in the great by-and-by”, it sets the tone for the conversation. It excludes people. It disenfranchises people. Pick any devil-word you like; it is not good.
As for me personally, commenters are more than welcome to do that. I would even encourage it because (as you can verify with everyone here) I love to argue, and you are catching me in a debate about truth; I make no apology for contending for the truth. But if you do that, you need to expect to be answered accordingly. As with Morse Code, don’t send it faster than you can receive it.
If this conversation deserves respect, then all participants owe respect to everyone. It would help the trash-talking Emergents to learn this.
It is clear that Corcoran has no intellectual regard for those with different views, it is also apparent that Jay was trying to rehabilitate his idea. That is fine. But by the same token every conversation doesn’t have to be sabotaged by the least competent or least gracious participant.
I suspect any participant who is not committed to the truth might be more sensitive about the tone of a conversation: if truth is not the end, I suppose means might serve as an end. We are talking here—especially in this exchange—about people who are interjecting the most egregious heterodoxy under the guise of “conversation”. (Speaking now of Jones & Corcoran; not Jay.) They themselves are not great conversationalists, they are caricaturists. They want to start a rumble until they get a bloody nose, then they expect the Rules of Queensberry to apply.
I don’t think this is fair. But fair or not, it is not what Remonstrans is about. We are trying to cultivate a small but earnest readership. We will not do that by indulging those who mischaracterize their beliefs by quoting bumpkin choruses and identifying “rapture-esque theology[ies]”. There is a place for that. Try SharperIron.org. There are lots of rapture-esque preachers over there.
P. S. Just as a point of personal interest, and again have nothing at all to do with Jay, you do believe that fools should be rebuked, right?
Well, I think the difference here is one of perception. You appear to think that Chris is arguing in good faith. I have reasons to doubt it. I have never believed that a “person earnestly desiring intellectual exchange” persists in definitions which have been challenged. I think he saw what happened with Corcoran and tried to make a second—less bumbling—approach, but I think the same end was in view.
I don’t think it is all that difficult for others—and there is always an audience in a public blog exchange—to observe the subtle or insinuating comments scattered about. Take for instance your quotation from I Corinthians.
I am not in the least offended by your insinuation that because I “[may] understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and have all faith…” it might be inferred that I also lack charity.
I am not offended, but I do note it. When you say that, or when Corcoran makes a crack about “a disembodied place in the great by-and-by”, it sets the tone for the conversation. It excludes people. It disenfranchises people. Pick any devil-word you like; it is not good.
As for me personally, commenters are more than welcome to do that. I would even encourage it because (as you can verify with everyone here) I love to argue, and you are catching me in a debate about truth; I make no apology for contending for the truth. But if you do that, you need to expect to be answered accordingly. As with Morse Code, don’t send it faster than you can receive it.
If this conversation deserves respect, then all participants owe respect to everyone. It would help the trash-talking Emergents to learn this.
It is clear that Corcoran has no intellectual regard for those with different views, it is also apparent that Jay was trying to rehabilitate his idea. That is fine. But by the same token every conversation doesn’t have to be sabotaged by the least competent or least gracious participant.
I suspect any participant who is not committed to the truth might be more sensitive about the tone of a conversation: if truth is not the end, I suppose means might serve as an end. We are talking here—especially in this exchange—about people who are interjecting the most egregious heterodoxy under the guise of “conversation”. (Speaking now of Jones & Corcoran; not Jay.) They themselves are not great conversationalists, they are caricaturists. They want to start a rumble until they get a bloody nose, then they expect the Rules of Queensberry to apply.
I don’t think this is fair. But fair or not, it is not what Remonstrans is about. We are trying to cultivate a small but earnest readership. We will not do that by indulging those who mischaracterize their beliefs by quoting bumpkin choruses and identifying “rapture-esque theology[ies]”. There is a place for that. Try SharperIron.org. There are lots of rapture-esque preachers over there.
P. S. Just as a point of personal interest, and again have nothing at all to do with Jay, you do believe that fools should be rebuked, right?
Permalink
05/29/08 @ 14:37 41 Comment from: Ben H [Visitor]
dissidens,
Firstly can I thank you for your reply; I've far too often been caught in crossfire when making an attempt to make any mention in an already-tumultuous debate. Thank you for considering and responding in such a reasonable manner. It is a poor advertisement for the blog-culture that I find myself surprised to hear reason and consideration.
Unfortunately the impression I formed from reading this discussion was not that Jay was arguing in good faith; rather he was thinking out loud through a whole pile of accumulated and partly-thought-out views. I gathered you felt the same, hence your advice to catagorise and incinerate them. Where I fell in was feeling somewhere in between the two of you: Like you I will never hesitate to contend for truth (in which half the fight is with yourself anyway), but I also sympathize with what I interpreted as Jay's very real desire for some clarity. Admittedly he did not go about it in the most advisable way (repeated ambiguous rhetorical questions never fare well in debates), but I struggle to see why else he continued, jumping from issue to issue with little conclusion. My guess is that he was hoping you would see where he was trying to go and articulate it better?
Of course this is how I read in a well-wishing manner. A week-long exchange of comments does not translate into a ten-minute conversation in tone particularly well, and the impression I was left with was the one I voiced in my interjection. It did occur from Jay's writing that he was not aiming particularly well, and finding himself with faulty ammunition. I am no stranger to this situation.
His willingness to admit his lack of knowledge, and even to concede a point of his as stupid (which again, I have rarely encountered in online debates, which are often more about ego than substance - glad to be proven wrong here) leads me to believe the better of him. Hence my grief at a knowledgeable and eloquent person simply tearing his [flimsy] arguments to shreds rather than trying to see what was behind his points.
I do however, ask your forgiveness for the 'insinuation' of your lacking charity. I do not presume to know you as a person, and my quotation was intended not so much an admonishion, but rather a reminder that our pursuit of all knowledge and truth is of little worth as an ultimate goal. I simply wondered if you were dismantling Jay from love or for arguments sake?
Of course from this stance I choose to take, I run that risk of setting 'truth' and 'love' as somehow opposing. That we should be nice to everyone even when they are plainly wrong or deceived. Or the converse: that people need to know the truth even if we trample all over them in the process. I regard neither as a correct, nor scriptural. Am I getting close to your purpose here at Remonstrans now?
Enjoying the intruige.
- Ben
P.P.S. I will answer your question if you answer mine (likewise out of personal interest rather than anything pertaining to Jay, Corcoran or Jones): in your opinion, why was Paul qualified to rebuke the churches in Galatia, Corinth and Colossae?
Firstly can I thank you for your reply; I've far too often been caught in crossfire when making an attempt to make any mention in an already-tumultuous debate. Thank you for considering and responding in such a reasonable manner. It is a poor advertisement for the blog-culture that I find myself surprised to hear reason and consideration.
Unfortunately the impression I formed from reading this discussion was not that Jay was arguing in good faith; rather he was thinking out loud through a whole pile of accumulated and partly-thought-out views. I gathered you felt the same, hence your advice to catagorise and incinerate them. Where I fell in was feeling somewhere in between the two of you: Like you I will never hesitate to contend for truth (in which half the fight is with yourself anyway), but I also sympathize with what I interpreted as Jay's very real desire for some clarity. Admittedly he did not go about it in the most advisable way (repeated ambiguous rhetorical questions never fare well in debates), but I struggle to see why else he continued, jumping from issue to issue with little conclusion. My guess is that he was hoping you would see where he was trying to go and articulate it better?
Of course this is how I read in a well-wishing manner. A week-long exchange of comments does not translate into a ten-minute conversation in tone particularly well, and the impression I was left with was the one I voiced in my interjection. It did occur from Jay's writing that he was not aiming particularly well, and finding himself with faulty ammunition. I am no stranger to this situation.
His willingness to admit his lack of knowledge, and even to concede a point of his as stupid (which again, I have rarely encountered in online debates, which are often more about ego than substance - glad to be proven wrong here) leads me to believe the better of him. Hence my grief at a knowledgeable and eloquent person simply tearing his [flimsy] arguments to shreds rather than trying to see what was behind his points.
I do however, ask your forgiveness for the 'insinuation' of your lacking charity. I do not presume to know you as a person, and my quotation was intended not so much an admonishion, but rather a reminder that our pursuit of all knowledge and truth is of little worth as an ultimate goal. I simply wondered if you were dismantling Jay from love or for arguments sake?
Of course from this stance I choose to take, I run that risk of setting 'truth' and 'love' as somehow opposing. That we should be nice to everyone even when they are plainly wrong or deceived. Or the converse: that people need to know the truth even if we trample all over them in the process. I regard neither as a correct, nor scriptural. Am I getting close to your purpose here at Remonstrans now?
Enjoying the intruige.
- Ben
P.P.S. I will answer your question if you answer mine (likewise out of personal interest rather than anything pertaining to Jay, Corcoran or Jones): in your opinion, why was Paul qualified to rebuke the churches in Galatia, Corinth and Colossae?
Permalink
06/02/08 @ 06:37 42 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Well, you’re too kind.
I’m actually one who thinks that debate these days is too civil. Too much is at stake and too little is expected in the way of commitment to unfashionable ideas.
I won’t defend my behavior in every instance; I know I’ve made mistakes, and I don’t want to defend mistakes. But I didn’t set the tone for these conversations. My grandfather didn’t even set the tone for these conversations. I think it would be fairer to say we are playing the ball as it lies.
But again, that explains my rationale, it doesn’t justify my behavior.
I might be inclined to assume more guilt in these matters if I didn’t know the context. There are plenty of nicer people out there involved in the fracas. There are some who have tried to “engage” with emergents. How did that work out?
I draw conclusions from these failures.
“Trying to see behind someone else’s points” is tricky business. When I look behind his points I see something very different from what you see.
If I understand your postscript, I would say that Paul was qualified in two ways, first he was an Apostle; second, the teaching he offers was inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit for our instruction.
I’m actually one who thinks that debate these days is too civil. Too much is at stake and too little is expected in the way of commitment to unfashionable ideas.
I won’t defend my behavior in every instance; I know I’ve made mistakes, and I don’t want to defend mistakes. But I didn’t set the tone for these conversations. My grandfather didn’t even set the tone for these conversations. I think it would be fairer to say we are playing the ball as it lies.
But again, that explains my rationale, it doesn’t justify my behavior.
I might be inclined to assume more guilt in these matters if I didn’t know the context. There are plenty of nicer people out there involved in the fracas. There are some who have tried to “engage” with emergents. How did that work out?
I draw conclusions from these failures.
“Trying to see behind someone else’s points” is tricky business. When I look behind his points I see something very different from what you see.
If I understand your postscript, I would say that Paul was qualified in two ways, first he was an Apostle; second, the teaching he offers was inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit for our instruction.
Permalink
06/02/08 @ 13:01 Leave a comment:
Remonstrans
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Misc
Archives
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- A View From The Couch
- ChristianityTuesday: Yes, SIR!
- Yes, We Have No Cuisine
- Eliot Spills The Beans
- ChristianityTuesday: Wascally Wabbits
- Searching For Answers
- We Do Mock Revivals Because We Cannot Produce Real Ones
- ChristianityTuesday: Getting With The Program
- Laughable Yet Serious
- Certainty Or Certainty About Certain Things
- ChristianityTuesday: Monday Drool
- Why It Matters
- An Update
- July 2008
- ChristianityTuesday: Funday Fool
- A More Applicable Application
- Hell Is Other People
- ChristianityTuesday: Catch and Release
- Three Yahoos In Three Hats
- On His Loneliness
- ChristianityTuesday: Tit or Tat?
- An Unforgivably Serious Man
- Untroubled
- ChristianityTuesday: This or That?
- Ask Yourself
- A Simpleton Emotes
- ChristianityTuesday: A Magazine of Antithetical Conscription
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- In Reply To Kevin Corcoran
- Trucker Frank, Webisode 2
- Couch Potatoes
- The Ethos Of Emergence
- Ben Stein Talks With Monsters
- Rich And Layered
- The Heart Of Darkness
- In Reply To Billybob And His Many Friends
- Lighting up Frank
- The Remonstrans Billboard
- My Journey
- Take Me Out Of The Ballgame
- Beaks And Talons
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- Blest Remonstrans
- Doran Comments
- Who's To Blame?
- Tardy Discernments
- Still No Place For Truth
- Preach The Gospel To Every Creature
- The Real Nonsense
- From Columbia to Clearwater
- Your Shabby Culture
- The Power Of Liturgy
- Imagine
- Lord Of The Dance
- Mind The Goo
- Where Have All The Theologians Gone?
- Evangelical Engagement
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- Semi-digestible and Quasi-orthodox
- Getting Happy
- Fundamentalism (Updated)
- At Cafe Perplexa
- Faith, Hope and Popcorn
- Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
- (Parenthetically)
- Still Getting Over It
- Hirelings
- Illustrated Proverbs
- q.e.d.
- Can We Fix The Pulpit?
- Locked Out
- Shepherding in the Modern Age
- Stragedy
- Shepherds and Wolves
- Wake Up
- I Almost Never Cry at Weddings
- J. Gresham, J. Frank, and Favorable Conditions
- December 2005
- November 2005
- “I Will Come Into Him”
- Come To Your Church
- Come and Shine
- Come Now
- Thanksgiving Proclamation
- Come
- Salt Mines
- Oo-rah!
- Nachtlied
- Quotes to Laugh At
- Church-Music
- Little Brown Church in the Wasteland
- Illustrated Proverbs
- A Dark Past and a Bleak Future
- True Greatness
- Imagining
- Imagining Redemption
- Acts of Desecration
- Renovations.....
- October 2005
- Imagining Truth
- Corporate vs. Private Worship?
- Thoughts For A Quieter Moment
- Cathedral By The Sea
- Contemporary Christian Music
- from Richard Baxter
- Some General Answers
- Illustrated Proverbs
- What You Can Do
- Cleanse Your Palate
- Plum Sizzle on a British Landrace
- Jury Duty
- Message and Metaphor
- On Becoming Serious
- Mercy Again
- The Gift of Irony
- To Worship
- Ouch
- Prayer for Joe
- Kazoo Lieder
- All Things Cheap and Cheesy
- Evening in Paradise
- Home Again
- Worship
- September 2005
- Stolen Worship
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Evangelical Antinomianism
- They're Being Serious Again
- Why Bach?
- Once Again
- Fixed
- Survey Of Young Fundamentalists - A Bad Beginning
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Serious Is As Serious Does
- Nota Bene
- Two Items of Business:
- A Must Read
- Christian Liberty: the Last Christian Virtue
- Drinking from the Well of Christian Liberty
- Ideas Have Consequences
- August 2005
- From the Pastor's Desk . . .
- Beauty Is Not Skin Deep
- For Contemplation
- Somewhat Misunderstandable
- Disappearing Convergences
- Our Perennial Predilection
- Blame the Tech Guy
- Unrecoverable Worship
- Disordering Our Affections
- More Lost Worship
- Hope
- Worship is Never Accidental
- Great Amusements
- None of God, All of Self
- Religious Affections By Jonathan Edwards
- July 2005
- Point of Clarification
- Morimur
- Not My Church, Not My God
- Shepherd or Swineherd?
- Bumpkin Apostates
- Relief!
- "By this all will know that you are My disciples"
- Rules to be Observed in Singing of Psalms
- "Untutored But Vigorous"
- Lost Worship
- Be not conformed to this world either....
- Outward and Inward Morality
- Surveys II
- Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut
- June 2005
- May 2005
- Saying the Wrong Things About Joy
- C.S. Lewis
- Can We Be Serious?
- Borrowing the Philistine Method of Transport
- Playing With Fire
- John Piper
- Dissidens comment worth noting...
- John Nelson Darby
- Little To Offer
- Machen on Separation
- Surveys - I
- A Short Chat
- We Apologize
- H. A. Ironside
- The Same Pleasures
- If I May Be So Bold
- Did God Ever Express An Interest In How He Was Worshipped?
- Beginners in the Examined Life?
- What Those Numbers Mean
- What Place is This?
- A.W. Tozer
- Note to Self:
- April 2005
- March 2005
Search
Categories
- All
- Cafe Perplexa (13)
- Old Main (751)
- Background (1)
- Landfill (0)
- News (0)
- SupportDocs (1)
Linkblog
Remonstrans Articles
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 31
powered by
