If Christians Listened to Punk, Would They Be Upset about Phil Robertson?

Published on by D. G. Hart

The complaints about A&E mount:

I read that you are indefinitely suspending Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty after he quoted the Bible and said that the homosexual act is sinful. I get it, guys. I do. You punished the Christian guy for being a Christian because you got some angry emails from a bunch of whiny gay activists who lack the spine and maturity to deal with the fact that there are still people out there who have the guts to articulate opinions that they find disagreeable. In so doing, you’ve kowtowed to a pushy minority of vocal bullies who don’t even watch your channel, while alienating the fan base of the one show that keeps your entire network afloat.

___

Yesterday the hucksters we invite into our living rooms and onto our computer screens suspended Duck Dynasty’s patriarch, Phil Robertson, from his show.

Turns out it’s not Phil’s show or our show. It’s their show. The spawn of Woody Allen who run the Arts and Entertainment Network have given Phil the boot for the offense of quoting God right there in his own life. Speaking for God is a hate crime now, and that’s the real reality show.

Duck Dynasty provided the biggest national screen possible for gagging God. So now, every Christian in America has learned the lesson that, if you preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you’ll get what Phil Robertson got. So shut up, you fool. Zip it! Some things are best said in the privacy of your own home. Or prayer closet.

Unless, of course, you’re like Phil Robertson and you’ve invited Hollywood cameras into your home and prayer closet. Then, you’re outta luck ’cause you’re never alone.

___

Religious believers who think they can avoid the issue are deluding themselves. While we may not have a hit reality show that we can get fired from, we will be pressured in numerous ways to make it clear that we will not speak or act publicly in a way that supports the biblical view of homosexuality. The objective of the activists is to marginalize Christian views on sexual norms until they can be outlawed in the public square. Many Christians have already and will continue to gleefully work to ensure this becomes a reality. But for faithful Christians, allowing our biblical witness to be silenced is not an option. Like Phil Robertson we must all say, “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.”

The solution is not 2k. It is Punk Rock:

Punk music has its feet firmly on earth and deals with the nitty gritty of a world in chaos, scrambling for some moment of sanity. Think of The Clash in their song “Straight to Hell.” This song addresses in rather painful fashion the mistreatment of immigrants, as well as the love children of American G.I.s who procreated with the unfortunate female population of Vietnam during the war. Gritty, painful, dirty. Punk lives in the here and now–the already, rather than the not yet. Or consider a song by The Dropkick Murphys called “The State of Massachusetts,” which faces head-on the effect that drug-abuse has on families.

Maybe if Christians were known less for their seeker-sensitive cultural preferences and more for living quiet and peaceful lives, Phil Robertson’s fate would not matter (except to him and his family).

80 thoughts on “If Christians Listened to Punk, Would They Be Upset about Phil Robertson?”

  1. An “evangelical” gospel often confuses morality with being “Christian”.

    you got to get the water, then you got to live it

    “what you do, i could do that”

    Of course there are some “Reformed” folks who also teach “baptismal regeneration”, and who mean by “baptismal” the water as the means adminstered by mother kirk..

    In truth, the “baptism into the likeness of His death” (Romans 6) which results in regeneration is not by water but by God’s legal imputation.

    Like

  2. “In so doing, you’ve kowtowed to a pushy minority of vocal bullies who don’t even watch your channel, while alienating the fan base of the one show that keeps your entire network afloat.”

    In 20 years people will still be watching “Mad Men”, “Breaking Bad”, “The Walking Dead”, and Seasons 1 & 2 of “The Killing”.

    “Duck Dynasty” reruns will be up there with “Alf”…

    Like

  4. People confuse the right to free speech with the right to say what you want, when and where you want, to whoever you want, without any consequences. This presumes a cultural landscape that agrees with you and shares your presuppositions. That is not the case. How about a little tact and wisdom in place of spouting off whenever you get the chance?

    This is why the Baylys have about 17 followers, including those who are on trial for busting up abortion clinics.

    Like

  5. When asked “what is a sin”, why not just say “Well, violations of the Ten Commandments” and leave it at that. Part of Robertson’s problem is that he is most likely very poorly catechized. Church of Christ types most likely have very little theological framework to answer an open-ended question like that.

    Like

  6. James Wolcott has a chapter on punk rock in his “Lucking Out: My Life Getting Down and Semi-Dirty in Seventies New York”. He spent a lot of time at CBGB. and Max’s Kansas City back in the day. The art form became pretty depraved pretty quickly.

    This is a really good book. I’ll write a review when I finish it in a day or two.

    http://www.amazon.com/Lucking-Out-Getting-Semi-Dirty-Seventies/dp/0767930622/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1387817661&sr=8-2&keywords=james+woolcott

    Like

  8. I used to have a babdist pastor who, when railing against something or otherwise rambling, would thrown in “And I’m against abortion!” — lest we forget. Bona fides and all.

    Like

  9. Where is the reality show that features “a bunch of whiny gay activists” and a bunch of whiny evangelicals with martyr complexes? Oh wait. But I still think Douthat wins in less than twenty words: “A&E is ridiculous, Robertson is ridiculous, America is ridiculous. Merry Christmas and may God have mercy on us all.”

    Like

  10. Erik, “very poorly catechized”? Do the CoC even know what catechesis is? I’m not saying this to be schmug. I didn’t know a catechism existed until I was 20.

    Like

  12. D.G.,

    It’s eye-opening to learn “Guilt-Grace-Gratitude” and to further realize that the “Grace” section is by far the longest. You would think that more P&R folks would pick up on that.

    Like

  13. And obedience to the law is in the “gratitude” section. If people haven’t received the grace of God they are unlikely to show him gratitude by obeying the law, which is why it is pointless to be constantly throwing their disobedience in their faces, as if that is going to change them.

    Like

  14. So 2k means joining the world in condemning a Christian for quoting the Bible? If you guys had been in pagan Rome you would have been throwing the Christians to the lions.

    Like

  17. Good grief, Alexander. Getting suspended from a well-paying “reality” show gig (and garnering millions in free, shelf-empyting publicity to boot) and being thrown to the lions seem like two different things. Might you grant that there’s a wisdom issue here? Might you grant that elevating a restorationist/Campbellite/Arminian/baptismal regenerationist to new heights (and income brackets) just because he comes down on the right side of the culture war is not a great idea?

    Like

  18. Is that punker making a duck bill with his mouth?

    This is a perfect storm for Alexander the Righteous. He gets to judge Papa Duck for his potty mouth and also judge Old Life for not supporting Papa Duck. So many sinners, so little time to call them out…

    Like

  19. “Maybe if Christians were known less for their seeker-sensitive cultural preferences and more for living quiet and peaceful lives, Phil Robertson’s fate would not matter”.

    I would assume that by “seeker-sensitive cultural preferences” you mean to refer to Phil Robertson’s claim that homosexuality is a sin? If that assumption is correct I have two questions (if that’s not correct stop me here):
    1) Are you recommending that if I, as a Christian, am asked publicly whether or not homosexuality is a sin, then I should say “no” or “no comment” and choose to live a “quiet and peaceful life” rather than to speak the Bible (that is truth)? Similarly that I shouldn’t speak out at all about sin in the public realm? (I will go with the assumption that we both agree that homosexuality is a sin).
    2) Assuming your answer to #1 is that you agree that we should choose the “quiet and peaceful life”, is the reasoning behind that because the Bible doesn’t speak to the civil realm (the world outside of the church) at all? Or is it because it does speak to the civil realm but it is a wiser choice to stay silent and not face the backlash that Phil got?

    (Might I add that I do think his choice of some words was not so tactful and so in some sense he was “asking for it”. That being said, let’s stick with the theoretical of if he had solely stuck to speaking Scripture and calling homosexuality a sin.)

    Thanks,

    Jason

    Like

  20. The context of the quotation from I Corinthians 6 certainly does not suggest that Christians need to persuade the world to agree with Christians about what morality is. To do so tends to increase the confusion of morality with gospel. Lest we forget, even Christians are immoral–that is why they need grace.

    I Corinthians 6 —dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, MATTERS PERTAINING TO THIS LIFE.

    4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? …. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God

    Like

  21. Alexander, no, more like being skeptical of the sort of faith that’s worn on the sleeve, attached to celebrity, and prone to fabricating persecution chicken little style. But why would you think those who prize quiet and peaceful lives would have any interest in throwing anybody to lions?

    Like

  22. Matthew 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

    2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your LEFT HAND know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

    5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

    16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

    Like

  23. Mark,

    “Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

    Like

  24. Cletus

    The light is the gospel, not morality. Do you disagree with me about not needing the world to agree on morality in order for God’s commandments to still be true?

    Romans 14: 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

    http://www.thebrazosblog.com/2012/04/hide-it-under-a-bushel-yes-by-jonathan-malesic/

    According to the law of Christ, people should not kill each other, but I would not want to tell the world that the law is the gospel.

    Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

    Like

  25. Jason, no. What I meant was that Christians baptize their own cultural preferences like Duck Dynasty, and in the process don’t look all that wise. (What Phil believes is his and his pastor’s business.)

    Like

  26. There is a difference between lampstands lighting up a house for its inhabitants and passers by and the obnoxious light of the neighborhood show off. 2k isn’t about snuffing out lights but about a better way to let it shine (let it shine, let it shine).

    Like

  28. Mark/Zrim,

    “Do you disagree with me about not needing the world to agree on morality in order for God’s commandments to still be true?”

    That’s certainly true. But is not admonishing the sinner or convicting the public of their sin a good work that glorifies God? If the good work is only “being happy/peaceful/content/charitable” so others ask why you are that way and you can then share the gospel, well many atheists/humanists can be just as inspiring to the world with their happiness and charity. I agree with Zrim about his analogy (very good) – a person at a restaurant being obnoxious about saying a prayer before meal is doing more harm than good. And I agree Robertson did not express himself in the best way possible, but I do not think silence/passiveness is the only God-glorifying alternative to what he did.

    Like

  29. Where’s my “I’m With Phil” bumpersticker (which would probably get my van keyed in this county)?
    Yeah, the guy’s a Campbellite CofCer evangelical fundamentalist rube, we’ve never seen the show/never had a TV etc. etc. but quite frankly some folks are tired of the pink nazis and lavender mafia, if not the LGBQTG*!?whatevers trying to jam their quite contrary to the natural law (for the 2kers amongst us) down America’s throat/legalize the same.

    This ain’t Geo. Orwell’s 1984, this is America in 2013 and they really do have hate crimes on the book, Virginia. You really can go to jail do not pass Go/collect $200 if you are white or a heterosexual, but not otherwise. Gimme a break and let Phil be a weirdo for crying out loud. It’s supposed to be a free country, even if you got your boot in your mouth instead of something else, no matter how politically correct the latter.

    Like

  30. The U.S. Constitution is Orwellian if it doesn’t have the right to continue to appear on television?

    John 16: 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

    Like

  31. Mark,

    Genuinely curious – what do you make of abortion mill protesters. Something to be applauded or foolish?

    Like

  32. CVD, what is it about a microphone that makes someone think the holder has a moral duty to wag his finger? Not to sound all cliche, but isn’t simply living well among neighbors louder than words (not to mention harder than electrifying a voice and waging a finger)?

    Like

  35. Cluetus, I have made a few dramatic gestures myself at arms factories and at military arms factories. I managed to get noticed, with my name and picture in the newspaper. Vanity of vanities. Since I was converted by the hearing of God’s gospel of grace based on Christ’s one time satisfaction of the law by His death, I have learned to fear God based not on my past immorality but on my sin of conditioning salvation on the sinner while using the name of “Jesus Christ”.

    If I were going to do public protest anywhere, it would be in front of places where Campbellites or Federal Visionists are teaching the public that salvation is conditioned on water and their continuing in “works of faith”. But while my anger at Arminianism may be righteous, I am also chastened by my own long history of idolatry. So I think I need to be as sober and clear on the gospel as I can when I am talking to those with a false gospel.

    In other words, my amazement is no longer so much that the PCA still has clergy that teach an atonement conditioned on the faith and works of sinners. My gratitude is that I myself still today believe the gospel of God’s free grace. And I am also thankful to know some others who believe that same gospel, despite the present trends in the evangelical academy and marketplace.

    Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.

    Like

  36. The first “factories” above should read “abortion factories”

    Bonhoeffer, p 63, Ethics—When God in Jesus Christ claims space in the world – even space in a stable because ‘there was no other place in the inn’ – God in this narrow space reveals the world’s ultimate foundation. So also the church of Jesus Christ is the place [Ort] – that is, the space [Raum] – in the world where the reign of Jesus Christ over the whole world is to be demonstrated and proclaimed.…. The space of the church is not there in order to fight with the world for a piece of its territory, but precisely to testify to the world that it is still the world…. It is not true that the church intends to or must spread its space out over the space of the world….

    Like

  37. Grim, in case you haven’t figured it out yet (no prob, we got lots of slow learners over here. Vide the RC threads) Old Life is inherently obnoxious. I can’t change bumper stickers fast enough to keep up.

    Phil? He’ just an arminian redneck peckerwood that prefers his own foot in his mouth rather than somebody else’s peepee. Which has got the PajamaBoy Brigade pooping in their sanitary napkins and gathering faggots for the bitchhunt. Ernest Roehm, call your gnecologist immediately.

    Like

  38. Stay classy, bumper sticker Bob.

    ps the Baylys are on line two. They say they want their posture back or at least some back taxes for using it all these years. Meanwhile, also be careful of mistletoe, the pinko nazi gays invented that.

    Like

  40. Maybe if Christians were known less for their seeker-sensitive cultural preferences and more for living quiet and peaceful lives, Phil Robertson’s fate would not matter (except to him and his family).

    Mebbe if everyone were as lame as the 2kers, we’d have gay marriage in all 50 states and your 6-yr-old would already know how to use a condom.

    Actually, Phil Robertson IS the Christian mirror image of Joe Strummer–indeed Strummer’s left-anarchy was pretty conformist and banal. Robertson’s more of a rebel than any of those punks.

    Like

  42. TVD, how do those things follow from not moralizing politics and politicizing faith? But since for some 2kers the ideal is local places and powers norming and governing themselves, it would look more like gay marriage legal over there but not over there as opposed to one size fits all in every nook and cranny of the union.

    Bumper sticker Bob, boo.

    Like

  43. Natural law, the teleology of sex. Not the Bible, so much. First Things is pretty much one-stop shopping for that sort of thing. Some of my favorite writers can be found prowling around over there: The late great Fr. Neuhaus, Robbie George, Timothy George, Ed Feser, Rusty Reno, Peter Leithart and of course this fellow.

    Like

  44. Zrim
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
    TVD, how do those things follow from not moralizing politics and politicizing faith? But since for some 2kers the ideal is local places and powers norming and governing themselves, it would look more like gay marriage legal over there but not over there as opposed to one size fits all in every nook and cranny of the union.

    How’s that workin’ forya?

    Actually, that’s pretty much the principled mainstream conservative position–federalism. But when good men do nothing, well, the rust of “progressivism” never sleeps.

    Your religious liberty is not assured–for at least the past 1000 years, from the Investiture Controversies to Henry VIII seizing the Catholic Church to the French Revolution turning the Cathedral of Notre Dame into a “temple of reason” with a naked chick on the altar, to Bismarck’s kulturkampf against the Catholic Church, to Communism to today’s culture wars, the power of the state has been employed to control Christianity more often than Christianity [Catholic or otherwise] has succeeded in controlling the state.

    Our First Amendment may save us, but in other Western countries, quoting 1 Corinthians 6 can be illegalized as “hate speech.”

    http://www.thepinkhumanist.com/index.php/blog/133-canadian-court-rules-against-biblical-hate-speech

    For the record, I think Darryl’s turning out to be right, but only because people who could have been taking the rhetorical lead on these things instead contented themselves with throwing brickbats at Sarah Palin and the other “uncool” people who at least had the guts to speak out for Biblical morality.

    So yeah, Biblical morality did get equated with the cementheads, but only because the “cool” people kept quiet.

    Like

  45. Tom,

    Um, the opponents of 2K criticize 2K for making Natural Law (as opposed to biblical) arguments in the public square. So you blame 2K for gay marriage and I ask you what your argument against gay marriage is and you answer “Natural Law”.

    So what exactly are you opposed to again?

    Like

  47. Erik Charter
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Um, the opponents of 2K criticize 2K for making Natural Law (as opposed to biblical) arguments in the public square.

    I can’t answer for them. Natural “lawyers” believe that scripture and the natural law are as one; truth cannot contradict truth. If so, then it’s only a question of rhetorical tactics. It does seem silly to quote the Bible to those who reject its authority.

    I did read a recent argument that Christians, when trying to get the support of other Christians [or just get them off their asses] shouldn’t shy away from citing the Bible. There might be something to that, but I’ll settle for people such as yourselves not giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

    For the record, I think Darryl’s turning out to be right, but only because people who could have been taking the rhetorical lead on these things instead contented themselves with throwing brickbats at Sarah Palin and the other “uncool” people who at least had the guts to speak out for Biblical morality.

    So yeah, Biblical morality did get equated with the cementheads, but only because the “cool” people kept quiet.

    At this point, the tide may be irreversible. You were unconcerned with “the culture,” so fine–it’s been debased. The only question for the future might be one of religious liberty, just how much one is able to reject gay “marriage” and the social mainstreaming of homosexual conduct on Biblical grounds without the government punishing you.

    For example, the wretches who don’t want to bake gay wedding cakes.

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/12/07/colo-bakerys-refusal-bake-gay-wedding-cake-discrimination

    Maybe there some point someday where you 2 kingdoms types think a line has been crossed. By then, it’ll be too late, though. It probably already is too late. Hope you enjoyed punking Sarah Palin.

    Like

  48. Erik Charter
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
    Tom’s one of those guys who just likes busting balls for the sake of busting balls. Whatever.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_zo2z-1h9s

    Please don’t talk about me in the third person, Erik, especially when I’m courteously replying to you. Bad show, brother, real bad.

    Like

  49. TVD. “only because people who could have been taking the rhetorical lead on these things”? Only!!??!! That’s come careful analysis, there.

    And you’re really going to pretend to be defending biblical morality? Above it all, Tom? Is true worship part of biblical morality? Is keeping the Lord’s Day holy part of biblical morality? Sarah Palin is selective, just like you.

    Like

  51. D. G. Hart
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
    TVD. “only because people who could have been taking the rhetorical lead on these things”? Only!!??!! That’s come careful analysis, there.

    And you’re really going to pretend to be defending biblical morality? Above it all, Tom? Is true worship part of biblical morality? Is keeping the Lord’s Day holy part of biblical morality? Sarah Palin is selective, just like you.

    Perhaps. Again you reserve your fire for those who endorse Biblical morality, not for those who wish to eradicate it.

    But as I said, you may be turning out to be correct. At this point–as Protestantism ceases to be the American ethos–

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline-19

    the religious liberty of the minority is the key issue, not gay marriage but whether they’ll take your business if you don’t bake cakes for it. Perhaps that’ll raise a few r2k hackles, although by your track record, I don’t expect it.

    Like

  52. Tom, our shared continent simply is too boring. Why every mention it? The real action is happening across the pacific. Duh.

    Pardon my wiki:

    The current number of Christians in China is disputed. The most recent official census enumerated 4 million Roman Catholics and 10 million Protestants. However, independent estimates have ranged from 40 million to 100 million Christians. According to the China Aid Association, State Administration for Religious Affairs Director Ye Xiaowen reported to audiences at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences that the number of Christians in China had risen to 130 million by the end of 2006, including 20 million Catholics.[50][51] This has been officially denied by the Foreign Ministry.[52] According to a survey done by China Partner and East China Normal University in Shanghai, there are now 39 to 41 million Protestant Christians in China.[citation needed] These include Christians in registered and unregistered churches. All other numbers previously mentioned were rough estimates that never have been substantiated. The survey was done with 7,400 individuals in 2007-08 by China Partner in all 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. Another survey done with 4,500 individuals by East China Normal University in Shanghai reveals up to 40 million.[citation needed] Other studies have suggested that there are roughly 54 million Christians in China, of which 39 million are Protestants and 14 million are Roman Catholics; these are seen as the most common and reliable figures.[53][54][55][56]

    Today, the Chinese language typically divides Christians into two groups, members of Jidu jiao (literally, Christianity), Protestantism, and members of Tianzhu jiao (literally “Lord of Heaven” religion), Catholicism (see Protestantism in China and Catholicism in China.)

    Like

  53. Tom, again, you refer to biblical morality as if you believe in it. I am questioning whether you or Sarah do. You have heard of Protestant liberalism, right? Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out). They thought their morality was biblical. But they elevated the second table above the first. Can you believe it?

    Like

  54. TVD, you suggested that somehow 2k and approval of gay marriage go together. I’m still flummoxed as to how, other than you merely mean to provoke those who adhere to an old life plank. What are you talking about?

    You for some reason invoke Sarah Palin. But you are to her what the Callers are to the magisterium–naive and starry eyed. You sound high on her, but like the Callers with Francis and religious celebrity, you miss the quest for political celebrity which is what she is 95% about. How do you miss this, for such a smart fellow I mean.

    Like

  55. D. G. Hart
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
    Tom, again, you refer to biblical morality as if you believe in it. I am questioning whether you or Sarah do. You have heard of Protestant liberalism, right? Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out). They thought their morality was biblical. But they elevated the second table above the first. Can you believe it?

    Yes, I linked to Jody Bottums’ excellent history of the Protestant mainline, and its destruction by liberal theology. If you have any disagreements with his piece, I’d be thrilled to read them. I’d also think you’re aware of the new prevailing thesis

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/22/how-mainline-christianity-lost-its-institutions-but-won-the-culture/

    Believe it or not, my positions have shifted somewhat as a result of reading you all these years. If the culture is [and always was] hopeless–that “Christendom” as an ethics is dead–there is still the question of religious liberty, which for Calvinism Calvinists has been a historically core concern, as always in 2nd or 3rd place behind Catholicism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism.

    Even if you have given up on America and the debasement of its culture by the two-headed monster of liberal Protestantism/secular progressivism, there is still the question of religious liberty. At the moment, R2k intends to remain MIA on that as well except for bland and ineffectual protest.

    [As for your shot at Sarah Palin or me as to our motives and beliefs, nice try, but we both know that around here, any personal disclosures can and will be used against you.]

    [As for “Well, the first fruits of the Religious Right was the Social Gospel which tried to make the U.S. Christian (and keep the ethnics and Roman Catholics out),” I almost follow it but can’t quite do the rest of the work of making a coherent argument out of it for you. Yes, Protestantism has often been accused of being little more than kneejerk anti-Catholicism, but I’m not sure that helps whatever case you’re trying to make.]

    [I don’t argue from worst-to-first, but from the ideal down. Your style seems to argue that every exception disproves the rule, as in “Pope Sixtus the Seventh thought the sun went around the earth therefore the Catholic Church is toejam.” That sort of thing. Now, I do share your Calvinist skepticism of man, but don’t accept that human failings negate the ideal.]

    [As always, D. Birds gotta whomp dem Cowgirlz or it’ll all be a little empty.]

    Like

  56. Andrew Buckingham
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
    Tom, our shared continent simply is too boring. Why every mention it? The real action is happening across the pacific. Duh.

    Pardon my wiki:

    The current number of Christians in China is disputed.

    The Chinese Communist gov’t has appropriated the Catholic Church, appointing its own priests and bishops. I was going to mention that above, how the state with its swords and guns has historically been the one to control the church, not vice versa.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

    This crap about the GOP and an “American Theocracy” is a narrative that has little basis in our history. Why I chafe at this r2k business, which feeds that narrative and lends aid and comfort to the forces that are eradicating Christianity from American public life.

    Like

  57. Zrim
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
    TVD, you suggested that somehow 2k and approval of gay marriage go together. I’m still flummoxed as to how, other than you merely mean to provoke those who adhere to an old life plank. What are you talking about?

    You for some reason invoke Sarah Palin. But you are to her what the Callers are to the magisterium–naive and starry eyed. You sound high on her, but like the Callers with Francis and religious celebrity, you miss the quest for political celebrity which is what she is 95% about. How do you miss this, for such a smart fellow I mean.

    Mr. Z, you have always been a righteous correspondent. Thank you.

    I am glad Sarah Palin is making her way back to well-earned obscurity. What I’m saying is that the reason she and Phil Robertson have risen to significant levels of [Christian? Evangelical? Conservative?] national support is that they have the guts to speak out, while their “betters”–among Christians, mind you–sit back and lob smug spitballs at them.

    Cowards. And by that I mean all of us, not just their Christian critics. We let them do the dirty work and then complain they don’t do it well enough.

    Are you good with your prepubescent children being taught the Barney the Dinosaur version of human sexuality?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334702/s-indoctrination-kevin-d-williamson

    Hey, mebbe you are. If so, I respect that. But if you’re not, and you stay silent, I’m not good with that. That’s what I’m about here. Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

    Like

  58. Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

    Wonders never cease/only at Old Life.
    At long last we find ourselves agreeing with The Véronian Disciple.
    What’s so hard to figure out that the millionaire maker of duck calls has just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers? Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical. The duck suckers and their allies then said he was preaching hate and not the real religion he professes to believe and therefore should be hung out to dry even before burning in [four letter word that they don’t believe in].
    IOW whatever 2k really is, the toleristas are not tolerant, just like the romanists are not catholic. Duh.

    Like

  59. Bob S
    Posted December 26, 2013 at 11:42 pm | Permalink
    Darryl and r2k have a point about not aligning the Gospel with free market economics [or Social Gospel economics]. But there’s a fundamental truth in that fundie shibboleth “God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” that transcends mere culture war.

    >>>Wonders never cease/only at Old Life.
    At long last we find ourselves agreeing with The Véronian Disciple.

    What’s so hard to figure out that the millionaire maker of duck calls has just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers? Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical. The duck suckers and their allies then said he was preaching hate and not the real religion he professes to believe and therefore should be hung out to dry even before burning in [four letter word that they don’t believe in].

    IOW whatever 2k really is, the toleristas are not tolerant, just like the romanists are not catholic. Duh.

    😉

    Is that against the rules around here? How about

    😀

    Yes, perhaps we are achieving common ground that religious liberty might be the line, not just control of the culture, a battle we may already lost. Back to the catacombs, people.

    we find ourselves agreeing

    We hope this is the “royal we” and not some creepy “us against them” club, Bob, as in everyone to the left of MarkMcMac might as well be a papist.

    just as much right to his opinion as the duck suckers

    “Duck suckers.” Heh heh. Killer, dude. I dunno what it even means, but it works regardless, even better than the lame and perverted “tea baggers.”

    Yeah, he quoted a religious text in a secular interview horror of horrors, but he also said it was not logical.

    I sorta remember that, about it not being “logical,” and that would be what Mark Noll called

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/003-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-mind-a-symposium-33

    ..that there isn’t much of an evangelical mind. That’s why the Catholics are trying–and somewhat succeeding–in exposing the evangelical mind to “natural law,” the law written on the human heart, that well, even in the words of Brüno [hi, Erik, movie fan]

    So hypothetically according to you, I can admire a man’s penis in the shower but the moment I put it in my mouth some sort of line has been crossed?

    Sure I’m agitating, but I’m just trying to figure out when some sort of line has been crossed. In your opinion, Darryl & the Crabby 2Ks, not mine.

    Like

  61. TVD:

    Selective non-engagement and non-acknowledgment is at least as valid a strategy as perpetual outrage. I don’t want kids to learn about sexual morality from a government school for the same reason that I don’t want them to learn it from a celebrity duck hunter or politician. These topics aren’t avoided because they’re not important. They’re avoided because the people who are talking about them are unimportant. The only way to affirm that public opinion is irrelevant to sexual morality is to ignore public opinion.

    Like

  62. RL
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 12:43 am | Permalink
    TVD:

    Selective non-engagement and non-acknowledgment is at least as valid a strategy as perpetual outrage. I don’t want kids to learn about sexual morality from a government school for the same reason that I don’t want them to learn it from a celebrity duck hunter or politician. These topics aren’t avoided because they’re not important. They’re avoided because the people who are talking about them are unimportant. The only way to affirm that public opinion is irrelevant to sexual morality is to ignore public opinion.

    I didn’t quite understand all that, RL, but thx for the respectful reply. A lawyer friend just wrote me privately:

    Any time a conservative carries on an argument without first firmly establishing that the liberal has the burden if proof, he’s conceded his built-in advantage. And then when he gives the fraudulent evidence and reporting bias a pass, he’s conceded the rest of the debate. By the time he trots out the merits, it’s a dead man walking. He’s a denier, an ideologue, uninformed of the (right kind of) facts from the (right kind of) experts, a bigot, on the wrong side of history, etc.
    Was starting to think in terms of developing a practice guide for conservative advocates, mapping out the red herrings, misdirections, sophist tricks, and making plain that the liberal always has the burden of proof. The merits are easy. Hell, Dennis Prager developed an entire online catalog of courses explaining the middle east conflict, how we won Vietnam before the Left lost it, etc., each just 5 minutes long. Explaining the facts is easy. But conservatives need first to clear away all the muck and slime that obfuscates the facts.

    “He who dares not to offend cannot be honest.” – Thomas Paine

    “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” -George Orwell.

    Truth is just another social interest–and a very poorly funded one.

    Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know. If so, you have the best minds I’ve found, but the least guts. At least the Jesuits are interesting. Nobody would even bother to throw you out of their country. ;-P

    Like

  63. Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know.

    TVD, not really, no.

    I don’t mind if you find us boring, personally. For some reason, Cat-licks seem to get all upset and stuff at Darryl’s thoughts out here. Whatev. It’s always interesting to see what they come at us with.

    Ciao.

    Like

  65. TVD:

    I’ll try to explain by keeping with your lawyer-friend’s courtroom analogy. If the question to be litigated is whether homosexual activity is sin, the proper question is who bears the burden of proof but whether or not the court of public opinion has jurisdiction. I hold my belief that homosexuality is a sin to be beyond judgment. A corollary to this way of thinking is that public opinion doesn’t matter to me, and I don’t think is should matter to others when forming their opinion about sexual morality. Because I believe that public opinion is irrelevant to the formation of a person’s sexual ethics, I treat it as irrelevant. I ignore it.

    I’m not worried about offending people. I’m worried about people thinking that I can be offended. I can’t be. I don’t seek the approval of men. I’m not worried that people will call me close-minded on the issue. I’m worried that they won’t truly acknowledge that I am. The common ground that I have with progressive liberals is that we’re both intolerant. They don’t care what I think. I don’t care what they think. Thus I’m not willing to fake outrage in response their fake outrage.

    Now that’s not to say that just because homosexuality is a sin that it has to be outlawed. No one’s in a rush to outlaw greed or gluttony (two sins which are far more prevalent in the US than homosexuality). There also seems to be little interest in outlawing idolatry or the profaning of the sacraments. I’m just as convinced on the immorality of these practices as I am of homosexuality. But the only way to get along in a pluralistic, multicultural society is to not always acknowledge these differences. Religious liberty is celebrated as a virtue even when we know that the vast majority of Americans engage in idolatrous worship. If we’re willing to let well over 80% of Americans to profane the Christian sacraments, why aren’t we willing to let 3% of Americans do gay things with each other?

    Like

  66. By intolerant I don’t mean that we can’t live peacefully together. I firmly believe that we can. What I mean is that I know their are certain issues that serve to only promote conflict if brought to the front of every public discussion. Some conflict is useful and necessary for progress, but constantly focusing our public discussions on positions where both sides won’t budge results in nothing but a race for the biggest megaphone.

    Like

  68. Tom, if you want to think about the connections between evangelicalism and the social gospel, you should read Timothy Smith’s Revivalism and Social Reform. I follow Smith (and more) in A Secular Faith, chs. 4 and 8.

    What destroyed Protestantism in America was the onslaught of sex and race that washed over the U.S. during the sixties — between feminism, sexual liberation, Civil Rights, and anti-war movements. In the 1950s, American religion was Protestantism. The Protestant churches were considered to be the bedrock of democracy, liberty, etc. And then people noticed that democracy and liberty hadn’t been so good for women and blacks and natives. So the churches had to go from pro- to anti-America. But that also meant the churches had to give up their privileged place within American society.

    John Turner’s continues to befuddle me. I don’t understand how you can lose members and institutions and win. Just because you are pro-gay marriage and a majority of Americans is pro-gay marriage? America didn’t become pro-gay marriage because the churches went there. It’s the other way around. When you start out adapting to culture, you keep adapting. Plus, the churches adapted in Jesus’ name. American’s don’t support gay marriage in Jesus’ name. How is that a vindication of the mainline?

    I don’t care what you say about my personal motives. Yours are the ones on display right now. And if you are going to champion biblical morality you have identified yourself personally (you’ve also taken a theological position — hey now). So it is fare game to ask how far your commitment to biblical morality goes. If you’re going to use it to challenge me, I can use it to challenge you.

    Your are not the umpire of the interweb.

    BTW, the MIA charge is nonsense. You don’t understand 2k. 2kers are involved in the culture wars. They aren’t engaged in Jesus’ name. That’s the point of 2k.

    Like

  70. Tom and RL, yes, that’s the style we so much enjoy from TVD. A compliment about RL’s courtesy, and then a jab to the privates about having no guts.

    Tom, I don’t call myself an evangelical. At the risk of shameless self-promotion, I wrote a book to explain why.

    And your guts are revealed by posting comments at a blog? Such bravery.

    Like

  71. Enough of this 2K. We need to get back to the days where creative ministers like Jerry Falwell were committed to taking back America:

    Lawyers and sound business practices be damned.

    Like

  72. TVD, you have seen the enemy, and he’s wearing ridiculous glasses, or at least did quite recently.

    I was actually touched by your comment in the other thread about elderly Bob Newhart being silenced by lefty activists. It shows a loss of decency & decorum, and reveals a deep fissure between Americans. But that’s what people do who are centrally political in their outlook. Your attorney friend has no solution to this, but only a right wing version that will tend to produce the same results from the other side. It’s like the Newton’s cradle phenomena, where one outlier on the left tends to produce an outlier on the right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle But, in loving this world too much, your momentum is not toward the cure bur for exacerbation of the problem.

    Like

  73. TVD, when I reviewed our school’s sex ed curriculum along with other neighborhood parents we never saw hide nor hare of Barney, just a lot of boring human biology. A lot like my own fifth grade experience thirty years ago (one sorely disappointed 10-year-old was I).

    So with real world experience, which included a lot of power vested in us as parents to throw red flags whenever we wanted and plenty of opportunity and rights to opt our kids out at any point no questions asked, I see right through you and the rightists who hyperventilate about take over and gays and other assorted sex fiends coming to eat our firstborns. America is still working pretty damn well in unimportant localities like mine. The sensationalized headlines are not real life. The “stand up and have some guts” routine is complete crapola. Maybe others should just sit down and shut up.

    Like

  74. Erik, that video is unfrigginbelievable. “This is a worship service.” That’s the line JF used to silence the critic. Wow!

    I had forgotten Falwell’s dealings with PTL. No time in purgatory could make up for the boatloads of gullibility on display there.

    Like

  75. The commercial at the beginning makes me want to go to the theme park about as much as I want to go to a Called-to-Communion St. Patrick’s Day potluck. Man were the 80s worse than I remember, and I don’t remember them being that great.

    Like

  76. Andrew Buckingham
    Posted December 27, 2013 at 1:52 am | Permalink
    Do you people call yourselves “evangelicals?” I don’t even know.

    TVD, not really, no.

    I don’t mind if you find us boring, personally. For some reason, Cat-licks seem to get all upset and stuff at Darryl’s thoughts out here. Whatev. It’s always interesting to see what they come at us with.

    Ciao.

    Thank you, Mr. Hello-I-Must-Be-Going. Heh, how could they possibly be upset?

    Think of me as giving Old life the DG Hart treatment, then. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    [As for banning homosexual acts because they’re “sin,” no. Accepting gay marriage, that Parent 1 & Parent 2 are fungible with Mom & Dad–now that’s not just a sin, it’s a crime. But if you want to put Biblical morality under a bushel basket in service of some greater good, well, “going along to get along” is not a Biblical virtue.]

    [Jerry Falwell? Really, gentlemen? That’s your trump card? You never miss a trick to argue from the bottom rather than the ideal. The objection here is that we left it to the Falwells to speak out, then criticize them for not articulating Biblical principles well enough. Go back and start at the beginning.]

    Like

  78. Cheers, AB. And the spirit of the idiosyncratic mode of communication hereabouts, don’t miss this clip

    from Animal Crackers.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.